Seismic Noose Tightening Around Rome: Destruction May Be Imminent

Since the earthquakes in August and October that destroyed the town of Norcia and killed 300 people, I have been following seismic activity in the area.  Over the past week or so, there have been tremors surrounding Rome in almost every direction, with the epicenters getting closer and closer, closing in on Rome itself.

As I write, there are have been three very strong quakes north of Rome, all in the mid-5 magnitude range within the last hour.

I am receiving many messages from contacts in Rome. They are scared.

I believe that these are pre-shocks to a possible magnitude 7 quake, which could destroy Rome for all intents and purposes.  As you know, I have been warning of this for a while.  We have the objective realities of the Bergoglian antipapacy, along with the objective reality of sodomites using the Vatican and even St. Peter’s Basilica itself as a bathhouse, along with prophecy and warnings for over a century that Rome would apostasize and be destroyed.

More recently, just a few weeks ago, in fact, the miraculous blood of St. Januarius in Naples (just south of Rome at the base of Mount Vesuvius), FAILED TO LIQUEFY, which portends disaster, and reliably so. READ MORE HERE.

Here is the link to the earthquake feed that I watch.  It tends to be about a six minute lag.


St. Philip Neri, pray for us.

Lord, have mercy.
Christ, have mercy.
Lord, have mercy.

Cutting the Crap: 32 Questions and Blunt Answers About The Catholic Church and Antipope Bergoglio

Judging by my email box and various comment threads around the internet, more and more people are being scandalized and losing their faith every day.  One of the reasons people are scandalized is because everything they read in the conservative or traditional wing of The Church is deeply unsatisfying, and even irrational and nonsensical, oftentimes requiring the willful suspension of disbelief to swallow. The reason for this is the simple fact that nearly everyone is operating on the false premise that Jorge Bergoglio is the Vicar of Christ. He is not, and never was.  So long as a person is operating from a false base premise, reality CAN NOT be accurately apprehended, and the logical conclusions drawn from the false base premise will be themselves false, as well.

This is why reading almost ALL commentary on Bergoglio and the destruction of The Church as it is unfolding before our very eyes gives the sensation of mashing the throttle of a car that is stuck in the mud – engines revving to redline, but never, ever any forward motion.  Wheel spinning.  Because the base premise is false, there is no and will never be any traction or momentum.

There is no hope of resolving this situation until the base premise is TRUE, namely, that Bergoglio is not now and never was the pope. None.

In this piece I will use a question-and-answer format. I will endeavor to be as blunt and direct as possible. I hope it helps, and encourage its copying, reprinting (in whole or in part), and general distribution, almost as a reference guide.

Question 1: What is the deal with Pope Benedict XVI “retiring”?

It has now become clear the Joseph Ratzinger was told by a group of homosexual Cardinals calling themselves the “St. Gallen Mafia”, led by Cardinal Carlo Martini, that he would be permitted to elected pope, but that if he was still alive after eight years, that he would then resign, and if he didn’t resign that he would be forced out, likely with threats of blackmail.

St. Gallen Mafia admission citation HERE.

Citation that the Ratzinger election and papacy was “pre-programmed” by Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, and that Martini ordered Ratzinger to “resign” in ARSH 2012, HERE.

Question 2: So was Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation valid?

No.  Pope Benedict’s resignation was invalid, and obviously so. To argue otherwise requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Canon 188 states:

A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.

Question 3:  Which criterion of Canon 188 invalidates Ratzinger’s attempted resignation?

All of them, except simony, which is bribing or paying off. However, the clearest criterion, which has been explained at length by Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, and by the clear, objective evidence of Pope Benedict’s actions, is the criterion of Substantial Error.  Pope Benedict believed that he could fundamentally transform the office of the papacy into a collegial or synodal office by “partially resigning”.  He believes that he has abdicated the “active” aspect of the Petrine Office, but retains the “contemplative” aspect.  More on that later.

Secondarily, we now know that the homosexualist St. Gallen Mafia instilled grave fear in Ratzinger, which was certainly unjust and obviously malicious.  Upon his election in ARSH 2005, one of the first things Pope Benedict said was “Pray for me that I do not flee for FEAR of the wolves.”

Question 4:  What is Pope Benedict afraid of? Is he blackmailable?

Because The Church has been so thoroughly infiltrated by homosexuals, EVERY PRELATE without exception could be linked to homosexual priests under his jurisdiction.  I think it is safe to say that every churchman is now one degree of separation from a sodomite, and thus every churchman COULD be accused of sins of omission, namely, “Why didn’t you say or do anything about…”. Sodomites are, by definition, ruthless Diabolical narcissists, and have no problem throwing their own under the bus in order to increase their own power.

Question 5: But other popes have resigned previously, right?

Yes, other popes have resigned.  In fact, Pope Benedict XVI visited the tomb of Celestine V in ARSH 2007 and very, very conspicuously left his papal stole on the tomb, which we now understand was a signal to the St. Gallen Mafia that he was fully planning to “resign”.  Pope Benedict XVI is an intelligent, studious man.  He clearly researched and was well-informed of the history of papal resignations, and yet has done everything in his actions to communicate the incomplete nature of his attempted resignation.

Reportage of Pope Benedict XVI visiting Pope Celestine V relics twice.

Question 6: What about Pope Benedict’s actions after his attempted resignation were different?

First, Pope Benedict chose to retain the title of “Pope”.  Because the Petrine Office was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself, it cannot be changed, altered, modified, transformed or evolved in any way – not even by The Pope himself. There is no such thing as a “Pope Emeritus”, and just because a retired bishop can be called “Bishop Emeritus” this has NO BEARING on whether there can be a “pope emeritus” because of the singularity and supernatural character of the Papacy.  A bishop is not the Vicar of Christ.  The papacy is unique and singular and has never, does never and will never provide for an “emeritus”. There can only be one living pope at a time, and since Pope Benedict’s resignation was made in substantial error, and in fear unjustly and maliciously inflicted upon him, his resignation was invalid, he never ceased to be The Pope, and he retains the fullness of the Petrine Office until he either dies, or resigns in accord with the law, which at this point is simply impossible.

Cardinal Brandmuller and Bishop Sciacca both demolish the notion of a “pope emeritus” HERE.

John Paul II declared the notion of a “pope emeritus” impossible after being diagnosed with Parkinson’s Disease.

Second, Pope Benedict retained the Papal style, Your Holiness. Only the Pope is addressed as “Your Holiness” / “His Holiness”. He likewise chose to retain his Papal Name and, in clear contradiction to the previous popes who had resigned, did NOT revert to his baptismal name, Joseph Ratzinger.  By retaining his Papal name and style, he is clearly communicating his belief that he is still a participant in the Petrine Office, which he is – he is the EXCLUSIVE holder of the Petrine Office.  To argue that this studious, conscientious man has done all of this as a mere flippant oversight once again requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Third, Pope Benedict freely chose to continue to wear the Papal white cassock.  Upon his departure from the Vatican in February of ARSH 2013, Pope Benedict sent the clear signal that he believed himself to still be a holder of the Petrine Office.  He was asked immediately why he did not follow the clear precedent of all previous popes who had resigned by reverting to the black cassock.  His answer was stunning in its dishonesty.  He said that he was wearing the Papal White because there were no black cassocks for him to wear.  He publicly announced his “resignation” nineteen days before he “left office”.  The notion that there was not a single black cassock anywhere in the city of Rome, or that no one in Rome could have made him – the Vicar of Christ – a black cassock in NINETEEN DAYS had he requested it, is, very simply, a boldfaced lie.

Fourth, Pope Benedict defied all previous precedence with regards to Papal resignations, by choosing to continue to live INSIDE THE VATICAN.  All previous popes that resigned LEFT ROME so as to avoid ANY appearance of retaining the papacy or possible confusion to the faithful on the question.

So, we have a man, with the title “Pope”, addressed by the Papal style, “His Holiness”, wearing the Papal white, living inside the Vatican. Once again, to argue that Pope Benedict XVI is completely oblivious to the optics of this requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Pope Benedict’s personal secretary, Archbishop Georg Ganswein, confirming the above:

From the election of his successor, Pope Francis—on 13 March 2013—there are not then two Popes, but de facto an enlarged ministry with an active and a contemplative member. For this reason, Benedict has not renounced either his name or his white cassock. For this reason, the correct title with which we must refer to him is still “Holiness.” Furthermore, he has not retired to an isolated monastery, but [has retired] within the Vatican, as if he had simply stepped aside to make space for his Successor, and for a new stage in the history of the Papacy, which he, with that step, has enriched with the centrality of [prayer] and of compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.

Question 7: Is it possible that Pope Benedict XVI is just stupid?

No.  To argue that requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Question 8: Why is Pope Francis saying and doing things that are in direct opposition to Jesus Christ and His Holy Church? I thought that was impossible?

“Pope Francis” IS NOT THE POPE.  Jorge Bergoglio is an antipope, falsely elected in an invalid conclave because Pope Benedict never validly resigned the papacy.  Therefore BERGOGLIO HAS ABSOLUTELY NO PARTICIPATION IN THE PETRINE OFFICE, INCLUDING THE CHARISM OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY.  As an antipope, Bergoglio is completely free to say and do things which are heretical, apostate and even satanic, because none of the supernatural protections of the papacy apply to Bergoglio, because Bergoglio is not now and never was the pope. Antipope Bergoglio hates God and His Holy Church and is hellbent on destroying it. All of his intentions toward the Church are malevolent. He is a servant of satan, carrying out a satanic agenda.

Question 9: Isn’t Pope Benedict XVI a heretic for doing what he has done, and thus no longer the Pope either?

Pope Benedict XVI is indeed a heretic and is now the worst pope in the history of The Church, BUT this makes his papacy ILLICIT, but still VALID.  It is absolutely essential to understand the difference between LICAITY and VALIDITY.  At this point I would refer you to an excellent essay by Fr. Brian Harrison, penned in ARSH 2000, and thus completely unprejudiced with regards to current events.

“A Heretical Pope Would Govern The Church Illicitly But Validly”

Question 10: But wouldn’t this same concept of “illicit yet valid” apply to Bergoglio as well?

Absolutely not, because Bergoglio’s election was itself invalid.  The question of Bergoglio’s heresy and apostasy is moot with regards to the papacy because Jorge Bergoglio is not now and never has been the Pope.

Question 11: So if a pope who is a heretic is illicit yet valid, that means that the sedevacantists have been wrong all along?

Yes.  Pope John XXIII was almost certainly a Freemason.  Paul VI was a raging sodomite and pro-Communist. John Paul II was a phenomenologist and kissed the satanic tome of the musloids, the koran, and his so-called “Theology of the Body” is deeply heretical.  Pope Benedict’s metaphysics are so warped as to be not even properly called “metaphysics”, revolving around “meaning” and not “being”.   And yet, all were/are popes, valid yet illicit.

Question 12: Has Pope Benedict’s warped notion of metaphysics informed his actions with regards to the papacy?

Yes.  Pope Benedict thinks that the defining criterion of something’s existence is what it MEANS, not what it IS.  And so, he thinks that it is not important what the papacy IS, but what it MEANS, and thus it is free to be redefined, even if that redefinition defies the principle of non-contradiction. Thus, Pope Benedict thinks that he can both be and not be the Pope – he can be the “contemplative pope”, but simultaneously not be the pope, because the papacy is a matter not of being, but of meaning.

Question 13: Is it possible that this warped notion of metaphysics is a function of Pope Benedict being stupid?

No.  Just because someone is wrong, does not mean they are stupid.  In fact, it is intelligent people that make the most enormous mistakes. You will never meet a person with Down’s Syndrome that denies the realness of reality, but there are trainloads of geniuses that do. And remember that Lucifer, the largest intellect created by God, rebelled against Him.

Question 14: Why do people like Cardinal Burke keep saying that Pope Francis isn’t a heretic, and they are not accusing him of heresy?

Because Cardinal Burke and pretty much everyone else are operating on the false base premise that Bergoglio is the pope, and they think that they cannot say anything “against the Pope”.  BERGOGLIO IS NOT THE POPE. While Cardinal Burke claims that he is intensely concerned about saying anything “against the Pope” or damaging the authority of the Petrine Office, the truth is that CALLING A MAN WHO IS NOT THE POPE, “THE POPE”, IS THE MOST DAMAGING THING ONE CAN DO TO THE CREDIBILITY AND AUTHORITY OF THE PETRINE OFFICE.  Further, when Cardinal Burke says that he is not accusing Bergoglio of being a heretic, he is obviously dissimulating.  In the five Dubia questions submitted to Bergoglio, the first question addresses heresy, and the other four questions address apostasy, namely the denial of objective morality and the denial of objective truth.

Question 15: Could it be that Cardinal Burke and everyone else are afraid?

Yes.  Absolutely. To his credit, Cardinal Burke recently said in an interview that he feared standing before Christ at his judgment and being asked why he didn’t defend Our Lord and The Truth.  Sadly, Cardinal Burke is not nearly afraid enough, because he continues to try to live with one foot in The Truth of Christ, and the other in the lie of the Bergoglian antipapacy, Novus Ord-ism and Vatican Two-ism.

Question 16: What are they afraid of? Why won’t anyone talk openly about this?

They are afraid of

a. Jeopardizing their career tracks or status
b. Jeopardizing their cash flows (this applies to bloggers, news outlets, anyone who lives off of The Church in any way)
c. Incurring social stigma and being socially ridiculed or rejected (do not underestimate this dynamic)
d. Being exposed/blackmailed for either sexual sins or financial crimes

Question 17: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that the papacy really isn’t that important.  This contradicts not only what I was taught, but common sense.

The papacy is extremely important.  In fact, it is so important that Our Lord instituted it BEFORE He founded the Church at Pentecost. To argue that the Papacy isn’t important is irrational, effeminate, and explicitly contrary to the words and actions of Jesus Christ in the Holy Gospels, and thus completely uncatholic.

Question 18: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that we can’t know who the pope is.  Can that be right?

No, that is clearly wrong.  The truth is objective, external to ourselves, and above all, KNOWABLE. If the identity of the pope is unknowable, then the papacy itself is irrelevant.  If the papacy itself is irrelevant, then the Church is irrelevant.  If the Church is irrelevant, then Christ is irrelevant. If Christ is irrelevant, then Christ is not God. If Christ is not God, then nothing, and i mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, matters. People who argue that the identity of the pope is unknowable are effeminate and are under one or more of the four categories of fear in Question 16.

Question 19: Several trad bloggers I read argue that who the pope is isn’t our problem, and we should just leave it to future generations to deal with. Can that be right?

No, that is not right. It is a lie from the pit of hell, promulgated by wildly effeminate people who reject the notion that they should be asked or even expected to take up their cross and deal with objective reality. It is the narcissistic, adolescent mindset of pathologically weaseling out of all responsibility.  Imagine if the Apsotles had argued that none of them could ever know whether or not Christ was Divine, and that the question should be left to future generations to decide, and thus it was impossible for them to fulfill the Great Commission, much less die as martyrs.

Question 20: Several trad bloggers I read argue that what is going on in the Church right now, and with Bergoglio, is actually no big deal. Can that be right?

No, that is very, very, very wrong.  Countless souls are being lost to hell every day, and will continue to be lost to hell until Our Lord returns in Glory, because of this.  This is perhaps the single most important thing that has happened since the Pentecost. To minimize the importance of The Church being infiltrated and an antipope installed who is systematically and rapidly destroying The Church down to its foundations, scandalizing countless souls into eternal, unending damnation, never to see God, is of unquantifiable importance.  Anyone who argues otherwise is wildly, wildly effeminate.

Question 21: Several trad bloggers that I read argue that this has all happened before.  Is that right?

No, that is absolutely wrong.  Never before in the history of The Church has there been an antipope who has denied the existence of objective moral norms, denied the existence of truth, and effectively attempted to abrogate the Ten Commandments and the Seven Sacraments, denied the existence of hell, called The Great Commission “sinful”, or actively fomented and encouraged adultery and Eucharistic sacrilege. Never.  Not even close.  Not even the Arian Schism approaches this.  Anyone who argues otherwise is dissimulating.

Question 22:  Why doesn’t Pope Benedict say or do anything?

It is a combination of pride, weakness, and possible blackmail/coercion. Furthermore, if Pope Benedict asserts his authority in any way, he will be acknowledging the illegitimacy of his resignation, and thus has painted himself into a corner.

Question 23: Is Bergoglio going to come after the Traditional Mass? Some trad bloggers I read say Bergoglio doesn’t care about liturgy one way of the other.

Yes, Bergoglio will eventually come after the Trad Mass.  The driver behind Bergoglio is satan, and satan cares very, very, very much about liturgy, and desperately wants to eliminate the Venerable Gregorian Rite from the face of the earth, and eventually the Rite of John Chrysostom and all of the other venerable Catholic Rites of the Holy Sacrifice. The notion that Antipope Bergoglio “doesn’t care”, especially in light of his ruthless attacks on traditional orders, and his incessant insults directed obviously at Traditional Catholics, is a position that requires the willful suspension of disbelief.

Question 24: If Bergoglio rescinds Summorum Pontificum and abrogates the Mass of the Ages, what should priests do?

WHY would a priest obey an antipope? Bergoglio has as much authority to overturn Summorum Pontificum as I do – NONE.  Again, the question is asked from the foundation of a false premise, namely that Bergoglio is the pope.  BERGOGLIO IS NOT THE POPE.

Question 25: What is the path forward barring supernatural intervention?

The only path forward is to declare Bergoglio antipope, forcibly remove him, and then WAIT FOR POPE BENEDICT XVI TO DIE. If a conclave were to be called after the removal of Bergoglio, but before the death of Pope Benedict, the man “elected” at that conclave would be every bit as much an antipope as Bergoglio, no matter how orthodox he might be.  The only way to be certain that this mess is cleared up is to wait for Pope Benedict XVI to die.  This was what The Church did after the resignation of Pope Gregory XII, and this was how the Great Western Schism was ended.

Question 26: What are the odds of this happening without supernatural intervention?

Epsilon above zero.

Question 27:  Why is this happening? Why is God permitting this? Doesn’t He love us?

This is happening because God is very angry, and we deserve it. Of course He loves us, and what this situation affords us is the chance to stand up for Jesus Christ, His Holy Church, and His Vicar on Earth, and declare the truth in circumstances never before seen in the history of The Church.  This is the chance for the Remnant Faithful to stand up and scream that the Church has been infiltrated, that the Novus Ordo must be abrogated and that the Second Vatican Council was a failed council that should be burned to ash and thrown onto the garbage heap of history.

God has also permitted this because it shows us exactly what the logical conclusion of Modernism, Vatican Two-ism and Novus Ordo-ism looks like, without having the papacy fall into the hands of an open apostate.

Question 28: Is it possible that Antipope Bergoglio is the Antichrist or False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist?

Antichrist, no.  False Prophet Forerunner, yes, that seems not only possible, but probable.

Question 29: Is it possible that Bergoglio is a satanist?

Yes, it is possible.

Question 30: Is it possible that Bergoglio is demonically possessed?

It is a foregone conclusion that Bergoglio is demonically OPPRESSED. Possession is possible, but unlikely, as satan has no need to possess a person who is fully on board with the satanic agenda of his own free will, as Bergoglio clearly is.

Question 31:  Shouldn’t we keep this quiet?  Won’t talking about this drive people away from The Church? Who would want to join a Church that is under attack by satan?

No.  The truth, even when horrifically ugly, is always authentically attractive.  What drives people away is the effeminacy and obvious dissimulation of failing to acknowledge that Bergoglio is an antipope.  Further, the false premise of Bergoglio being the pope immediately leads to the logical corollary that The Church is false and irrelevant, and thus that Jesus Christ is irrelevant, and thus that everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is thus irrelevant.

It is precisely because The Church, the Mass, the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the Papacy and the Law are under attack by satan that so compellingly demonstrates that they are all true, good and beautiful.  Not only does the truth of the situation not drive people away, it inspires them to join up.

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness:  But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 1: 23-25

Question 32:  Should I stop going to Mass?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. What you should do is move heaven and earth to attend a Traditional Mass or Divine Liturgy, and then go every single day humanly possible, and spend as much time as possible before the Blessed Sacrament, and go to confession frequently.  Do whatever it takes, right now, to find a good parish or chapel. If you wait until The Remnant Church is forced completely underground, you will have a much harder time.  This is precisely what the parable of the wise and foolish virgins is about, folks.  At some point, the door will close, and if you are one of the foolish virgins who got caught without any oil in your lamp, and had to scramble to find any, it will, at some point, be too late, and the Bridegroom will close the door.  You have been warned.  It is obvious what is happening.  No one will have any excuse.

Go to Our Lord, kneel before Him and BEG HIM to provide for you and your family to always be able to go to Mass. Beg Him to show you the way and illumine the path for you, as He illumined the path of the Magi. Beg Him to fill your lamp with oil Himself, and to keep it always full.  Beg Mary, Mother of The Church, to intercede for you.  Beg St. Joseph, Patron of The Universal Church, to lead you to safety as he led Our Lord and Our Lady on the flight to Egypt.

I hope this helps.

Christ, have mercy on us.


Why Even Cardinal Burke Is Unsound….

Cardinal Burke, despite his efforts, is also fundamentally unsound on the question of people who are “divorced and remarried” publicly receiving Holy Communion so long as they are living in continence, that is, not having sexual relations with each other.

Sorry, but no.  Here is the truth of how this situation worked before the infiltration and attack on The Church concurrent with the failed Second Vatican Council.

When two people who were civilly remarried after a civil divorce reverted to Catholicism and could not separate (generally due to having minor children), and necessarily stopped having sex with each other because they fully acknowledged the truth that they were NOT married to each other and that any conjugal contact would be mortally sinful, even then, these people would NEVER receive Holy Communion publicly, or if they did, it would be in a parish very far away where they were totally unknown.

Think about it.  Everyone assumes that married couples have sex with each other.  Do we honestly believe that The Church would want people to PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE AND ADVERTISE their sexual activity (or lack thereof)? Of course not.  So, what Cardinal Burke is advocating is for people who are “living as brother and sister” to do by receiving Holy Communion publicly is either:

A.) Continue to scandalize the faithful who justly assume that all “married” couples have sex with each other, OR

B.) Require the “married” couple to publicly announce on a continual basis that they are not having sex.

This is insane.

There should be NO PUBLIC RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION by people who are living as a married couple with anyone other than their true spouse. Period. The concession of permitting people to continue to cohabit in continence for the sake of rearing children is already a massive, massive concession.  But there is simply no way that such “brother-and-sister” couples can receive Holy Communion publicly, or in a parish in which they are known, because scandal is the byproduct either way, either by the just assumption of the community of the couple’s sexual activity, OR the couples’ persistent public discussion of their sex life, which is a scandal unto itself.

Nope.  Sorry.  This whole discussion is actually built on a false premise to begin with.  Even Cardinal Burke is unsound, which really isn’t surprising, considering that he believes that the failed Second Vatican Council is anything other than the satanic dumpster fire that it so obviously is. The logical progression is simple, PLUS we have the tradition of The Church and the clear historical precedent for dealing with these situations right in front of us.  And yet, even one of the “greatest minds” in the Church today discards both in favor of an illogical and unprecedented non-solution solution.

Oh, and he also thinks Bergoglio is the pope.  Or, at least that is what he says in public.  That is another clue.

Man, if I were a reporter and I could interview Cardinal Burke, I’d put this fairly simple logical corollary to him and not let him weasel his way out of it. Enough of this effeminate “third way” crap. Enough.

Benefactor Masses: Now Up to THREE per Week!!

A quick bit of very good news:  We are now up to THREE Benefactor Masses per week.  They are on





Talk about starting the week off right!

If any other priests would like to commit to commemorating “Ann’s Benefactors and Supporters” on Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday, let me know!  Either the Venerable Gregorian Rite (Tridentine Mass) OR Divine Liturgy would be fine.  And as always, the rules for “Ann’s Benefactors and Supporters” is once you are on the list, you are on the list forever, even if you decide that you hate me.  And God is the keeper of the list, so it is error-free and 100% secure.  The prayer is for the Salvation of your souls first and foremost, and for your intentions generally.

I would say, “I wish I could do more,” but I don’t want to play-down the enormousness and the movement of grace that comes from having The Holy Sacrifice offered for you while you are yet alive.  The saints and doctors agree that the multiplier relative to Masses offered for the repose of the souls of the dead is substantial. And that stands to reason, if you think about it.  Here is an excellent quote I came across from a Dominican priest:
Father Cole OP writes, “While it is important to keep in mind that Masses for the deceased do help them, one Mass offered for anyone living will have a greater efficacy for that person because in this life all are capable of freely cooperating with any grace and the graces of a Mass may even change the direction of someone’s life including one’s own. However, it may be that a particular grace of a Mass is not accepted for many years which is why one must take a long term view of supplications for loved ones still on earth. Even more, one needs to take an even longer term perspective when praying for the poor souls because we do not see what we are doing to help them. We only know by faith that we are helping them.”

So, once again, thank you for your continued munificence, and remember, Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays are all now days in which the Holy Sacrifice of Calvary is offered for you.



A Parable About a Taco Bell

(Sorry for the dearth of posts. There was some Christmastide travel, guests visiting, and now, the annual post-Christmas chest cold. Yuck!)

When I was a kid, we had two Mexican fast-food joints: Taco Grande and Taco John’s.  Then, when I was about ten, Taco Bell came to town and built from a dirt-start a brand new Taco Bell on a formerly empty lot.  I never liked Taco Bell, and never ate there.  I preferred Taco John’s.

Fast-forward 12-15 years.  I am now in my early 20s, have been gone from the Kansas City area for many years, and have given exactly zero thought to the hometown Taco Bell.  I get a call from someone back in the ancestral homeland who tells me, “Hey, they razed the Taco Bell.”

“What happened? Did it burn?”  After all, why would they raze a building that was less than 15 years old?  Surely there must have been a fire, and razing the remains was the cheapest option, right?


It turned out that inspectors had discovered that the building was so filthy and thus so overrun with cockroaches that even intense treatments from professional fumigation and pest-control firms were ineffective in clearing the building of cockroaches.  So, the only path forward was to raze the building, haul away the cockroach-infested debris, apply pesticide to the pad and surrounding area, and build a brand new building.

Folks, this is what is going to have to happen in Rome.  Because people have failed to take any meaningful steps against the infiltration of faggots into The Church, and especially in Rome itself, Rome is now like the Taco Bell – the only way to clear Rome of the faggots is to destroy Rome.  And I mean physically.

The faggots are absolutely everywhere in Rome, and as much as it pains me to say it, some of the worst, most spectacularly evil, most notorious, sacrilegious, and most enthusiastic of them are on the so-called “right” or “conservative” or “traditional” side of the spectrum.  And it makes sense.  Where can satan still do the most damage? Where does it benefit satan to hide at this late hour? Amongst the Remnant Church.  As long as they remain hidden, like the filthy cockroaches they are, they can continue to privately scandalize, subvert and sabotage.  If they are publicly exposed, the resulting scandal will cause even more people to either leave The Church (usually for Eastern Orthodoxy or sedevacantist cults) or to lose their faith entirely. Either way, satan wins.

Fifty years of looking the other way, not saying anything, treating homosexuality as a joke or a novelty, when it is, in fact, a never-sufficiently-execrated depravity and a capital crime, and specifically in Rome, where faggots are literally meeting up for sacrilegious sodomy INSIDE ST. PETER’S BASILICA, and then turning around and serving the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or Divine Liturgy a few hours later across town, now the cockroaches are coming home to roost. It is too late get rid of them one-by-one, because they saturate the structure.

If you do your duty and keep the structure clean, you won’t get cockroaches.  If you aggressively attack and exterminate cockroaches at their first appearance, you have a chance to save the structure.  If you pretend not to see them, laugh them off, or even call them “cute” and “harmless”, or worst of all say, “That isn’t a cockroach!  That is a fluffy little bunny! How dare you say that sweet, innocent, fluffy little bunny is a cockroach!”, they will eventually necessitate the complete demolition of the structure.

"Those aren't roaches! They're fluffy bunnies that talk funny and act like girls because they are so intelligent and misunderstood!"

“Those aren’t roaches! They’re fluffy bunnies that talk funny and act like girls because they are so intelligent and misunderstood!”

And only after the complete destruction of the structure will rebuilding be possible. And that is where we are.  We have failed spectacularly to keep the Church clean, and when the first signs came, we denied there was a problem.  Now, God will do what we refused to do.

The aching tragedy in all of this is that a Taco Bell can be thrown back up in a matter of weeks.  The Sistine Chapel and the rest of the artistic, cultural and ecclesial patrimony of Rome can never be replaced.  But, as we all heard when we were children, “THIS is why we can’t have nice things – because you won’t take care of them.” Indeed.  The chastisement is coming, and it is for all of us, because we have all been complicit in our silence and negligence.  In The House of The Lord, EVERYONE is responsible for helping to keep things clean.


Mailbag: A Heterosexual (aka NORMAL) Celibate Priest Weighs In

Dear Ann,

A blessed and merry Christmas to you.

Thank you for your blog posts and videos, many of which I have found very helpful in understanding the current insanity in the Church and the world. I am particularly thankful for your recent posts on clerical celibacy and continence.

In the novus ordo Church, even before Pope Frankenstein the Merciful, there is a common notion that allowing a priest to be laicized, so he can marry a woman, is a merciful concession to human weakness.


I am a priest, and I am strongly attracted to women. I can understand the idea that allowing a priest to continue in his ministry after he has fallen into sexual sin (and therefore also sacrilege) with a woman and repented is a merciful concession to human weakness. By the grace of God I have never fallen into such sin as a priest, but I can easily understand how it’s possible.

Laicization and marriage is completely different. Repentance, and therefore true mercy, which requires repentance to be effective, is totally absent. In its place is substituted the cleaning up of a canonically irregular situation. A priest violates his grave obligation of continence by getting it on with a woman, and possibly also violates his obligation of celibacy by invalidly attempting civil marriage with her; and the response of the ecclesiastical authorities is to dispense him from his obligations and allow him to marry her validly in the Church.

Um, no. That doesn’t help. It actually hurts. A lot.

Although it may mean his future copulation with his wife isn’t mortally sinful, it does nothing to purge him of the guilt of his previous mortal sins of fornication, sacrilege, and abandoning his priestly ministry. On the contrary, by receiving a nice signed and sealed rescript from Rome, he is encouraged to believe that he has done the right thing, and is now “right with the Church.” Of course that’s not true. As alter Christus, he was espoused to the Bride of Christ, and has now abandoned Her for some trull that he found more to his liking. His repentance now will almost require a miracle. He will very probably burn in Hell for all eternity, with the blessing of his bishop and the Pope. And how they will avoid burning in Hell for helping him get there, I don’t know.

My moral theology professor in seminary, Fr. Romanus Cessario, O.P., told us that “A priest who leaves for a woman is the scum of the earth.” I see more and more how right he was. Such priests–and they are many–simply declare that they love copulation more than they love God and His Mother. God have mercy on them.

The painful irony, so typical of the post-conciliar Church, is that Fr. Cessario, an excellent teacher of unimpeachable orthodoxy, is also a close friend of the very politically connected woman whose daughter’s scandalous marriage to a priest you recently referred to.

I wish I could draw some pithy conclusion from this, but I can’t, so I’m going to have a beer, read some P.G. Wodehouse, and go to bed. May God bless you and your work. And may He have mercy on His poor Church.



A Heartfelt Thanks and Warmest Christmas Wishes

I know that I don’t do enough, and don’t write enough here.  But, as so many people say, “reading Barnhardt generally makes me want to go hang myself.” Yes, I know. If it makes you feel that bad reading it, try to imagine how it feels to write it.  The past two years, especially, have been one staggering, soul-killing scandal and disappointment after another, seasoned liberally with natural disaster. I wish I could say that I see a turnaround coming – I know many of you believe that this Trump situation is just that.  I’m sorry that I can’t join in the sentiment.  I think ARSH 2017 is going to be a year in which God’s wrath is unleashed, and the angel’s cry of “Penence! Penance! Penance!” Will ring out over the earth.  So, please, enjoy this Christmas. Savor the little things.

One thing that I was thinking that I would like to do for my benefactors and supporters (y’all), if possible, is increase the number of Masses that are said for them.  Right now, we are at one Mass per week.  If I could find six more priests who celebrate either the Traditional Roman Rite OR the Divine Liturgy  and would be willing to commemorate my benefactors and supporters one day per week, we could have The Holy Sacrifice of Calvary offered for your intentions and the salvation of your souls EVERY DAY.  Any priests who might be interested, please drop me an email.

Please be assured of my daily prayers for you, such as they are, both in the Rosary and at Mass, specifically at the elevation of The Host, as the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ is eternally offered to The Father, with the deepest gratitude for your consistent munificence.  I will try to continue writing and posting things that help in clarifying current events, and sounding the warning on the dangers – of which there are a seemingly inexhaustible supply – bearing down on us.  The point of this website was and is, hopefully, just to help.  The fact that it keeps me fed and watered, and with a roof over my head, and a source of heat, and an internet connection, is not and was never my intention.  It just worked out that way, whether I like it or not. Be assured that in the deep recesses of my ethnically German-Protestant soul, I consider myself, at least partially, a fraud, my living at least partially dishonest, and expect that I will answer for this at my judgment.  Are these the pangs of genuine conscience, or satan trying to get me to shut up?  I doubt I will ever know the answer, firmly, in this life.  But I know I’ll find out at my Particular Judgment.

So, please, please have a Merry Christmas.  Try to help the people around you have a Merry Christmas, too.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of goodwill.

The Nativity of Christ, Matteo Rosselli, ARSH 1620, Church of Saints Michael and Cajetan, Florence, early 1600s.

The Nativity of Christ, Matteo Rosselli, early 1600s, Church of Saints Michael and Cajetan, Florence.


Diabolical Narcissism in Film: SCROOGE (ARSH 1951)

The best film version of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol” is the version made in ARSH 1951 starring Alastair Sim as everyone’s favorite Diabolical Narcissist usurious Jew, Ebeneezer Scrooge.

The Scrooge character is a classic DN.  He is a cerebral narcissist – highly successful in his profession, a miser, caring for nothing but “his work”, sitting alone in his room every night, lovelessly single, devoid of human empathy, haughty, critical and disdainful of everyone and everything, looking down on and actively resentful of normal, loving people – embodied by his clark, whom he psychologically abuses, Bob Cratchit, and his family. Love, joy, gratitude and generosity disgust and enrage Scrooge. He hates occasions of happiness, and actively seeks to disrupt and destroy them, especially holidays.  The people around him walk on eggshells to his face – but either pity or dislike him behind his back.  In the “Ghost of Christmas Future” act, Scrooge is genuinely surprised to discover that almost everyone is glad that he is dead – the exception being Bob Cratchit himself, the most direct recipient of Scrooge’s abuse.  Bob Cratchit is thus a metaphor for Christ.

The reason why “A Christmas Carol” is so compelling is because the healing of Scrooge from Diabolical Narcissism is, basically, a miracle.  We love to watch the story unfold because it is such a beautiful and hopeful story.  And so rare.  And, you do realize that the implication at the end is that because of the Christian Cratchet family, Scrooge converts to Christianity, right? “And it was always said that he knew how to keep Christmas well….”

But, what I want to show you is the scene in which Scrooge becomes a Diabolical Narcissist.  It is very clearly depicted in the “Ghost of Christmas Past” act.  Up until that point, Scrooge has revisited his pre-DN youth, although it is revealed that Ebeneezer’s father was cruel towards him because he blamed him for the death of Ebeneezer’s mother.  Ebeneezer had a beautiful girlfriend, Alice, to whom he even gave a ring, declaring, “Oh dearest Alice! If ever I have a change of heart towards you, it will be because my heart has ceased to beat!”  Well – sort of, as it turned out.

Ebeneezer makes the conscious decision to purge all love from his heart upon the death, in childbirth, of his sister Fan.  At her death bed, after she loses consciousness, Scrooge rises and as he is walking away, Fan’s newborn son cries out from his crib.  Scrooge stops, looks at the child with rage in his heart, and in that moment – and you can see it clearly – makes the conscious decision to NEVER LOVE ANYONE OR ANYTHING EVER AGAIN.

And that’s it.

The interesting thing about Scrooge is that he chose Diabolical Narcissism when he was in his 20’s.  The older a person is when they descend, the “easier” it is to come out of Diabolical Narcissism.  But it is still a miracle.  For those poor souls who descended into DN as children, the odds against them are heavily stacked.  But even then, children who descended into DN due to abuse (usually sexual abuse), at least have the ability to recognize the damage that was done to them, and that they were a pure victim of.  The DNs that are the most deeply ingrained, and most profoundly loveless, and for whom miraculous, supernatural intervention is required, are the DNs that were not abused in the conventional sense, but rather deified as children, and thus chose to purge themselves of love in order to “live up” to the hype of their own superiority and “otherness” fed to them by their parents and/or teachers.

Sit in stillness with that.  Do you realize that our entire education system and youth culture revolves around the deification of the child, and has for decades now?  And THAT is the toughest genesis of Diabolical Narcissism to break.

Anyway, here is “Scrooge”, perfect viewing on Christmas Eve night, before heading out to Midnight Mass. The deathbed scene begins at 32:22.  The exact moment when Scrooge becomes a DN is at 33:40. In that moment he says internally, “That’s it. I will not love.” And the ensuing decades are needless tragedy and waste….

Prayers Answered: Feedback on Priestly Celibacy

My prayer today before the Blessed Sacrament was that more convert priests who are married learn about and move toward sexual continence.

Prayer answered. Read on. Bold emphases mine.

BLUF (Bottom line up front): I am in complete agreement, and am enormously grateful for the witness given by my brother convert priest.

Coming into the Church, clerical continence was not something mentioned, even once, in our formation. The dispensation from clerical celibacy, authorized only by the hand of the Holy Father himself (Pope Benedict XVI for so many of us, including me), was all that our leadership addressed.

More than a year after my ordination to the priesthood, I ran across the very serious discussion regarding this particular question, and I have been firmly convicted about continence since that time. I do not think one can argue against it theologically with any intellectual integrity. Canonical arguments, however, abound. I have asked two vicars-general (one of whom is a professor of canon law) and a judicial vicar (also a professor) about this particular question. The two responses that I have received have been: 1) do not worry about it unless your leadership worries about it, and 2) unless a canon directly and explicitly revokes a right already held (in this case, the conjugal rights of husband and wife), then such rights are not revoked, even by entry into the clerical state. I know many who would agree whole-heartedly with these responses. I also know many, lay and cleric, who advocate for adopting the Eastern discipline. Some even go so far as to the slippery-slope that your article explicates. It’s a terrifying thought, to be honest.

The first time I mentioned becoming Catholic to my wife was months after I’d been praying, reading, thinking, and discussing it with older men whom I respected, both Catholic and non-Catholic. I did not know what her response would be, though. When I told her that, “I think God is leading us to become Catholic,” her response was, “I’m thinking the same thing.” I viewed it as a work of confirmation though the Holy Spirit. […personal information redacted…]

Corporately, I pray that our leaders will finally address it at some point, as I am not the only one who has brought it up. Because my wife and I have not come to a joint decision in this regard, I’ve received derogatory comments from some “traditional” Catholics. That, I will admit, has bothered me a bit, since I’ve also been accused by others of trying to turn back the clock on the Church, since I, like so many other adult convert priests, am very traditional in the way I approach the One True Faith. I’ve even been accused twice of mixing liturgical rites just for offering the Novus Ordo Mass ad orientem. I am required to offer the Novus Ordo, based on my current assignment. After I complete my service in this arena, though, I have already stated an intention to never offer the Novus Ordo again, but to offer the Traditional Rite and that appropriate to my own diocese. Before I had even contemplated Catholicism, a Catholic priest whom I considered a good friend referred to me as a Nicene Christian, in that I believe what Christians have historically believed since before they started to split into different groups. Christ prayed for our unity, but that unity must be based in the Truth that He brought to us. Unfortunately, since crossing the Tiber, that priest and I have not spoken much, as it turns out that he is quite theologically and liturgically liberal.

Thus, I ask for prayer for my wife and I, and for all my brother married clergy and their wives. May we all come to give this same unified witness to the faith and the reality of the priesthood.


Be assured of our prayers.

St. Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor, pray for us.

Starting Wednesday Off Right: Stop Doubting and Believe Edition

Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

PATER NOSTER, qui es in caelis, sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum. Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, et dimitte nobis debita nostra sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

Incredulity of St. Thomas, detail. ARSH 1602. Caravaggio

Incredulity of St. Thomas, detail. Caravaggio. ARSH 1602.

“My Lord and My God!”
John 20: 28