Catholic Bishops Clearing The Field For Satan

Last week, Bishop Mark Beckman of the Diocese of Knoxville (TN) asked that all prayers before and after Mass be discontinued.  He specifically targeted the Prayer to Saint Michael.  That prayer is one that Pope Leo XIII specifically mandated after his vision that warned of an upcoming onslaught against Holy Mother Church.  Only a blind fool and/or outright liar can deny that such an onslaught is raging around us.  Even more insidiously it rages within the hierarchy of the Church, apparently championed by the pope and too many clergy; the current Amoris Laetitia synod is just the latest manifestation.  

He set forth his case against prayers before, during and after Mass.  No one can doubt that additional prayers should be banned from the Mass proper, but before and after Mass?  Is he that worried that parishioners won't feel "welcomed" if the sanctuary doesn't become a de facto gab-fest hall before and after Mass?  And by the way, if all chit-chat pandemonium does break out after Mass, what's to stop some Mass attendees from spontaneously praying the St Michael prayer (Hint!)?  How about the Rosary before Mass, as is often the custom at various parishes? 

The bishop's phrase "noble simplicity" hearkens back to the post Vatican II document Inter Oecumenici, that gave directives on implementing the so-called "spirit of Vatican II" into the liturgy.  While it suppressed the set of prayers mandated by Pope Leo XIII, it never banned any and all prayer before and after Mass.  Mind you, it did other damage; it turned the altar around to diminish the obfuscate the sacrificial nature and purpose of the Mass and removed the Latin language, but it never forbade prayers before and after Mass.  It certainly didn't jettison the prayers mandated by Pope Leo XIII himself.

In other related news (yes, it is related), the Archdiocese of Denver Archbishop James Golka ordered Father Ripperget to cease all public ministry for one year, starting immediately.  Anyone who has heard Father Ripperger speak understands that Father is solidly orthodox.  Father is also an exorcist.  Listen to the interview in the second video on the LifeSite page.  Might this be an indication of the motive behind the silencing?  We know that many of the bishops sexually prey upon boys and young men.  Many of that type are also involved in occult activities; might Catholic clergy be among that number?

Consider together the two situations that I mention in this post.  What is the common denominator?  On the one hand, we are seeing a prayer removed that Pope Leo XIII mandated for protection from demonic activity.  On the other hand, we see a priest silenced who is both an exorcist and who speaks the truth regarding spiritual warfare.  It sure sounds like there is an effort afoot to clear the playing field so that satanic forces can have a heyday.

Oddly enough, there are some who might otherwise be called sensible who are trying to downplay the serious ramifications regarding the silencing of Father Ripperger.  I have seen some internet posts (and I refuse to link to them) making light of serious concerns, basically saying, "Oh, pish-posh!  The silencing of Father isn't so catastrophic!  After all, he could use a break and this will probably be for Father's own good!"   

Father's own good?  Really now?  I strongly suspect that "Father's own good" was a driving motive behind silencing him.  I simply refuse to wear those rose-colored glasses.  "Father's own good" does not excuse the action nor does it mitigate the harm that will occur to the Church at large.

I'd suggest two things, in addition to your daily Rosaries: 1) Keep an eye on this situation.  Somehow, I think there will be attempts to surreptitiously elongate that one-year span of silence, if not outright canceling him. 2) Faithful Catholics in the Archdiocese of Denver should cease any and all donation to their diocese.  It seems that money (or lack thereof) is the only language to which they will pay attention.

Bye the bye, during the same time period, the Restore Tradition Women's Conference happened in Littleton CO.  Rachael Mastrogiacomo was slated to give a talk.  She commence her talk, criticizing the Novus Ordo Mass, Pachamama, and the hierarchy.  In the middle of her talk, the microphone was cut off and very soon after, found her presence rubbed from the conference schedule.  The local bishop, the one mentioned at the top who tossed the prayers to St Michael, was reportedly influential in that decision.  Fortunately Anthony Stine and Chris Jackson expsosed this.

Marylanders - Vote No On Question 3 This November

The map of the Maryland state legislative districts is taken from the liberal site Maryland Matters.  The caption at the top read “Legislative Panel Releases District Map that Helps Vulnerable Democrats”.  Well, I must commend them for being honest about their intentions for this map.  By no means, however, are Democrats “vulnerable” in Maryland.  They intended to completely stifle any Republican voice whatsoever.  Just look at that map.  The area between Washington DC and Baltimore is a complete mess, with one district being totally surrounded by another.  Now why is that?  Because there remain stubborn enclaves of Republicans, and the Democrats want to stifle their voices via gerrymandered elections.

 Question 3 on the Maryland ballot in November addresses this question on the national level.  A picture of what the Democrats plan to cram down our throats is also attached.  Notice what they want to do to Federal District 1, the eastern shore currently represented by Andy Harris.  He is the lone Republican from Maryland in Congress, and solidly pro-life.  

You can also see what they did to Federal District 6 years back.  Once it encompassed only the western panhandle, and that too had pro-life representation in Congress.  The Democrats monkeyed that around to include large swathes of liberal, pro-abortion Montgomery County.  Now that district is solidly pro-abortion.  Also observe how District 4 snakes around other districts.  That is beyond ridiculous.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, let us be frank to the point of being blunt.  Thanks to President Trump neutering the Johnson Amendment, we can speak a bit more freely about such matters, especially since the Democrats are completely unabashed about their pro-baby-murder and pro-perversions planks in their party platform.  Their immediate goal is obvious.  They wish to disenfranchise a whole area of the state (eastern shore) by swamping it with liberal voters from Harford, Cecil, and Baltimore counties.  They want to drive Andy Harris out, and prevent any more conservative and pro-life people from Maryland going to Congress.

In a free election, the voters choose their elected officials.  If this measure passes, it will be the officials choosing their voters.  This is not how a republic should work.  I used the word “republic” deliberately for our system of government is that of a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy.  Honest and intelligent voters on both sides of the aisle must keep it that way.

The language to Question 3 is attached.  Please vote no on that question and urge your families and friends to do the same.

Debate On Embryonic Adoption Oct 22 2026

 

For anyone not in the DC area, please note that this will be live-streamed

How Some Traditional Catholics Are Jumping The Rails Over the Clancy Debacle

In the aftermath of the Lindsay Clancy mess, particularly bizarre reactions of some so-called feminists and the copycat killings of children that regretably seem to be increasing, some unfortunate noise is reemerging from some in traditional Catholic circles.   And no, I will not link to them for I refuse to direct traffic to their sites.

According to their, well, mysogynistic thinking, the actions of a few nut-jobs in recent weeks indicate that all women are too driven by their emotions and sentiments to be entrusted with anything outside of their homes.  In particular, that means that women are incapable of casting votes during elections.  Of course, they are singularly incapable of actually holding governmental office, according to these reactionaries.

Some history is in order here.  We just celebrated the 25 anniversay of the 9/11 attacks.  Those attacks during which thousands died were conducted by men.  Did they receive accolades like Lindsay?  They most certainly did, in Muslim countries that are certainly patriarchal in structure.  Were there any "copycat" killers?  Those of us in the DC area are witness to that.  Recall the "beltway shooters": John Mohammed and Lee Malvo terrorized the Maryland and DC area until their apprehension in a truck reststop on I-70.

Then there is Nazi Germany, responsible for the Holocaust that killed 6 millions of Jewish extraction.  They too won accolades from the patriarchal Nazis.  Any copycats?  Well, there are the so-called "Aryans" and various skinheads that have wreaked some damage; I am unaware of the total extent of that.

Then there are nut-jobs like Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson, etc.  With all this mass-murder throughout the decades, I have heard no suggestion that men are incapable of governance because of male violence.  

No one doubts that there are sins that are more prevalent among one gender than the other.  Men seem to have more trouble controlling both their sexual and violent tendencies than do women.  We have heard ad infinitum that men need to control and master those tendencies.  In no way have we heard that men should step away from responsibility so that those tendencies should be coddled.

Now we see how feminists have done a number on women by suggesting that their gender weaknesses should be coddled.  Regrettably some Catholics seem to agree.  Women do tend to let sentiment override common sense.  That is not just some adorable little foible upon which we should smile indulgently.  When anyone lets sentiment guide decisions as opposed to logic and common sense, they commit sins against the Virtue of Prudence.  There's no sugar-coating that.  As men must be taught as boys to master their sexual and violent impulses, so must women be taught as girls to bring their sentimental tendencies under strict control.  Else, how can either of them raise their own children, let alone assume responsibilities in the larger society?

So we, both men and women, have sins to be mortified, some of them influenced by our respective genders.  I think we've seen and heard exhortations to men to reign in their passions, with those exhortations being followed by the examples of St Bernard of Clairvox and St Francis of Assisi.  Ladies, are we prepared to do the same with our tendencies to let emotions cloud our thinking?  This is not optional.  Both genders need to hold themselves and each other to the highest Christian standards, without making excuses for each other AND without making brash generalizations about one gender because of the harmful ideologies harbored by a few.

False Ecumenism Born Of Idolatry

On September 22, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, led by Cardinal "Heal Me with Your Mouth" Fernandez, released a "note" commemorating the 60th anniversary of Nostra Aetate called "A Journey of Hope".  I link to the version that is on the Vatican website.  Like most of the stuff coming from the Vatican these days, it is quite verbose - the better to hide the errors embedded therein. 

Take section 6.  I will copy and paste a section here. "explicitly called for the promotion not only of Christian unity but also of a broader fraternity with believers of other religions, founded on mutual “esteem and respect     "   Our Lord never called us to respect error: erroneous people, yes, but not the errors that they espouse.  He never "dialogued" with them, as though they were His equals and their beliefs were just as valid as the Truth that He taught.  He taught to impart truth, not to arrive at some middle-ground consensus.

These are bishops who contrived this slop.  They have betrayed their sacred calling and the Holy Orders that they have received.  Our Lord commanded them to feed His sheep.  They are feeding them alright, but not the truth needed to save their souls.  Rather, these false prelates are feeding spiritual poison to Catholics under their watch.

In contrast. I'd suggest that you listen to this clip for some real truth.

Gloria Steinem Died - God Have Mercy!

Gloria Steinem, who led women to despair and evil owing to her radical feminism, has died at the age of 92.  She reveled in baby-slaughter - including the murder of her own unborn child.  She exhibited a profound disrespect, if not hatred, of men when she quipped, "women need men like a fish needs a bicycle".

Well, now she has gone to stand before God almighty, and most likely the millions of murdered babies whose deaths she championed.  We will all one day, sooner or later, have to do the same.

Having lived to the age of 92, she had ample time to repent.  Let us pray that she did so, at least during her last moments.  Else, her fate is to be dreaded.

Catholic Standard, Shilling For Border-Crashers, Implements Cloward-Piven Strategy

In the August 13th issue of the Catholic Standard appears an article entitled, "Haiti's Cardinal and US Bishops Lead Mass of Solidarity as Haitian Immigrants Face Losing Their TPS Status".  A question came to my mind immediately as I began reading this article, and one that I think should be painfully obvious.  Why is Cardinal Chibly Langlois carrying on as though United States largesse is a solution to the problems of his flock?

The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) was initially granted to Haitians in 2010 after an earthquake struck Haiti.  That was 16 years ago.  Now that the earthquake is no longer a plausible excuse, the claim is that gang-related violence in that country.  Are the various Haitian clergy working just as hard to eliminate the violence in their own country as they are in trying to get US citizens to bear the brunt of Haiti's problems -  OR - is this just another elaborate ruse to burden US infrastructure, pursuant to the Cloward-Piven Strategy, using Haitians as pawns?  That is a fair question that deserves an answer.  

With regards to that question, Cardinal McElroy and other clergy have tipped their hands.  Further down in the article we see where he and others kvell about President Trump's deportation of "undocumented immigrants".  No, these people are border-crashers who come and/or stay in this country while disregarding our laws and procedures.  They are no more "immigrants" than a burgler is an "undocumented house guest".

When we read publications such as the Catholic Standard, we need to bear in mind that they are simply the mouthpieces of the bishops in whose diocese they are based.  That means that the reader, if he solely relies on these publications for complete information about the Church and its affairs, will be worse than misinformed.  He or she will be effectively brainwashed and subjected to thought reform.  This article on which I just commented is a prime example of progressive propaganda.

Bishop Athanasius Schneider Defends The SSPX

The narration that you will hear in this clip is the text of a letter by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  These are his first remarks on the situation with the SSPX and how they relate to the crisis of the Church in general.  He too acknowledges that the SSPX is performing a vital service to Holy Mother Church despite attempts by Vatican officials and even the pope to derail them.

Without A Return To Catholic Tradition, Abortion Will Continue

Amidst all the discussion and controversy regarding the SSPX and the Traditional Latin Mass in general, one pro-life individual asked why there was so much focus on the difference between the Latin Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass when babies are dying.  He wondered aloud how much did the Mass form makes.  I don't remember where I saw that question or who posed it.  I would have to answer him or her that the form of Mass makes all the difference in the world, and it's way past the time that each and every Catholic pro-life person admits that truth.

Consider the Ten Commandments and in what order God gave them to Moses.  The prohibition against murder, including abortion is the Fifth Commandment.  Yet too many pro-life people carry on as though it's the First Commandment.

The First Commandment is this: "I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no strange gods before me."  (from the Douay-Rheims version, Exodus 20).  That one is to be at the forefront of our hearts and minds.  In the New Testament, Matthew 22: 33-40, we read "Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law?  Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.  This is the greatest and the first commandment.  And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."  Again, note the order - God first, then our fellow man.

In practice, often pro-lifers invert that order, be that inversion ever so inadvertent.  Such was my own mindset for far too many years. 

Many of us adopted such mindsets to facilitate working with non-Catholic pro-life people.  What we failed to consider was exactly what lay at the root of people being non-Catholic, and how those origins were directly responsible for the horrors of abortion and other sins against life.

The Protestant Revolt was a large part of that.  Consider that when Martin Luther led his revolt, a prominent defender of the Faith against Luther's heresies was none other than King Henry VIII of England.  Not too long thereafter, Henry allegedly worried about not producing a male heir to his throne.  His wife at the time was Catherine of Aragon, daughter of the Spanish king Ferdinand and Queen Isabella (who sponsored Columbus' voyage that discovered the American continents)..  Henry petitioned the pope at that time to annul his marriage, but was refused.  At that point, Henry formally broke from Rome and established the Anglican church, with him as head.

So now we have about 20,000 protestant variations or denominations (at last count), but only One True Church.  It was the Anglicans that legitimized divorce.  They struck again at their 1930 Lambeth Conference, legitimizing contraception.  Abortion was legalized in many countries earlier than the Roe v Wade ruling.  With the first "woman bishop" and then first "gay bishop", the Anglicans showed themselves to be less-than-stellar leaders.  Eventually all the major protestant denominations allowed for baby-slaughter in their doctrinal statements, with varying degrees of permissiveness.

The Catholic Church remains the one Church that opposes all abortion.  However, during Vatican II, the popes and bishops allowed her vitality to be compromised by the mutilation of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.  She has always held that the Mass is the sacrifice by which Our Lord offers Himself to God in an unbloody manner under the appearances of bread and wine.  That definition, by the way, is taken verbatim from Question 357 of the Baltimore Catechism.  The proceeds of the Vatican II pastoral council greatly mutated that understanding of the Mass, trying to turn it into some celebration of this, that and the other.  A primary force behind that Mass was Archbishop Annibale Bugnini.  There is well-founded belief that Bugnini was a Freemason.

I have written quite a bit about the stupefying of Holy Mass and invite you to read those posts.   In particular, please pay close attention to this one.  At the top, you'll see that two saints, both priests, are quoted as saying that civilization itself would collapse if it were not for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  Both of them offered the Latin Mass.

This brings me to a point that I believe Catholic pro-lie people need to accept.  We will NOT defeat abortion and other sins against life and family until we return to Tradition as it has always stood, not the bastardized mess that has come out of Vatican II.  Yes, I know that many changes in the Mass were not mandated by V2, but they wouldn't have happened without that jaded council.  No, I speak not only of Holy Mass, but all the Sacraments, for not one was unscathed by Vatican II.

I know this may make some of my friends uncomfortable, as they have sons who are Novus Ordo priests.  To them I say, "understand that owing to your pro-life activism, your sons already have targets on their backs.  Don't believe me?  You know how to contact me, and I will let you know what priests recently got canceled in the Archdiocese of Washington alone."  But you may well know them.

Let me also speak of another ancillary truth regarding ecumenism as found in the pro-life movement.  Many of us have worked with Protestants and others of non-Christian faiths and atheists.  No doubt these individuals are very good people and are often more zealous for life and family than are many Catholics today.  However, they still remain influenced by faulty doctrines and philosophies.  We therefore can work with them, but never under them.  We can take pointers from them regarding tactical matters, but never spiritual matters. 

A "case in point" is the Manhattan Declaration that was published in 2009.   It was the rage of all the pro-life social media pages, both Catholic and non-Catholic.  It was authored by both Catholic and non-Catholic thinkers.  We were all being urged to jump on the bandwagon for now this "new" unity would galvanize us to victory over abortion.  Many leaders glommed onto it immediately.

Others looked askance, and with good reason.

I was one of the latter.  I read the document, and at first glance, it did appear to be a comprehensive analysis of the spiritual, moral, and social ills of today.  But it didn't survive a second glance, for often, what is not said is just as important as what is said.

What was not said was that the acceptance of contraception ensconced in civil and religious thinking became the proverbial snowball on the hill that gathered both mass and momentum as it careened downward.  Indeed, I pulled it into Word and did a word search on "contraception" and found nary a peep.  That omission rendered the whole thing fatally flawed, for while it decried the sin of abortion, it erroneously condoned another, and probably more deadly, mortal sin - the use of contraceptives. That fad didn't last too long.  I believe it collapsed under the weight of its own deceit.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the silence regarding contraception came about because of the non-Catholics who helped draft the Manhattan Declaration.  The Catholics allowed the Declaration to be published because they allowed their Catholic knowledge of the sin of contraception to be compromised for the sake of a specious consensus.

As far as worship goes, it's no secret that one key motive of the Vatican II authors of the Mass changes was to make Mass more appealing to Protestants.  But that happened by obfuscating the sacrificial nature of Holy Mass.  It was turned into some kind of communal meal instead of the sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross.  Our Lord left instructions for how He is to be worshiped, and He left them through His Catholic Church.  After the Council of Trent (a dogmatic council as opposed to a pastoral council like Vatican II), Pope Saint Pius V issued Quo Primum (an Apostolic Constitution) that codified the Latin Mass and stated that no one was permitted to change it, under pain of divine wrath. I believe that we are experiencing that divine wrath today.

Again, I emphasize that I don't judge Protestant pro-life people.  Many of them are more solicitous for the babies than are the average Catholic in the pews.  That very zeal has led quite a few of them to convert to the One True Church.  Through their activism, they realized the shortcomings of the faith in which they were raised.  However, we too must keep those shortcomings in mind as we work alongside, never under them.  Keep them in prayer and never compromise the Truth.

Pope Leo Et Al - Working For Deconstruction Of The Faith

Okie-dokie!  Let's see what we got here!

About three years ago, dissident Jesuit Father Thomas Reese disavowed belief in Transubstantiation.  Thanks to Novus Ordo Watch who reported this.  We can add this to his already-impressive list of heretical beliefs and behaviors.

This past April, the pope conferred with an Anglican bishop-wannabee woman.  The Vatican News outlet called her "Right Honourable Dame Sarah Mullally".  Again, this is a Vatican news outlet calling her that, and they did not put that in quotes.  She was in full costume.  I won't go into the topics of their gabfest.  Suffice it to say that the pope called her "bishop" but had a fit over the SSPX ordaining bishops.  I didn't hear the pope renewing any excommunication proclamation for her!

LifeSiteNews reminded us that Bishop Michael Sis, who warned Catholics not to attend SSPX masses and who falsely stated that SSPX weddings and confessions are invalid, attended in "interfaith" Hanukkah ceremony in 2023.  That is a sin against the First Commandment.  I believe he still retains his see.  Odd how that works!

The abuses pile on.  In Austria, two priests decided to commemorate their 30 years in the priesthood by attempting to consecrate flatbread on the floor.in a school.  The rubrics are quite clear that the host must be unleavened and made entirely of wheat.  Because the matter was invalid, the bread was not consecrated and thus Our Lord did not become sacramentally present.  We can be grateful that there was no Blessed Sacrament and thus no insult, although blasphemy abounded.  We don't know if the priests have received any discipline that is more substantial than a rap on the knuckles, and don't know if they received even that.  This same link tells of a Muslim funeral rite in a Catholic Church, in addition to a Buddhist birthday celebration in another.  Were those parish priests disciplined?  Should we even bother to ask?

On June 27, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles allowed an Aztec war dance to take place during a Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels.  This LifeSiteNews link has video that depicts this idolatrous sacrilege.

I could go on and on, as the insults to the Faith are increasing exponentially.  I will mention one last one.  Pope Leo appointed a bishop to the Diocese of Chifeng in Mongolia in accordance with the agreement between the Vatican and Red China.  In plain English, the dictators of Red China put forth their chosen candidate, and Pope Leo rubber-stamped him to the see.

Do you appreciate the hypocrisy displayed by that Chinese matter?  The SSPX, seeking to preserve their order and the Tradition of the Church, petitioned the Vatican for months to address their concerns and allow them a mandate to ordain those men.  Pope Leo et al not only stiff-armed them, but pronounced them excommunicated (canonical laws were violated, but that is another discussion).  On the other hand, Red China, overt haters of the Faith, put forth their candidate and he is immediately approved by the pope..

On the surface, that doesn't appear to make sense.  It does, though, if the reader finally accepts some very unpleasant but also very obvious truths.  All these aberrations have the same end - the destruction of the Faith and absolute disdain for Our Lord.

Are we going to let this happen?