Thursday, August 3, 2017

Do you have a moment?

For those who do not know me, I am Fr. John, an Old Roman Catholic cleric, ultraconservative, traditionalist, twitter curmudgeon. I have been a reactionary for virtually my entire life, but I have been involved with the twitter incarnation of the Alt-Right, far-right, or what have you for the last couple of years or so. I operate a weekly study group for Alt-Right/Traditionalist Catholics through twitter wherein we read and discuss the Bible, Catechism of St. Pius X, the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, and the like (Hello to each of you reading this), and I also keep my "DMs" open to anyone who has questions about faith or just needs to talk (Hello to each of you reading this). I absolutely love doing it and have met some wonderful, faithful people. From time to time, I can also be seen verbally sparring with liberals and such who misrepresent the faith or history. As an ORC cleric, I was allowed to marry my high school sweetheart and better half going on 19 years, and we have three beautiful children. If you listen to the gentlemen over at The Godcast (@thegodcasttjc), then you likely know that our youngest is but a few months old. You also likely know a bit about the fact that I have fallen somewhat on hard times; since Arthur of The Godcast was kind enough to discuss my situation on-air after my plight was brought to his attention. Thankfully, the Lord smiled on my family, and some donations did arrive due to Arthur's most kind and greatly appreciated efforts.

Still, my problems have persisted, and, though I am normally loathe to discuss such matters, some people dear to me have reminded me (repeatedly and forcefully) that even the Apostles had to look to the faithful to support their endeavors (1 Corinthians 9:3-11). That is why, today, I would ask that you look deep into your hearts and wallets to help me buy a $65 million personal jet (Source). Of course, that is just a bit of humor. What I really need your help for is to buy a $10.5 million mansion with six bedrooms, six bathrooms, three elevators, five fireplaces, a guest house, and pool house (Source). Again, just a little humor. In truth, I normally take on side work to augment my ministerial work so as to provide for my family, but, sadly, that has dried up right as doctor bills for the new baby have come due and insurance costs have gone up yet again. My family has been struggling to stay afloat after draining our savings and such, and, so rather than a private jet or a mansion, I come to you, dear faithful reader, in the hope that I and this little ministry have helped you in some way, pointed you in the right direction, or simply helped inform you on some topic of theology or history. I do not need $65 million, $10.5 million, or anything quite so luxurious. Rather, I need to find a way to raise an additional $600-$1,000 per month to make up for my lost income so that I can put food on the table, diapers on our wee one's behind, keep the electricity on, and continue "Bringing the faith to the AltRight" as one friend once put it. Seems like so little next to a private jet or mansion, no?

Now, you may be thinking that sounds like so much to ask of you, and it would be if I had sent this only to you individually and stared at you while you read it. Thankfully, however, my hope is that enough people will feel moved to donate just $5, $10, or $20 per month either through Patreon or PayPal,* either through these links or the buttons at the top right of this page, so that I do not have to select any one person to stare at while they re-read this. As a thank-you for your generosity, I would like to offer you my heartfelt thanks, my prayers, my appreciation, my family's appreciation, prayers said by tiny, adorable people for you, and more of my prayers including any personal prayer requests that you may have. I also commit to continue providing my services to any who require them, to continue (often inadvertently) kicking liberal hornets nests often with comical results, and to continue trying to build a better future my children and yours. Even if you do not decide to donate, thank you for taking the time to read it, and may God bless you and yours.

* Patreon charges on the First of every month. PayPal can be paid recurring or whenever.

If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Monday, July 31, 2017

There is a Cancer in the Church

There is a cancer in the Church, and it has been allowed to grow unabated for decades. In 2008, Fr. Geoffrey Farrow, pastor of St. Paul's Newman Center in Fresno, California, was suspended when he publicly spoke in favor of "gay marriage" in the state, and he subsequently admitted to being a homosexual himself (Source). In 2014, Fr. Bill Dickinson, who had been a priest for 25 years, came out as homosexual and left the Church, and he has since stated that 10-60% of Catholic priests are homosexuals (Source). In 2015, Fr. Warren Hall, an open homosexual, was removed from the campus ministry at Seton Hall University over pro-gay activities, but he was simply reassigned to Saints Peter and Paul Church in Hoboken, New Jersey (Source). Within a few months, however, Hall was stripped of those duties as well due to continued LGBT advocacy (Source). In 2015, Msgr. Krzysztof Charamsa (seen above)—secretary of the International Theological Commission of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [Inquisition] and professor of theology at pontifical universities—announced that he was a homosexual in an active relationship (Source). In response to his subsequent dismissal, Charamsa accused Francis of hypocrisy because the priesthood is "full of homosexuals" (Source). Msgr. Charamsa would prove to be just the tip of the iceberg in the Inquisition, however, as Msgr. Luigi Capozzi was recently arrested while hosting a cocaine-fueled gay orgy in the Palace of the Holy Office [of the Inquisition] (Source). Capozzi is the secretary to Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, one of Francis's closest advisers, and the Monsignor has actually been put forth for elevation to bishop by his superior (Source).

This cancer is also certainly not limited to those who have either "come out" of their own accord or were caught in the midst of gay orgies. For example, Martin Currie, Archbishop of St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, has said that the Church must "find a way to avoid alienating same sex couples" and should "find some accommodation where [same-sex] unions are accepted and respected" (Source). John Stowe, a Conventual Franciscan and Bishop of Lexington, Kentucky, has actually attended the annual symposium of the heretical pro-gay New Ways Ministry where he said that the Church "has always opposed discrimination of any sort" and "that human flourishing is a primary goal" (Source). Fr. James Martin, a Jesuit and appointee of Francis to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications, has said that some Catholic saints "were probably gay" (Source), and he has also said, "That’s the way God created [homosexuals]. I think almost every psychologist and biologist and scientist would agree on that; and certainly LGBT people will tell you that’s the way they always felt – that they had been created that way" (Source). Martin has also sympathetically cited various estimates of gay clergy in the United States that "range from 23 percent to 58 percent, with even higher percentages for younger priests," stating that "the church needs to consider both the challenges and the gifts offered by this group" (Source). Regarding the existence of homosexuals in the priesthood, even Francis has asked, "If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?" (Source)

It must be said that this is not simply an issue of homosexual acts being sinful, which they are. Nor is it just the natural conflict of interest between the religious duty of clerics and their personal desires to normalize homosexuality. While such a conflict of interest is certainly harmful, the cancer runs much, much deeper and darker. Consider that, from 1950-2002, some 81% of the victims of clerical molestation cases were male and 77% were actually pubescent, between the ages of 11-17, at the first instance of abuse (Source, 69-70). This is important as pedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, aged 10 or below. In other words, despite all of the claims of "pedophile priests" in popular culture, the reality is that the vast majority of those committing the abuse were simply homosexuals, not actual pedophiles, who abused their positions to take advantage of pubescent minors. Indeed, more than half of the victims of abuse were already teenagers when they were first abused, and 27% of them were aged 15-17. Such cases are better defined as homosexual rape rather than child molestation, and one must naturally connect the dots between those crimes tainting Holy Mother Church and the priesthood being permeated with gays. In light of Msgrs. Charamsa and Capozzi, one must also wonder if the hierarchy worked so hard to cover up such cases and to shield the homosexuals because the foxes are guarding the proverbial hen house. After all, it is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, where both men worked, that reviews appeals in cases involving sexual abuse (Source). Rather than inquisitors hunting down heretics, do we instead have homosexuals covering for what they see as their fellow homosexuals simply engaging in consensual pederastic relationships with young lovers?

This is yet another example of what faces Catholic traditionalists today. Holy Mother Church is infested with vipers, but most Catholics cannot even bring themselves to agree with sedevantists and sedeprivationists who openly condemn the current hierarchy. Instead, most Catholics are actually being led astray into believing that homosexuality is normal, natural, and a trait bestowed by God. When you attend Mass and tithe each week, to what exactly are you lending your support? A cleansing fire is needed to save the faith, but how many Catholics are, wittingly or not, instead providing material support to the Enemy? It is no coincidence that the Church is mired in liberalism and heresy. It is no coincidence that it is hardly shocking anymore to see a priest on national television espousing sin as a lifestyle. This is not a war being fought with conventional battle lines, between Catholics and "Other." The enemy is already inside of our camp wearing our uniforms and wielding our weapons against us. The only question is whether the remaining faithful soldiers will wake up in time or be slaughtered in their sleep by foes they have not only embraced but fed and clothed as well.


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Saturday, July 29, 2017

No, Mike Stuchbery did not "school" @PrisonPlanet

On Tuesday, Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) questioned the historical accuracy of the BBC's "Life in Roman Britain" video series, which claimed to provide an "exploration of life in Roman Britain shown through the eyes of a typical family." The problem is that the "typical family" depicted is a Sub-Saharan African Roman, a seemingly European wife, and mixed-race children. Naturally, Watson questioned whether or not such a depiction was actually representative of a "typical family" in, again, Roman Britain, not Roman Africa. A number of liberals did what they always do, which was to accuse Watson of racism, because even daring to think that a "typical family" in Europe more than 1,500 years ago would have been European is bigoted. Of the liberals, one stood above the crowd—Mike Stuchbery (@MikeStuchbery_), a grade school teacher famously known for leaving his job after causing disruptions at Lynn Grove High School, in Gorleston, Norfolk, because he thinks people have a right to "feel safe" (Source). The reason Mr. Stuchbery stood above the rest is that he engaged in his own little "tweet storm" that began with accusations of head injuries and mouth-breathing, ended with "Get f---ed" and accusations of fascism, and had claims supporting the BBC's depiction in between. This led to The Telegraph declaring, "Alt-right commentator gets 'schooled' by historian" (Source), Teen Vogue claiming that "British historian gives Alt-Right commentator a history lesson" (Source), and Metro regurgitating, "Alt-right commentator gets shut down by historian" (Source).

Based on the reaction, one would have to assume that Mr. Stuchbery is an academically trained historian par excellence and that he pelted Mr. Watson with academic source after academic source, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that a "typical family" in Roman Britain is indeed represented by a Sub-Saharan African, Romano-British wife, and biracial children. Of course, this is the echo chamber of liberal social media and liberal media (a bit redundant these days), so the truth is quite different. For example, per LinkedIn, this premiere British historian only has an undergraduate education with his primary focus being in English, having received a Bachelor of Arts with a dual major in History and English Literature and a Bachelor of Teaching in Secondary Humanities and English, both from the University of Melbourne (Source). To really highlight his actual specialty, over the 14-year period from 2003-2017, Mr. Stuchbery spent 6 years, 8 months, teaching English at the grade school level with an additional 1 year, 7 months, teaching English and geography as a substitute teacher (Ibid.). Missing from his record is any trace of him teaching history at even a middle school level, and his academic qualifications would not even allow him to teach a remedial history class at the university level. That has not stopped him, however, from serving as an "occasional columnist" for a few outlets, writing on both education and history. On Twitter, he also lists himself as "Historian, Educator" without qualification. It seems "historian" is a title easily doled out and accepted amongst leftists.

Now, to the substance of the disagreement, Mr. Stuchbery made a total of six primary claims:
  1. Roman Britain was ethnically diverse, almost by design.
  2. There are accounts of North African and Middle Eastern soldiers on Hadrian's Wall.
  3. Every major camp in the province would have a 'vicus', a settlement where wives, children, slaves, and tradesmen lived, many having traveled with the legion.
  4. Provincial governors posted to Britannia took slaves with them, and some of those slaves would have been gifted freedom.
  5. London, as the capital of the province, was especially diverse.
  6. Archaeological evidence has repeatedly shown that Roman Britain was diverse.
As evidence for his claims, he offered an article about a blue-eyed Mediterranean girl who died in Roman London and whose maternal ancestry pointed to Southeast Europe and the Near East (Source), another on a Roman woman who died in Britannia (Source), another on a woman where the assessment "suggests a mixture of 'black' and 'white' ancestral traits" and that she "may have migrated to York from somewhere warmer, possibly the Mediterranean" (Source), and a 1984 book by a Marxist with no academic qualifications in the field of history or any other field (Source). It should not need to be said that these sources are beyond lacking, but neither the liberal media nor the liberal masses seem to care. After all, two Roman women from the Mediterranean are hardly examples of "diversity" in the sense that liberals mean, and the third woman might have been biracial, may have migrated from somewhere else, possibly the Mediterranean, and may have been North African. One wonders how many qualifiers can be applied to one subject before any conclusion must be questioned on its face. Firm conclusions such as the article itself, and, subsequently, Mr. Stuchbery, claiming "evidence of 'upper class' Africans living in Roman York." Noticeably absent from the provided sources is clear and decisive evidence that Roman Britain was diverse, by design or otherwise, that every major Roman outpost would have seen "diversity" brought with the legions, that governors of Britannia were importing and releasing Africans, that archaeological evidence has shown diversity, and so on.

First, let us address the issue of "Moors" on Hadrian's Wall. It is true that an inscription dated to the fourth century AD refers to a "numerus of Aurelian Moors" along Hadrian's Wall in the far north of England, and it is also true that liberals with an agenda have said that they "[believe] many would have settled [in England] and raised families" and that the Moors "would probably have wanted more permanent relationships [with local women]" in addition to visiting brothels (Source). In other words, we are to believe that the Roman Legions marched into England with Sub-Saharan African soldiers, and those soldiers then took English brides and remained in England. Of course, we must note the use of words such as "believe" and "probably" because they expose that liberals are reading their desires into history. For example, the term "numerus" referred to an irregular unit drawn from foreigners that was used "on the frontiers... to patrol less populated regions and to protect convoys" (Source), and they could include anywhere from 100 to 1,000 men (Source). Additionally, the so-called "Moors" would have been Mauri tribesmen from Roman Mauretania, modern-day Morocco (Source), not Sub-Saharan Africans or the Arabs who would come centuries later with the spread of Islam. It is not known how many Mauri tribesmen were present at Aballava in the far north of England, but the fort could have held no more than 500 men, hardly a grand horde of Africans changing England forever.

Secondly, let's consider the idea put forth by Mr. Stuchbery that the Roman Legions brought with them not only non-European soldiers but also wives, children, and tradesmen. For example, it is known that Legio II Augusta, Legio IX Hispana, Legio XIV Gemina, and Legio XX Valeria Victrix were used in the initial invasion of Britain in the first century AD. The Second Legion would remain until the third century, having served from Gloucester to Hadrian's Wall. The Fourteenth Legion would only remain for a relatively short time before returning to the continent. The Twentieth Legion was perhaps still in Britain as late as the early 5th century, albeit not consistently having likely taken part in campaigns on the continent. The Ninth Legion was stationed at York until AD 108 when it was relieved by the additional Legio VI Victrix, which would also serve on Hadrian's Wall. What stands out about the Second, Sixth, Ninth, Fourteenth, and Twentieth Legions is that they were all formed in Europe, all but the Spanish Ninth being Italian in origin. Additionally, these legions had previously served in Europe, not North Africa or the Near East, which raises an obvious question: namely, Where would Italian and Spanish soldiers who had been serving in Italy, Spain, and Germany have acquired a slew of African or Middle Eastern wives, children, and slaves? Simply asserting that it might have or could have maybe happened possibly is not evidence of anything despite what liberals seem to think.

To further reiterate the point of how trivial the alleged influx of Africans and Asians was, let us look beyond the guesses, estimates, and assumptions of the liberals and instead look to modern genetic evidence. For example, AncestryDNA looked at the genomes of two million people worldwide to see the percentage of their ethnic makeup, and, in the Northeast and Northwest of England (where Hadrian's Wall was located), the average person today is at least 98% and 97% European [only ethnicities of 1% or more are shown], respectively (Source). We can also see the average person from Yorkshire and Humber—home of Roman York—is at least 96% European. Compare this with the East of England (94%), East Midlands (96%), West Midlands (96%), Southeast (95%), and Southwest (95%), as well as Northern Ireland (95%), Scotland (97%), and Wales (96%). In other words, the parts of England that supposedly were "ethnically diverse" are no more diverse than the rest of the British Isles today. Are we to believe that the entirety of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales was home to Africans and Asians in the past? Indeed, the only non-European result that even warrants mention in the AncestryDNA study is Jewish, and that only rises to 1.51% in England and 1% in Wales. These numbers are despite modern mass immigration that is known to have occurred within the last century or so. Indeed, it is worth noting that not only are the British lacking in non-European DNA but they are also what we'd expect—Celtic and Anglo-Saxon—according to a study that appeared in Nature (Source):
Romans, Vikings and Normans all invaded Britain, but left surprisingly little genetic trace. The influence of the Anglo-Saxons, however, shows up across England... Given the cultural significance of the Roman, Viking and Norman invasions, it’s surprising they didn’t leave greater genetic legacy. For the Romans and Normans, that may be because they were ruling elites who didn’t intermarry with the natives.
Were the Romans themselves somehow less prevalent than whatever supposed Africans and Asians that they maybe possibly could have brought with them? Were Roman soldiers less likely to settle down and marry locally than supposed Africans and Asians that they maybe possibly could have brought with them? If not, then why did the Africans and Asians leave virtually no genetic trace while the Romans left "surprisingly little"? Where is the evidence that even remotely suggests that we should assume that Roman Britain was "diverse" wherein a "typical family" was non-European? The obvious truth—despite what liberals such as Mr. Stuchbery claim—is that Britain was not "diverse" unless one counts Celtic, Germanic, and Italic as "diversity." The genetic findings regarding Roman Britain fit with the fact that England was only home to 15,000 blacks in 1770 (Source), which represented only 0.21% of the population of England and Wales in 1771 (Source). Another obvious truth is that neither the BBC nor Mr. Stuchbery care about these realities because they are motivated by political ideology, not a search for truth. That is why the BBC can depict Scottish Picts as Sub-Saharan Africans and present the signing of the Magna Carta as a meeting of the United Nations, and that is why Mr. Stuchbery has been attacking people who question it, even if they themselves are not white (Source). History is only important insofar as it can be used to further their agenda including immigration.

Scottish Picts according to the BBC
King John of England meets with his English, Asian, and African nobles to sign the Magna Carta

In this day and age, genetic studies have shown that one's "population of origin," which naturally includes race, can be determined with near 100% accuracy by analyzing less than 0.1% of 650,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (Source). In turn, we also now know that it is a myth that two individuals of different populations can be more genetically similar than two individuals of the same population, which can only be claimed when purposely looking at relatively few loci (Source). All of this confirms precisely what our own eyes and minds tell us considering that genetic clustering matches self-identified race/ethnicity virtually 100% of the time (Source). Mr. Stuchbery can make vague claims about "diversity" in defense of BBC presenting Britain as an African nation, but the DNA tells a very different story. If a typical British family was once Afro-Roman, the Celts were once Afro-British, and the nobility were once Afro-Norman, then Mr. Stuchbery and his ilk need to explain why their DNA has vanished without a trace, as if by Merlin's voodoo.


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Monday, July 24, 2017

The Uneasiest Alliance of the Far Right

In far-right political circles, there is an uneasy alliance between a number of discordant factions that can only seem to agree on one thing: namely, that European peoples and cultures must be preserved, which means that mass immigration into the West must end. There are perhaps no two factions more divided than traditionalist Christians and heathens, pagans, or whatever other term one might prefer to use. Naturally, one might expect Christians and pagans to not get along very well and with good reason, but both should be able to agree that Europe should not be reduced to being the Afro-Asian Islamic State of Europe. Christians may be seeking to preserve Christendom while pagans think Europe will eventually become pagan again, but both scenarios equally require that Europe remain in the hands of native peoples, not Third World imports. Despite common ground, however, these two factions are consistently at odds with each other.

It would be all too easy to assume that the two sides are equally responsible for any animosity, incessantly poking and prodding each other, but that is usually not the case at all. Instead, one regularly finds that it is pagans leveling accusations that Christians are "basically Jews" who "worship a kike on a stick." Indeed, in the name of their "foreign Jew god," Christians and their religion, "Judaism 2: Crucifixion Boogaloo,"  are directly or indirectly responsible for every ill that plagues modern Europe, or so their accusations go. Traditionalist Christians are regularly told that they need to convert because paganism is strong while their faith is weak, and such comments need not be prompted by anything other than a Christian mentioning Christianity.

There are some obvious problems with such allegations. Firstly, Jesus referred to the Pharisees as the offspring of Satan who knew neither Him nor the Father (John 8:42-47), and it was the Pharisees that would become what we know as Jews and Rabbinic Judaism today. Secondly, by the time of Jesus, at least some portion of the Hebrews were not Hebrews at all but were instead Edomites who had converted to one of the Hebraic sects. For example, the Herodian Dynasty descended from Antipater the Idumaean, Idumaea being home of the Edomites. This is important because Revelation 3:9 references members of the "synagogue of Satan" who say they are Judaeans but are not. Third, it was the Pharisaic Jews who killed Jesus, and the Church traditionally recognized them as Christ-killers. That is why the "list of 109 places that have kicked out Jews" is example after example of Christian kingdoms and cities forcing Jews from their domains. It was Pope Paul IV who taxed Jews in Rome to build a ghetto in which they were forced to live, who made them wear yellow so they were recognizable to everyone, and limited what occupations they could hold within the confines of Rome. Finally, it is Catholics who have a heritage of battling Jews and Muslims, not pagans.

Beyond these and other holes in the anti-Christian argument, there is the simple fact of the matter that allies have to actually be allied for any alliance to work. Why should traditionalist Christians care about working with pagans if the latter cannot stop "punching right"? If pagans use every opportunity to attack traditionalist Christians and engage in their own form of proselytizing, why should anyone waste the breath trying to claim they are allies in the fight to save Europe? Allies obviously need not agree on everything, but they most certainly do not spend more time attacking their own side than attacking the enemy. Allies do not speak of a need to "purge" their alliance of Christians lest they "subvert the movement." If pagans wish to invade nearly every thread of traditionalist Christians within the Alt-Right to regurgitate the same tired fighting words, then they should not be surprised when they are indeed taken as fighting words. Before going down that rabbit hole any further, however, they should remember that the West is overwhelmingly Christian, and it is far easier to lead a liberal Christian to traditional Christianity than to convince them to LARP as a viking. If pagans want to rely on an Atheist-Pagan alliance to save the West, so be it. But they need to admit to everyone and to themselves then that they have no intention of actually fixing anything.


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Apologia: Jesus did not Dismiss Gentiles as Dogs

Behold a woman of Canaan who came out of those coasts, crying out, said to him: Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David: my daughter is grieviously troubled by the devil. Who answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying: Send her away, for she crieth after us: And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. But she came and adored him, saying: Lord, help me. Who answering, said: It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs.—Matthew 15:22-26
Enemies of Christianity often use the above passage as evidence that Jesus was a "Jew," in the worst sense of the word, and that He did not care about gentiles. Some conspiracy theories run so deep as to suggest that Jesus only ever preached a "Jew only" religion and that it was St. Paul, who never knew Jesus, that fabricated a religion that could be sold to the Romans for some nefarious reasons. In turn, it is argued that Christianity itself is "basically Jewish" and has been a subversive and detrimental force against European civilization. The problem is that such theories demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what Jesus was actually saying, why He said it, and the circumstances in which He said it. Context is very important.

To begin with, the background of the above passage is that the Pharisees were confronting and challenging Jesus, so He had gone into the Roman province of Phoenice with His disciples (Matthew 15:1-21). This is important because it frames what follows in clear terms where the Hebrews were not hearing Jesus's message and were instead consistently pushing back against Him. This is in accordance with Jesus telling the Pharisees that they did not know Him because they did not know God and that they were instead the children of Satan (John 8:41-47). The setting of the event is also important because Roman Phoenice was gentile land, and Jesus had purposely gone there despite His assertion that He was "not sent but to the sheep of the house of Israel." If Jesus had truly intended to only reach out to the Hebrews, why would He go into gentile lands at all?

The answer is found in the carefully worded responses of the Lord, which taught an important lesson. As we can see from the passage above, the Apostles went to Jesus and asked that He send the woman away because she was chasing after them. The implication clearly being that they were annoyed with her rather than seeking to help her. Jesus did initially refer to the woman metaphorically as a dog, but the word He used was "κυνάριον," which carried only a literal meaning, rather than "κύων," which was commonly used by Hebrews to refer to gentiles, comparing them to dogs in the sense of lowly animals. The woman still sought the Lord's help, and He praised her faith and healed her daughter (Matthew 15:27-28). Thus, Jesus was not actually insulting the woman, but He was instead showing the Apostles that they were wrong to have wanted to send her away without helping her. She was not a "dog" unworthy of the Lord's help, but she was instead faithful to Him even as the Hebrews were not. As if to put a finer point on the lesson, Jesus then immediately returned to Galilee, allowing the lesson of the gentile woman and her daughter to stand on its own (Matthew 15:29).

The lesson was obviously not lost on the Apostles considering that St. Peter established the heart of the Church in Rome, as well as other apostles establishing apostolic sees in Italy, Greece, Spain, &c.


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Sunday, July 16, 2017

On St Augustine's "Confessiones" Book II and Modern Life

In Book II of "Confessiones," St. Augustine remembers his teenage years and the sins committed therein. He had taken a break from his studies in his sixteenth year due to his family's financial situation and fell into sins that seem common to all young men throughout human history. His lamentations about this period included attempting to discern why he had enjoyed sinning for the sake of sinning, as he could not justify an act of transgression he committed in any other way.

The first of the sins that St. Augustine discusses in Book II is that of his youthful lust and his willingness to give in to it. His mother, who had been a Christian for a number of years, attempted to warn him about the consequences of lust, but his father, who was but a catechumen at the time, encouraged him to engage in the behavior and saw it as his son becoming a man. This is mirrored in today's age in the Church teaching of the consequences of unrestrained lust and secular culture reveling in all manner of sexual deviancy. The youth of today are inundated with messages suggesting that giving in to lust not only feels good but also brings the rewards of self-confidence and the respect of one's peers. No mention is made in the media's message of the myriad of physical and psychological consequences for engaging in sexual activity outside of the marriage bed, and parents seem to be fine with this, especially since most people with adolescent children today were themselves inundated with the same message of immorality bringing societal reward instead of personal ruin. The Church, on the other hand, is still teaching the same message it has since the beginning, which is that sexual sin will bring ruin upon your psyche, body, and soul. As it was in St. Augustine's lifetime though, the advice of the Church is readily ignored by adolescents of today. So the world sees rising teen pregnancy rates, STD transmission, depression, divorce (which can be tied to the marriage act being reduced from an act of love and faith in your partner to a merely physical release), and other myriad detriments.

St. Augustine's lamentation and regret continues with a story about a theft he committed with friends. They stole some pears from an orchard near their vineyard without need, for they already had more and better. "To shake and rob this [pear tree] some of us wanton young fellows went, late one night (having, according to our disgraceful habit, prolonged our games in the streets until then), and carried away great loads, not to eat ourselves, but to fling to the very swine, having only eaten some of them; and to do this pleased us all the more because it was not permitted" (St. Augustine, "Confessions" II.4.9). They committed theft not for ill gain or to sate hunger, but simply for the sake of sin. This pleasure in sin for its own sake is nothing foreign to the modern age. Modernity seems to encourage everyone to partake in sinful activities for no reason other than to revel in the pleasure of the sin. The media makes tales of degeneracy and decadence into seemingly positive things.  People are told repeatedly that they can do as they please, as long as nobody else is harmed.  The destructiveness of reveling in sin for sin's sake is never mentioned.  Tales of hollow lives and dead souls are swept under the rug, and the populace is presented with images of smiling people conducting themselves in all manner of immoral ways.

There is hope for those who would turn from youthful decadence and hollow existence. If people would turn from their lives and to the Lord, they might experience the kind of joy and love of life that St. Augustine acquired after his conversion and dedication of his life to the Lord. Throughout his "Confessions", St. Augustine praises the Lord and attributes everything of worth to Him. St. Augustine also saw, looking back, that the Lord had used even the misery of his youth to impart valuable lessons about how to live life and achieve fulfillment. If people would just open their hearts to the Lord, they would find that, through the regret of hindsight, their lives would improve and have newfound meaning and fullness.

Saturday, July 15, 2017

Suffer Not a Woman to Teach

A blog post by Carrie Surbaugh (seen above) entitled "An Open Letter to My Parents’ Pastor" has gone viral in leftist circles, and, as the title suggests, it is essentially a rant aimed at Bill Killough, the new senior pastor of Alliance United Methodist Church in Fort Worth, Texas (Source). The grievance being that Killough had delivered a sermon in which he called out the sin of homosexuality and allegedly said that people's feelings over the matter are irrelevant. While Ms. Surbaugh was not in attendance, her parents were and apparently took great offense because their daughter is a lesbian, having first "come out" as bisexual in 2016 because she "couldn’t come to the table to receive Christ’s body and blood as anyone other than [her]self" (Source). The gist of Ms. Surbaugh's rant is that her parents, Greg and Kathy Surbaugh, are amazing people who give so much to the church yet were reduced to tears by their pastor preaching what the Bible says. In other words, the feelings of "LGBTQ" people and their families should come before the Bible, and she concluded her rant by listing statistics about homeless "LGBTQ" youth, suicide rates, and such to conclude that the Bible's "theology literally kills people." This is particularly interesting considering that Ms. Surbaugh had already issued a "Dear John letter" to the United Methodist Church earlier in the year because the Rio Texas Conference of the UMC would not ordain her as an "out" lesbian (Source). Indeed, she now lists herself on social media as a "youth pastor" with the Episcopal Service Corps in Seattle, Washington.

Ms. Surbaugh is a "youth pastor" and seemingly still seeks to be "ordained," but for what purpose? In her now viral post, she clearly shows that she cares little for sound theology, and she instead puts the focus entirely on how she and people like her feel about their sins. Since they embrace their sinful ways and actually build an entire identity around them, she thinks it is wrong and against God's will for their sins to be called out in church. Indeed, she uses her blog to suggest that "all are welcome at the Lord's table," meaning their sins are irrelevant, going so far as to say she has to be openly and unabashedly homosexual to receive Christ's body and blood. All of this is, of course, heretical to say the least as homosexuality is expressly condemned as unnatural (Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27) as is cross-dressing (Deuteronomy 22:5), which Ms. Surbaugh also defends. She clearly does not care to spread the Lord's Word, but she is more than happy to spread justifications for sin while she and others like her tell themselves that they know better than the Bible and 2,000 years of clergy. After all, as she said, "theology literally kills people" by condemning their sins. Never mind that Christians are expressly told that correcting sins in others saves their souls (James 5:19-20). Feelings trump God in the mind of Ms. Surbaugh and those like her. In fact, she said in the comments section that she thinks "that all theology is driven by our worldview, including how we interpret scripture."

Perhaps even more disturbing than Ms. Surbaugh's blatant and self-serving heresy is the fact that other supposed Christian pastors are flocking to support her. For example, Lauren Robinson, a Presbyterian seminarian (Source), said, "I think we always pick and choose what we adhere to from the Bible and what we do not. Always. So I choose to believe that Love is Love!" Another, Valerie Ohle, a UMC youth coordinator (Source), declared that she is "aspiring to be the kind of pastor that never allows this to happen on her watch and that teaches her congregation what open hearts, open doors, open minds really means and requires." Brittany Rusk, a coordinator with Greater New Jersey UMC (Source), said, "Preaching Hate is never okay" and that she has preached "about black lives," "that Jesus tells us to welcome refugees," and that "ALL LOVE should be welcome in the church." Ada Williams, Minister of Social Justice & Civic Engagement with an African Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore (Source), said that "the community of love and faith and compassion and true acceptance—is wide." On and on the comments go, but the "female pastors" are united in their message of feelings and acceptance being more important than God's will being done.

This brings us to a relevant passage from the Bible, 1 Timothy 2:11-14:
Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression.
This is one of the most hated passages in the New Testament as far as modernists are concerned because it expressly goes against the very notion of female ordination, and we can see why St. Paul took such a position when we look at the liberalization of churches that have embraced the heresy of female clergy. Ms. Surbaugh wallows in her sin by declaring that it is not even a sin, but she is somehow entrusted to serve as a pastor for children and may one day be "ordained" in the Episcopal Church. No shortage of other women in similar positions within several different Protestant denominations have voiced their support for her and other wanton sinners. There simply is no concept of right and wrong, moral and immoral, for these women, and their "religion of feelings" has shown itself to be a cancer everywhere it has been embraced. Indeed, this topic has been covered twice before, showing that denominations that embrace female ordination inevitably liberalize and begin losing the truly faithful membership (Feminism and Female Ordination: A Gateway to the Church's Destruction; Why the Episcopal Church is Dying). St. Paul was right when he condemned the idea of women teaching in the Church, and, as Matthew 7:15-20 tells us, we shall know the false prophets by the fruits of their efforts. It seems painfully obvious that the fruit of female ordination is degeneracy and hedonism not only being tolerated but actively embraced in the name of never hurting anyone's feelings.


If you support this ministry, please consider donating using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Friday, July 14, 2017

No, Il Papa Negro is Not the Answer, Part 2

An interesting pattern of argumentation has developed since No, Il Papa Negro is Not the Answer, Part 1 was posted. Those who support Cardinal Sarah tend to justify his hypothetical election by offering only two choices, "Kaspar [sic] or Sarah." Some are now even going so far as to declare that others must choose with the answer determining whether they are orthodox or heretic (Source thread). They are also exceedingly fond of wildly and purposely misrepresenting the aim and point of "Part 1," which was that: A) We have more than a millennium of tradition regarding European popes, and B) Cardinal Sarah is a "Vatican II man" who espouses the heresy that Christians and Muslims both worship God and that we should coexist in Europe. Neither of those two points has been refuted, but the post has instead been recast as, "Non-Europeans are not really Catholic." Their supposed "evidence" for the claim is this paragraph from the first post:
It is true that anyone can be a Catholic, but it is equally true that the Church is of European blood and founded on European soil. The faith was forged in Europe by the faithful, but it was only carried to places such as Guinea. A Catholic is a Catholic, but should traditionalists not also recognize that Europeans share a common history with the Church that others do not? No African or Asian is of the blood of Charlemagne, or the Saints who lived across Europe. They do not share blood or heritage with the crusaders who sacrificed all to take up the cross. Their collective spirit is not that of the theologians and philosophers who expounded upon the faith. They can be Catholic, but they can never know the depth of the faith that comes from 2,000 years of shared blood, toil, tears, and sweat. They have the outcome, the packaged faith that was brought to them. Their essence, their very breath, however, was not used to forge that outcome.
Now, take note of the fact that the paragraph makes specific mention that anyone can be Catholic, and at no point does it say, "They cannot be Catholic," or, "They are less than as Catholics." The point is rather that Europeans have given of themselves—"blood, toil, tears, and sweat," to quote Churchill (not Hitler)—to Holy Mother Church in such a way that it is unique. No peoples found in Africa, Asia, Oceania, or the Americas can say they have bled, toiled, cried, sweated, and died for the Church so consistently for the last two millennia. The history of the Roman Catholic Church is synonymous with the history of Western Europe. That such a statement is even remotely controversial, or cast as such, is shameful. How can anyone deny that the very idea of a Catholic nation throughout history has been synonymous with European nations? The heart of the Church has been in Rome since St. Peter established it there. Catholic monarchies reigned in Europe for more than 1,000 years. The Crusades were launched entirely by European rulers and fought by European soldiers. Those trying to strip the Church and Europe of that shared history so as to pretend others have always shared in the "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" are reprehensible, and they are no different than godless leftists seeking our destruction. They wish to sever the ties that bind through shared history and culture.

Consider this. If you traveled to Japan today, would you experience an inherently Catholic culture? What of China, or India, or Guinea? You would almost certainly be able to find faithful Catholics living in each of those nations without much trouble, but are the cultures themselves Catholic? Would you see aspects of Catholic culture by simply walking down the street in any major city? If you are honest, you know that the answer to all of these questions is, "No." That is because none of those nations have the history that Europe has. None of them developed alongside the Church from Late Antiquity throughout the Middle Ages. For example, the Emperor Charlemagne began construction on Aachen Cathedral in AD 796. In comparison, Christianity was banned in China in 845 and was virtually nonexistent there within a few decades (Source). The whole of India was merely a province of the Church of the East with a single living deacon circa 880 and had no recognized metropolitan circa 893 (Source). The people of Guinea were still pagans at the time as they would not become Muslim until centuries later (Source), and Portuguese missionaries would not bring Catholicism there until the late 15th century (Source). Catholic missionaries did not arrive in Japan until 1549, and they were officially expelled in 1587 with Christianity declared false (Source). Are we really supposed to pretend that Europe and those places and peoples have an equal connection to and share in the history of the Church?

Another argument put forth by Cardinal Sarah's apologists is that Europeans today tend to be liberal as do many of the European cardinals, which means that Sarah is inherently equal to or better than any European options and thus must be favored... for undefined reasons. To suggest that Holy Mother Church's deep ties to Europe in terms of history, heritage, culture, and tradition are irrelevant because of modern liberalism does a blatant disservice to conservative Europeans who still seek to preserve the faith and culture to this day, but, beyond that, it exposes a progressive mindset that sees centuries upon centuries of tradition as something trivial that can be ignored. What exactly would Cardinal Sarah offer as pope that would be so vital so as to justify destroying the tradition of European popes? Is it that he opposes gay marriage? Every conservative and even some liberal cardinals recognize the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Is it that he opposes abortion? Again, no, because recognizing the sanctity of life is not something unique to him amongst the College of Cardinals. It also cannot be that he is just uniquely conservative since, as was covered in "Part 1," Cardinal Sarah was appointed to his current position by Pope Francis, and liberals took no issue with him until he voiced opposition to homosexuality. Why then does he garner such rabid support? It is a mystery.

If a person cares little for tradition, then they should simply say so rather than crying "racism" as a blatant battering ram against everything that came before. They also should not bandy about the word "heretic" in an effort to silence anyone who raises valid complaints against their beloved hero. And make no mistake: there are certainly many valid complaints based on statements made by Cardinal Sarah (Source):
"Personally, I fully trust [Pope Francis] and I encourage all Christians to do the same. You have to be serene and calm as he sails the boat. Jesus is with him."
"Where does our fear come from? Islam has been present in Europe for a long time and no one has ever been afraid of it."
"In Guinea, the population is 5% Catholic and 73% Muslim. But we are not afraid of each other. Instead, we stimulate each other through fidelity to our faith."
"Seeing the Muslims, for whom the importance of prayer and direct communication with God is essential, Christians must ask themselves: I believe in the true God, manifested through Christ: am I as fervent as the Muslims are?"
"The cartoons that target Islam (among others) do not promote brotherly coexistence. As the Pope said, we should not insult other people's faith. We do not have the right, just because we do not share someone's faith, to insult it and caricature it."
"But true Muslims have never murdered anyone. Those who behead, crucify or slaughter in the name of God are projecting all their violence on an idea they have made of God."
"Africa has suffered a lot. Its values were denied. It experienced slavery."
"And as Africans are also deeply religious and cannot be separated from God, they are the ones who will restore God to the world."


If you support this ministry, please consider donating using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Catholic History 101

In light of recent responses to the post regarding the tradition of European popes versus some having a desire for Cardinal Sarah to succeed Francis, it seems that many "traditionalist Catholics" know very little about the history or traditions of the Church. Many seem to be quite surprised that Catholicism has a history connected to Europe that it does not have elsewhere. So surprised, in fact, that they jump to the conclusion that merely recognizing the connection between the Church and Europe is a far greater heresy than even Vatican II. To rectify this, we need to explore some basic elements of Catholic history.

So, let's begin with St. Peter, a Hellenized Hebrew, who was entrusted by the Lord to be the foundation of the Church, which he established in Rome, thus becoming il primo papa. St. Peter was followed by 265 successors recognized by the mainstream, thus far, which includes 11 who were born outside of Europe. Of those, 5 were born in Roman Syria, 3 in Roman Africa, 2 in Roman Judaea, and 1 in Argentina. Aside from St. Peter and St. Evaristus, there is no evidence of any other popes being anything other than European by blood with the overwhelming majority being Italian in origin. From AD 741 to the election of Francis in 2013, a total of 1,272 years lapsed without a single pope being born outside of Europe. As of 2017, the Church has gone 1,910 years since the last pope who lacked European ancestry, but, again, he was Hellenic by culture. Shockingly, there have been exactly zero popes from Sub-Saharan Africa, Central/Southern/East Asia, Oceania, or the Americas. In other words, the papacy itself has been a distinctly and uniquely European institution.

Oddly enough, we find the same thing with the Crusades. For example, of the leaders of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Crusades, virtually 100% of them were of European descent with the vast majority of them having been born in Europe. In addition to the leaders, virtually their entire armies were also composed of European men. Noticeably absent from the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Crusades were peoples from Africa, Asia, Oceania, and the Americas. In fact, it is impossible to find any reference to the peoples of Africa, Asia, Oceania, or the Americas sending any soldiers for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, or Ninth Crusades. This blog has it on good authority, however, that this is an oversight by racist historians.

Truly amazing is that there are also no records of the Catholic royalty or nobility of England, France, Holy Roman Empire, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Poland, Russia, and so on deriving from the peoples of Africa, Asia, Oceania, or the Americas. The lack of evidence does not pass the so-called "smell test," obviously, because every people has an equal hand and share in the history, traditions, and the development of the Holy Mother Church. The complete and total lack of any records of Catholic rulers in Europe of African, Asian, Oceanian, or American descent is nothing compared to the fact that it would be racist to believe the historical record. Also, this blog has it on good authority from the BBC that Europe's Catholic rulers were largely African.

When discussing Church traditions and heritage, who are we to believe—the entire historical, sociological, archaeological, and anthropological record involving European Christendom, or those who really, really want to have an African pope who is on the record telling Catholics to coexist with Muslims in Europe?


If you support this ministry, please consider donating using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Tuesday, July 11, 2017

No, Il Papa Negro is Not the Answer, Part 1

In the current struggles over modernism vs. traditionalism and nationalism vs. globalism, Robert Cardinal Sarah, a prelate from the West African nation of Guinea, has become a hero to some who wish to defend Europe and Christendom. Cardinal Sarah has actually become a meme with people declaring him to be "The Great Black Hope," others saying, "At least we have Sarah," and so on. Naturally, it seems rather odd that those wishing to protect Europe against globalism and Third World immigration would seek to put an African in the Chair of St. Peter, but that is especially true considering that Sarah was appointed to his current position as Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments by the arch-modernist Pope Francis in 2014. Indeed, despite being seen as somewhat conservative, he has been described as a "Vatican II man," and he has avoided engaging with traditionalists on at least one occasion (Source). He has been described as "traditional on the culture wars, yet strongly progressive on social justice issues" (Source). It would seem that Cardinal Sarah only seems particularly conservative relative to Pope Francis.

In fact, "The Great Black Hope" only earned the ire of liberals in 2015 when he declared, "We need to be inclusive and welcoming to all that is human; but what comes from the Enemy cannot and must not be assimilated ... What Nazi-Fascism and Communism were in the 20th century, Western homosexual and abortion Ideologies and Islamic Fanaticism are today" (Source). It is important to note that he stressed "Islamic Fanaticism" rather than Islam itself. Indeed, Cardinal Sarah, who is from a Muslim majority country, has said that "Islam has been present in Europe for a long time and no one has ever been afraid of it," that "true Muslims have never murdered anyone," that Catholics should "promote brotherly coexistence" with Muslims, and that we "do not have the right, just because we do not share someone's faith, to insult [and] caricature [Islam]" (Source). He has even gone so far as to use a Muslim story to suggest that sheep and wolves could coexist peacefully if we all just had a better relationship with God (Ibid.). Some have taken recent comments by Sarah to mean that he questions the mass migration into Europe from Africa and Asia, but he was rather suggesting that the Church should be evangelizing to the migrants (Source).

Now, make note of the language Cardinal Sarah has used—"inclusive and welcoming," "promote brotherly coexistence," "Islam has been present in Europe for a long time," &c. These are not the statements of the sort of warrior-pope who would usher in a new age of crusades to cleanse Europe and preserve the West. These are the comments of someone who would continue welcoming mass migration into Europe so long as the Church works hand-in-hand with moderate Muslims to proselytize to "radical Muslims." It is true that Cardinal Sarah opposes the homosexual agenda, abortion, and has questioned some of what has happened since Vatican II (Source), but can either the Church or the West survive continued mass migrations? Should Latin Christians, the descendants of crusaders, be seeking to peacefully coexist with Muslims, not in the Holy Land, but across Europe? Would Europe be the same if Europeans became a minority there, or even vanished altogether? Would the Church still be the Church if Il Papa negro ushered in an age where Africans and Asians dominated Europe? Would Western Civilization survive with "new westerners" in charge of the religious and secular? In 2015 alone, Europe was flooded with 1.3 million migrants (Source). Should we welcome them and promote brotherly coexistence while we proselytize, or should we resist the invasion?

Beyond Sarah himself, let us also consider the broader ramifications of having a black pope today. For example, John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope in 455 years, and Francis is the first pope born outside of Europe in 1,272 years. Indeed, of the 265 Bishops of Rome throughout history before Francis, only 10 of them were born outside of Europe, and, like with Francis, 8 of those were of entirely European stock. Only Saints Peter and Evaristus were not Europeans, and they were both Hellenized Hebrews raised under the Roman Empire. As should be evident, Catholicism has been inextricably linked with Europe from the very beginning of the Church—St. Peter founded the Church in Rome, 99.3% of popes throughout history were of European stock, 95.9% were born in Europe, and most major developments of the faith took place in European hearts and on European soil. The great heroes of Christendom have been Europeans—from missionaries to evangelists, from preachers to theologians, from crusaders to kings. Christendom has been synonymous with Europe, and violating tradition would represent the Church being lost to, not saved from, progressivism.

If there be any doubt, truly ponder who would be celebrating the election of an African pope. Much louder than any traditionalists would be the godless progressives who would recognize what such an election would mean. Just as they celebrated the election of Francis from South America, they would see an African pope as representing a shift away from Europe and white people to the Third World and non-whites. Sarah opposes homosexuality and abortion, but the likes of Salon, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, Washington Post, New York Times, and on, and on would be cheering that the "glass ceiling of whiteness" was finally broken in the Church. Any argument made by the faithful against mass migration into Christendom would be met with, "Well, the pope is an African immigrant." That is in addition to the fact that Cardinal Sarah himself thinks Christians and Muslims can and must coexist, so he would be no ally of European nationalists by any stretch of the imagination. In short, the solution to religious progressivism is not to engage in the same misguided tokenism so often found being used against sociopolitical progressivism. "We have our own African" is not a valid argument or reason to destroy 2,000 years of tradition, to see Holy Mother Church severed from her roots in Europe so that she ceases to be of Europe and brought to the world by faithful Europeans.

It is true that anyone can be a Catholic, but it is equally true that the Church is of European blood and founded on European soil. The faith was forged in Europe by the faithful, but it was only carried to places such as Guinea. A Catholic is a Catholic, but should traditionalists not also recognize that Europeans share a common history with the Church that others do not? No African or Asian is of the blood of Charlemagne, or the Saints who lived across Europe. They do not share blood or heritage with the crusaders who sacrificed all to take up the cross. Their collective spirit is not that of the theologians and philosophers who expounded upon the faith. They can be Catholic, but they can never know the depth of the faith that comes from 2,000 years of shared blood, toil, tears, and sweat. They have the outcome, the packaged faith that was brought to them. Their essence, their very breath, however, was not used to forge that outcome.

Link: No, Il Papa Negro is Not the Answer, Part 2


If you support this ministry, please consider donating using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

The future of Latin Christendom

Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, secretary to Francesco Cardinal Coccopalmerio (seen above), was arrested by the Vatican police when caught in the midst of a drug-fueled homosexual orgy (Source). The orgy allegedly took place in the Palace of the Holy Office, which is the seat of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or what is traditionally known as the Universal Inquisition (Source). Specifically, the apartment in question belongs to the "the branch [of the Congregation] that reviews appeals from clergy found guilty of sexual abuse of minors" (Source). This has come as quite the shock to most considering that Cardinal Coccopalmerio is President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts and a top adviser to Pope Francis, and, reportedly, he has personally pushed for Capozzi for promotion to bishop (Source). The arrest of Capozzi has cast his relationship with the Cardinal in a new light since Coccopalmerio has said that there can be "positive elements" to the gay lifestyle and that clergy should choose to highlight "positive realities" rather than focusing on the inherently and undeniably illicit nature of homosexual relationships (Source).

More unnerving is the fact that this is only the latest homosexual scandal within the Vatican. For example, Bishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life and Grand Chancellor of the St. John Paul II Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family, commissioned a homosexual artist to paint a mural in a cathedral, which has "Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions" (Source). Yet another example is James Martin, a Jesuit known for his TV appearances, who Pope Francis has named to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications (Source). This is despite the fact that Martin has worked with New Ways Ministry (Source), "a dissident, pro-gay-identity, pro-gay-sex, pro-gay-'marriage' group whose work was long ago condemned by both the Roman Curia and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops" (Source). Of course, Martin himself has said Francis "is appointing [bishops] in the United States [that] are much more LGBT friendly" (Source), so it is safe to say that something is rotten in the state of the Vatican.

There can be no doubt that Latin Christendom is in a sad state of affairs these days with many, if not most, Protestant denominations having already embraced heresies such as female ordination and homosexuality, or being well on their way to that same destination. Generally, things have seemed better amongst Holy Mother Church, but Pope Francis has shown that the modernity of Vatican II must also inevitably follow the same heretical path. After all, it was just last year that he told a group of Lutherans visiting the Vatican that it is illicit to attempt to convert others to the faith because "proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path" (Source). That echoed previous comments made that same month wherein Francis said, "There is a very grave sin against ecumenism: proselytism." (Source). In 2013, he again said, "Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense" (Source). Francis has also acknowledged the "female primate" of the Church of Sweden (Source) and even traveled to that country to celebrate the Protestant Reformation wherein he praised Martin Luther (Source). He has also welcomed televangelists such as Joel Osteen to the Vatican (Source), allowed Muslim prayers to be heard in the Holy See (Source), and has bowed to kiss the hands of the Pharisaic occupiers of the Holy Land (Source). The list of such grave errors is nigh endless.

Perhaps the most dangerous thing about Pope Francis and his modernist ilk is that the masses believe that they and their liberal views are Holy Mother Church. Indeed, in the aftermath of Vatican II, a sort of "modernist orthodoxy" has developed that is similar to the so-called "neoconservatism" seen in American politics. In essence, people who abhor tradition and conserve nothing of value nonetheless see themselves as "conservative" because they fully embrace and defend institutions as they exist in the moment. They are progressives in every sense of the word, and their principles can change in an instant while pretending no change has occurred. If Francis and the modernists suddenly said that female ordination was acceptable, the neoconservative would defend it as though it was a self-evident truth and that it had always been the Church's position. Whether they truly believe in such infallibility or are simply looking for the spiritual to justify their political beliefs is irrelevant. The fact remains that traditionalists have about as much in common with neoconservatives as they do with Evangelical Protestants, which is to say very little. Even a priest being caught in the very heart of the Universal Inquisition having a cocaine-fueled homosexual orgy will not be enough to make most start to ponder the validity of the modernist hierarchy and its myriad heresies.

The problem for traditionalists is that Christendom is currently dominated by neoconservatives and avowed progressives, and that means there is little hope of spontaneous reversals of what has been done in the Lord's name in the last few decades or centuries. Those Protestant denominations that have ordained women and homosexuals will not suddenly reverse course, and neither Francis nor any other modernist in the current Church hierarchy will stop promoting every religion but Catholicism in the name of "ecumenism." Some have decided that this situation is either the inevitable outcome of Christianity or that it is irreversible. In either case, the supposed "answer" is typically to abandon the faith for atheism, paganism, or what have you. Others have determined that this is a problem with Latin Christendom specifically, so they posit that Orthodox Christianity should simply come to replace Latin Christianity and all offshoots.

For rather obvious reasons, neither godlessness nor heathenry would save Western Christendom, but it must also be said that adopting Orthodox Christianity would be almost as silly. After all, Western civilization is built on a Catholic foundation with so much of it coming after the Great Schism of 1054. Thus, Orthodoxy is only related to Western Christendom and its associated civilization and culture, but it most assuredly is not in the DNA of the same. Latin Christians could wear Orthodoxy as a costume, but that is all it would ever be since none of the history or heritage of Western Europeans is at all derived from Orthodox Christendom. For example, consider how much pride that many Western Christians take in the Crusades. The historical Church is seen as largely being defined by those holy wars, but Byzantine Christians were often at odds with the West in those times including events such as the "Massacre of the Latins" in Constantinople in 1182, which saw thousands of Catholics murdered by Orthodox Christians (Source). Should Latin Christians simply recast such events with their ancestors now playing the role of the villains? How would that result in anything but so-called "live-action role-playing," or LARPing? One can certainly argue that many of the national Orthodox churches have fewer issues with liberalization today, but that does not somehow give a Latin Christian meaningful ties to Eastern Christianity. Why wear a costume rather than fix one's own problems?

The question then is how Western Christians can set about sorting out their house. Some have posited a sort of localism that revolves around targeting individual congregations for infiltration and eventual conversion. The thinking being that traditionalists can take over one church and then another, creating a snowball effect that would see Latin Christendom restored to its prior glory. Naturally, this would not work against Catholic churches wherein all administrative decisions are controlled by the diocese and not individual congregations themselves. Traditionalists in the pews would have virtually no influence on whether or not the parish priest shared their beliefs regarding tradition or anything else, and they would have even less say over the bishop overseeing the diocese. That is certainly true when Francis and his ilk are seeking clerics such as Luigi Capozzi who would be "LGBT friendly bishops," as well as actively waging war on traditionalists (Source).

On the surface, it may seem that Protestants would have a better opportunity considering their locally controlled congregations. Indeed, members of the "Neo-Confederate" League of the South attempted to take over various congregations within the Presbyterian Church of America (Source), and, while their efforts ultimately failed, they did achieve a certain amount of success for a time (Source). To further demonstrate the point, consider that it would take hundreds of member churches to potentially take over the Southern Baptist Convention (Source), and the issue is only going to get worse as nearly 60% of their new congregations are non-white (Source). Already, the 2017 Convention voted almost unanimously to "decry every form of racism ... as antithetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ" and to "repudiate white supremacy and every form of racial and ethnic hatred as a scheme of the devil intended to bring suffering and division to our society" (Source). In other words, virtually none of the current Southern Baptist churches that bother to send representatives care one bit about preserving Western Christendom, its peoples, or its cultures. They are rather the enemy.

While Orthodoxy is not the answer for Latin Christendom, temporary schism may well be. The reality is that Catholics need to become angry enough to finally take a stand against the heretics, to finally realize that they cannot sit around waiting for the heretics to remove themselves from the Church hierarchy. Traditionalists need to become angry enough to begin following the path of the Orthodox, Old Catholics, sedevacantists, sedeprivationists, &c. Traditionalist clergy and laity alike must join together to build their own orders, institutions, and, yes, churches. The objective must be reconciling with Rome, but only after the Vatican can be reclaimed from the heretics. Catholics must become angry enough to save Holy Mother Church. If priests having cocaine-fueled homosexual orgies in Vatican offices is not enough to generate such anger, what will? Is Catholicism doomed to perish because Catholics could not be bothered to save it?


If you support this ministry, please donate using the Patreon and PayPal buttons at the top.