First things first:  HAVE YOU BOUGHT AND READ J. MICHAEL MILLER’S BOOK, “The Divine Right of the Papacy in Recent Ecumenical Theology” YET?

If not, why not?  It costs NINE BUCKS, downloads in seconds, and can be read in one evening.  Why in the world would anyone engaged in this, the most important question in the world today NOT buy and read a text that addresses DIRECTLY as its core thesis this business of “fundamentally transforming the Petrine Office” into a “collegial, synodal Petrine Ministry” consisting of multiple people simultaneously, with Pope Benedict cited multiple times, along with his mentor (Rahner) and close colleagues at Tubingen (Neumann and Kung), and the man Antipope Bergoglio immediately made one of his closest “advisors” and lauded as his “favorite theologian”, Walter Kasper?  What possible, possible reason could there be to NOT drop the nine bucks and three hours to read this book?

What possible, possible reason could there be to NOT engage the dataset?

It should also be mentioned that this book by now-Archbishop J. Michael Miller is actually Miller’s DOCTORAL DISSERTATION.  He completed his doctorate at the Gregorianum in ARSH 1979, and the Greg thought SO HIGHLY of his dissertation that they published it under their own imprint. It has been explained to me that when a Pontifical University publishes a doctoral dissertation, it is a very, very high compliment – the equivalent of getting an “A” or “A+”.

Interestingly, every time +Miller has been asked about his doctoral dissertation in light of Pope Benedict’s failed attempted partial resignation, +Miller has claimed to “not remember” his own doctoral thesis, nervously claiming that it “was a long time ago.” Riiiiight. Youbetcha.

Speaking of which, let’s look today at the opening sentence of Chapter 8 in Miller’s dissertation, “Contemporary Catholic Views on Papal Primacy Iure Divino”:

”The present crisis of the papacy is one of legitimation. (Footnote 1)”

 

And what is Footnote 1?  Why, it is none other than WALTER KASPER.

So, it is taken for granted by Miller that the papacy is in the midst of a crisis, and the crisis is one of the LEGITIMACY of the papacy itself, and he cites Walter Kasper for this turn of phrase.

As in, the papacy AS IT STANDS is ILLEGITIMATE, and needs to somehow be “changed” and “fundamentally transformed” so that it ceases to be ILLEGITIMATE, and move towards LEGITIMATION.

If you buy and read Miller’s dissertation, you will see that the previous seven chapters are an agonizing analysis of two sets of terms:

IRREVERSIBILITY and IMMUTABILITY

and

PETRINE OFFICE vs. PETRINE MINISTRY/FUNCTION

”Irreversibility” is the question of whether or not the papacy can be TOTALLY ABOLISHED, that is, is the very existence of the Papacy irreversible in and of itself.  THE DEBATE AMONGST THE GERMAN THEOLOGIANS ON THIS QUESTION IS ROBUST, TO PUT IT MILDLY.  The fact that total abolition of the papacy was discussed at all, much less so widely and openly is a testament to how far gone the German theological scene was and is.

”Immutability” is the question of whether or not the Papacy can be CHANGED, you know, like “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORMED”.  It was taken for granted by the German theologians that the papacy was NOT IMMUTABLE, and yes, COULD BE CHANGED, even radically.  Again, to be clear, it was the MODERATE position that yes, the papacy could be changed, but that the “Petrine Office” could not be totally abolished.  Thus, the MODERATE position would include MULIPLE PEOPLE SIMULTANEOUSLY EXERCISING DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THE PETRINE MINISTRY, ALL UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF AN EXPANDED PETRINE OFFICE.

Thus, Miller’s dissertation is saturated with discussion of the DIFFERENCE between the Petrine OFFICE and the Petrine MINISTRY/FUNCTION, because so-called “ecumenical dialogue” with Lutherans and Anglicans ABSOLUTELY PIVOTS ON THIS PRECISION BETWEEN the PETRINE “OFFICE” and “MINISTRY/FUNCTION”.

Let me now blockquote page 195 with the screen cap below.  I am going to type up the text so that it populates onto the web and search engines. Emphases mine.

Although in dealing with the origins of the papacy contemporary theologians emphasize the close relation between ius divinum and ius humanum, when considering the permanence of the papacy they stress rather the distinction between the changeable and immutable elements.  This distinction within papal primacy as an institution is often formulated in terms of relation between a central unchangeable nucleus and its realization in changeable and historical forms. Theological (Footnote 98), exegetical (Footnote 99), and historical studies (Footnote 100) all make use of a similar distinction in explaining why a revision in the exercise of primatial authority is possible.

Another way of making the same point is to distinguish between the Petrine ministry or function, and the Papacy.   A sign and instrument of unity is needed for the government of the Church.  This task corresponds to what is also called the nucleus of the papacy.  For these theologians the papacy has been, and is, the historical realization of the Petrine ministry. The two realities are, however, conceptually distinct.

Footnote 98:
Burns, “Communion, Councils, and Collegiality,” 172; Kasper, in “Ministero petrino,” 56, contrasts the “essenza” of an institution, namely the Petrine office, with “una ben determinata forma della sua realizzazione;” McDonnell, “Papal Primacy,” 185-186; Thils in Primaute Pontificale, 171, distinguishes between “fond” and “forme.”  Rahner’s terminology varies, but he certainly hold that, although the papacy is iure divino, this does not exclude the possibility that “in the future the papacy, while retaining its basic ‘generic form’, will be able to present quite a different ‘image’ (if we may so express it) from that to which we have hitherto been accustomed” (“Basic Observations,” 18). Cf. Rahner, “Demokratie in der Kirche?” 8; Rahner, “Kirchliche Wandlungen,” 514; and Rahner, “Open Questions on Dogma,” 219.

Hmmmm.  Maybe I DO see why people are refusing to buy and read Miller’s dissertation after all….

I hope this helps.

Our Lady, Undoer of Knots, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

Behold the MADNESS.  Behold the SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.

 

 

I am inundated with emails from people who just a few short years ago would have described their faith as strong, solid and even unshakable – people for whom the thought of ever, ever losing their faith or questioning or doubting in even the slightest way the Church, and even Our Lord Himself, specifically His love for us, was all but impossible. We’re talking daily Tridentine Mass-goers. Daily Rosary prayers. All because of the Bergoglian antipapacy.

First, realizing that Pope Benedict never validly resigned the Papacy and that Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, S.J. is, in fact, an antipope, and not the Vicar of Christ, is a tremendous consolation in and of itself. Thank God for Canon Law. Thank God for Archbishop Georg Ganswein spilling the beans on Pope Benedict’s ontological error with regards to the papacy at the Gregorian University in Rome in May of ARSH 2016. Thank God for the Miller dissertation and all of the other mountain of evidence and stunning visibility of everything.

But still the fact of the scandal of Antipope Bergoglio remains. Souls are being scandalized unto eternal damnation by this most wicked and malignant of antipopes, many of whom are the immediate family members – children and spouses – of the remnant faithful. Yes, yes, we can see that technically, legally, Antipope Bergoglio does not besmirch the papacy, and yet the damage his is doing is so profound that it will, in all likelihood, drive the Remnant Church into the catacombs. Why is Our Lord permitting this? Why doesn’t He rise up?

The answer lies in His Love and His Mercy.

Everyone agrees that the Bergoglian antipapcy is a scourge, a castigation. I myself have been posting this famous quotation from St. John Eudes for YEARS, although in truncated form. Here is the full quote:

‘THE MOST EVIDENT MARK of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clerics’ who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than the charity and affection of devoted shepherds.

Instead of nourishing those committed to their care, they rend and devour them brutally. Instead of leading their people to God, they drag Christian souls into hell in their train. Instead of being the salt of the earth and the light of the world, they are its innocuous poison and its murky darkness.

St. Gregory the Great says that priests and pastors will stand condemned before God as the murderers of any souls lost through neglect or silence. Tot occidimus, quot ad mortem ire tepidi et tacentes videmus. Elsewhere St. Gregory asserts that nothing more angers God than to see those whom He set aside for the correction of others, give bad example by a wicked and depraved life.’

Instead of preventing offenses against His Majesty, such priests become themselves the first to persecute Him, they lose their zeal for the salvation of souls and think only of following their own inclinations. Their affections go no farther than earthly things, they eagerly bask in the empty praises of men, using their sacred ministry to serve their ambitions, they abandon the things of God to devote themselves to the things of the world, and in their saintly calling of holiness, they spend their time in profane and worldly pursuits.

When God permits such things, it is a very positive proof that He is thoroughly angry with His people, and is visiting His most dreadful anger upon them. That is why He cries unceasingly to Christians, “Return, 0 ye revolting children . . . and I will give you pastors according to my own heart” (Jer. 3, 14-15). Thus, irregularities in the lives of priests constitute a scourge visited upon the people in consequence of sin.’

-St. John Eudes, ‘The Priest: His Dignity and Obligations’

So if we all agree with St. John Eudes that Bergoglio is a scourge on us, that is, God’s PEOPLE, the first question we must ask ourselves is WHAT EXACTLY it is that we have done to deserve this? Then, once we have determined that, we must – MUST – stop doing that, and, presumably do the opposite.

What I would submit is the great crime against God committed by His People over the past 50 years is our SILENCE – our passive, impotent, effeminate acceptance of the profound violence done against Him, His Church, and His Liturgy. We, our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents, sat in silence and watched as sodomites turned the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into a neo-pagan low-rent cruise ship floorshow. Our response was either the silence of apostasy, as more than 90% of Catholics in the West simply stopped going to Mass, or the silence of tacitly accepting the obvious abuse and overt hostility toward Our Lord and His Church by diabolically narcissistic sex perverts and their truly pathetic, co-dependent hangers-on. The collapse of our culture, the abortion, the ascendancy of sexual perversion, the evanescence of genuine masculinity, the collapse of the Rule of Law – all of these things are DERIVATIVE of the destruction of the Liturgy, a destruction that we sat, wallowing in our collective effeminacy, and watched.

So my question is this: If we all agree that it has been precisely our inaction over the past 50 years that has brought down this scourge upon us, how can it possibly, possibly make sense that the proper response to the Bergoglian antipapacy is MORE SILENCE? MORE RETREAT? MORE SHOULDER-SHRUGGING? MORE FATALISM? MORE EFFEMINACY? MORE INDIFFERENCE? MORE IMPOTENT WHINING AND HAND WRINGING?

And that brings us, somewhat paradoxically, to Our Lord’s incomprehensible Love for us, and His Mercy.

The reason Our Lord is letting the Bergoglian Antipapacy happen, is because He is giving us ONE. LAST. CHANCE to cease the very crime we have committed against Him for lo these 50 years, one last chance to come to His defense. One last chance to shake off our effeminacy and instead rise up in virility and fight for Him.

As I have been desperately trying to convey for years, a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” is utterly, utterly essential. Our Lord is a PERSON. He loves us PERSONALLY. He is not a philosophy, a political ideology, a legal matrix or an abstraction of any kind. He is a PERSON who not only who loves us, but perhaps even more incomprehensibly, wants to be LOVED BY US. As we have learned in our ongoing study of Diabolical Narcissism, DN humans, and their demonic analogues in the angelic plane, are those who refuse to either love, or BE LOVED. God, obviously being the “infinite opposite” of diabolical, loves and desires to be loved.

Why does God come to us in the Eucharist? Why does He condescend to change a humble piece of bread into His physical substance? Why does He allow Himself to be called down onto the altar by a man – a priest? Why does he allow Himself – His physical substance – to be reposed inside of all of those tabernacles? Why does He expose Himself to possible desecration all day every day all over the world?

He makes Himself so incredibly vulnerable so that WE CAN TAKE CARE OF HIM. He leaves Himself wide open and exposed so that we can be good and loving TO HIM. He who provides and gives us everything, even gives us the ability to give back to Him. He who guards, defends and protects us, gives us the ability to guard, defend and protect Him. He who has given us the beauty of the stars and galaxies, the mountains, the sea, the plants and animals, has given us the ability to give Him the beauty of our architecture, our works of art, and our music.

And most especially, He who stepped into the breach and fought and conquered sin and death for us, the perfect act of chivalry, borne of perfect virility, borne of perfect, infinite love, gives us the chance to DEFEND HIM, to confront and combat His enemies. He intentionally remains passive – for a time – precisely so that we may rush to HIS AID. Why? Because He knows that in doing this – doing the right thing – we will be truly happy.

This is what we have failed to do, and what we are being given one last chance to do now, in these dark days. Just as he gave Peter the three-fold chance to unwind his three-fold denial, which Peter jumped at and did with tears from the shore of the Sea of Tiberias all the way to his cross on the Vatican Hill with the words “Agapo-se”, “I love you” on his lips, so now we are being given the chance to “unwind” our silent betrayal. Turning our backs on Him and retiring to our diversions and navel-gazing distractions – and that is what they are, distractions from the pangs of our consciences as we fail, YET AGAIN, to stand and defend our Beloved Savior, and the souls that Our Beloved God loves – will never, ever provide genuine happiness. It can only ever provide a prolongation of earthly, sensual comfort.

Turning our backs on Our Lord, telling ourselves the lie that objective reality, truth itself, is unknowable, and even if known, far too risky or costly to speak in anything but the most hushed tones amongst the right company, as He is attacked by an axis of sodomites, Freemasons, Modernists and satanists with a dimwitted arch-heresiarch squatter paraded before them as their ringleader, is more of the same malfeasance that brought this scourge down upon us in the first place.

I had occasion to have a truly disheartening conversation with a priest involving the display and selling of pornographic materials, in a location where children pass every day. He used the metaphor of the Titanic to make his point, namely that the ship is going down, and that it is futile, and even smacks of pride, to think that I or anyone else can do anything to correct the situation – that any efforts we make to resist the onslaught of evil is “rearranging deck chairs while the band plays on.”

I have been a bit of a Titanic buff since ARSH 1986 when the wreck was discovered, and what immediately sprang to my mind was the following, which answers the question, “What should we do in the face of inevitable catastrophe?”

On board the Titanic were numerous uber-wealthy passengers and titans of industry. One was the billionaire Benjamin Guggenheim, who was on board with his mistress. Guggenheim, upon learning that the ship was going down, took his mistress and her maid up to the deck and put them in a lifeboat. He then went back to his cabin whereupon he and his valet put on their finest eveningwear, went back to the foyer of the Grand Staircase, reposed themselves in deck chairs, and sat, sipping brandy and smoking cigars, until they died.

Also on board for the maiden voyage was J. Bruce Ismay, the owner of the White Star Line, essentially the owner of the Titanic. Upon consulting with Thomas Andrews, the naval architect who designed the Titanic and oversaw its construction at the Harland & Wolff shipyards in Belfast who was also onboard for the maiden voyage, and knowing that the ship was doomed, Ismay immediately went up to the lifeboat decks and began urgently pleading with incredulous passengers to get into the lifeboats. Many passengers refused, refusing to believe that the Titanic was going to sink. Ismay used his authority and credibility as the owner of the White Star Line to convince people to board lifeboats. He stayed on deck until the very end, and in the final moments of the great barque, saw and was encouraged to jump into a collapsible lifeboat. Ismay survived, and despite his heroic efforts on deck, was destroyed in the press for not going down with the ship – largely by his enemy, newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. But Guggenheim, after seeing only to his mistress and her maid, retired to two hours of self-absorbed and self-satisfied sensual decadence and naval-gazing as he waited to die, apparently indifferent to the other 2200 souls aboard, and was hailed as a hero.

The analogy here is clear. Yes, the Titanic is going down. Barring a supernatural intervention – which is possible – the Barque of Peter as we have known it is going down. With the Titanic it was a matter of infiltration of water. With the Church, it is a matter of the infiltration of Communists, Modernists, sodomites and satanists. It will no longer be the majestic “Titanic”, and will be reduced to only the lifeboats. But lifeboats are barques too – just smaller, and less comfortable.

We MUST warn others. We MUST tell them the truth of the situation so that they understand the enormity of what is happening, and so that they will get into the lifeboats and be saved. We MUST tell them that to follow Antipope Bergoglio is to reject Christ and embrace the spirit of Antichrist. And we must keep doing this until the very end. The good news is that on the Barque of Peter, as with the Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes, there is an infinite supply of lifeboats. Launch one, and another appears. So long as there are souls waiting to board a lifeboat, GOD WILL PROVIDE. But we are players in this. If we take the Guggenheim route, the route of fatalism, souls will be lost that could have been saved, and, in all likelihood, we will be lost ourselves, because failure in charity – indifference – so often manifests as a sin of omission.

What an honor, what a privilege, to be alive in these days and able to fight for Our Lord, for His Holy Church and for His Vicar on Earth.

Pray for Pope Benedict XVI, the one and only living Pope since April ARSH 2005 whether he likes it or not, for the Papacy, and for Holy Mother Church, in terrifyingly visible eclipse, outside of which there is no salvation.

Q: Ann, I keep hearing that Antipapacies can only be determined after the putative Pope in question is dead. So why bother worrying about this now?

A: This contention is what is known at Fordham Law School as “making **** up out of whole cloth”. I believe it is a second year course.

Here is Christopher Ferrara, a vocal proponent of this madness, in the Remnant a while back:

Here, however, we encounter the question whether the Holy Ghost has allowed the Church to be afflicted for a time by a de facto antipope whose election cannot be contested and whose papacy must be presumed valid until such time as a successor Pope or Council declares otherwise.  On that vexed issue, in my view, we can have nothing definitive to say, meaning nothing by which the Church as a whole could gain operative certitude and proceed accordingly. What is certain, however, is that this Pope must be opposed in his efforts to undermine the Faith.

Wha? Where in the blue fiery blazes is he getting this garbage?

This contention is so stunning because it is so clearly disproven by even the most glancing, cursory examination of history. We’re talking three minutes scanning Wikipedia articles.

There have been something like FORTY antipopes in the past 2000 years, and every one was contested in real time, and almost all were deposed and ejected whilst squatting upon the See of Peter. One of the reasons that the Antipapacy of Anacletus II is so unusual is precisely because he died naturally “in office” after an eight year usurpation. St. Bernard of Clairvaux was the man who went to Rome WHILE ANACLETUS was still alive, and methodically demonstrated to the clergy and the aristocracy of Rome that Anacletus II was an Antipope, such that after Anacletus II died and his “successor” Antipope Victor IV was “elected”, Antipope Victor IV quickly repented after TWO DAYS as Antipope and presented himself to the true Pope, Innocent II. Bernard of Clairvaux and others worked tirelessly and persistently to correct the situation, remove the Antipope and restore the true Pope to the Chair IN REAL TIME. If one listens to the irrational gibberish being spewed today by these intransigent “Fwanciss is Pope shuddup stoopid schismatic!” partisans, one would have to declare that St. Bernard of Clairvaux committed the MORTAL SIN of SCHISM for even daring to question the legal and ontological truth of the identity of the Vicar of Christ on earth. Even though St. Bernard was 100% correct, according to these people today who, if one didn’t know better might think that they belong to some sort of cult that revolves around the violation of the Law of Non-contradiction as its very creed, are arguing that he was in “mortal sin” for EVEN ASKING THE QUESTION. So, according to the “Fwanciss is Pope shuddup stoopid schismatic” set, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was BOTH an unrepentant mortally sinful schismatic, AND is a SAINT AND DOCTOR OF THE CHURCH. Yet another fat, juicy violation of the Law of Non-contradiction. Another attempted denial and upending of Reality itself. Remember folks, ONLY THE REAL COUNTS. ONLY THE REAL MATTERS. Anything that involves any violation of the Law of Non-contradiction is either a LIE or a FANTASY.

The death of Antipope Anacletus II wasn’t required- in fact, it was a tragedy that Antipope Anacletus never repented in this life!! The notion that a man MUST be left in such an enormous state of sin as being a usurper of the Petrine See without correction or remedy before he dies is abject madness. It is irrational, effeminate, and is totally unchristian. The calling out of an Antipapacy is perhaps one of the most profound applications of the Spiritual Work of Mercy of Admonishing the Sinner. Any man who does such an enormous thing MUST be publicly admonished, removed and given every chance to repent before he dies. 

Check Petition #3 of the Matthew 17:20 intention – that Antipope Bergoglio repent of what he has done, revert to Catholicism, die in the state of Grace in the fullness of time, and someday achieve the Beatific Vision.

A correspondent sent in the following:

We are told, endlessly, as though it were a bedrock principle of ecclesiology, that “only a future pope or council” can determine whether Bergoglio is an anti-pope.

1) Which pope or council has taught this proposition? (I.e., that the legitimacy of every putative pope is an untouchable topic until he dies.) [Answer: None. This proposition is a pure fabrication.]

2) There have been 30-40 anti-popes. How many cardinals, bishops, theologians, canonists, and saints have clamored and campaigned to remove an anti-pope while the anti-pope was alive? [Countless. Including St. Bernard of Clairvaux, St. Catherine of Siena and St. Peter Damian]

3) How many anti-popes have been deposed while still living? [The vast majority of them, thank God.]

Now, I have some more “inside baseball” for everyone that when I had it explained to me put even my jaded jaw on the floor.

One of the main cheerleaders for this “Antipopes can’t be determined until after the man is dead” garbage is Christopher Ferrara, as we have seen. As we have discussed in this space previously, Chris is a civil attorney who has dedicated a large part of his time to the Fatima Center, and was a “spiritual son” of the late Fr. Nicholas Gruner.

Father Nicholas Gruner was a Canon Lawyer, and determined that Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation was Canonically invalid, and was PUBLICLY a “Benedict is Pope” advocate, and Fr. Nicholas Gruner commemorated Pope Benedict at the Te Igitur until his sudden death in ARSH 2015. Fr. Gruner’s close associate in the Fatima Center, Fr. Paul Kramer, was and is likewise convinced that Benedict is Pope. Fr. Gruner specifically asked Fr. Kramer to write a book laying out their position, which Fr. Kramer has done:

On March 17, 2015, I spent the day with Fr. Nicholas Gruner in Slane, Ireland, not knowing it would be the last time we would ever meet on this earth. One of the last things he said to me was to ask me again to systematically present in book form the argumentation and evidence providing that Pope Benedict XVI did not validly resign from the office of the papacy, and demonstrate that he is still the only legitimate Pontiff of the Roman Church. He had been asking me to write on this matter for more than a year, [thus prior to March 2014] but due to other commitments, I had been unable to make any sustained effort to compete the task.

I was contacted and had a long telephone conversation with people who were involved deeply and intimately with the Fatima Center until Fr. Gruner’s death. What they told me was shocking.

Immediately upon Fr. Gruner’s death, a purge of the Fatima Center was executed driving out anyone who was sympathetic to Fr. Gruner and Fr. Kramer’s argument that Benedict is Pope.

At the time of Fr. Gruner’s death, a wealthy family in the upper Midwest was organizing a million dollar donation to the Fatima Center. When Fr. Gruner died, the family was immediately told and pressured to make the donation contingent upon driving out all “sedevacantists” who think Benedict is Pope. Does this tactic of mendaciously painting those who believe that Pope Benedict occupies the See as “sedevacantists” sound familiar? It should.

The family was persuaded, and the million dollar donation went through to the “new” Fatima Center, with with Fr. Kramer and all of the folks who were not willing to throw Fr. Gruner under the bus purged.

Now, here’s the kicker.

Who do you think was the point man who rushed to the upper Midwest to lobby this million dollar donation family in person?

JOHN SALZA.

As in the civil lawyer John Salza from “Siscoe and Salza”. The guys who wrote the thoroughly shredded “True or False Pope” and have been the source of all of the Trad Inc. false talking points, such as “this can only be adjudicated after he’s dead” and the mendacious and perverted “Universal Peaceful Acceptance” argument – ignoring the fact that UPA only applies to LEGAL, LEGITIMATE, DULY ELECTED Popes. It doesn’t usurp sitting Popes or sanate non-canonical conclaves. Salza, an “ex” 33rd Degree Freemason, is also clearly a source of the use of Alinsky Rule 13 to “polarize” the opposition with false accusations of sedevacantism. He was doing it over a year before I even realized and went public that Benedict is Pope in June of ARSH 2016.

So, as always, it all goes back to the old axiom, FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Civil lawyer Christopher Ferrara coordinated with civil lawyer John Salza in ARSH 2015 to secure a million dollar donation to Fr. Gruner’s Fatima Center in the immediate aftermath of Father Gruner’s death while simultaneously using the donation to leverage the purging the Fatima Center of anyone who actually listened to and had trust in Fr. Gruner and Fr. Kramer’s discernment of the true identity of the Roman Pontiff.

Unbelievable.

To think that I ever sat at table with these people makes me throw up in my mouth a little. God forgive me. I should have known based upon who introduced me to them. Bad company flocks together. And it really is all about the damn money with these people.

Pray for Pope Benedict XVI, the Papacy, and Holy Mother Church, in terrifyingly visible eclipse, outside of which there is no salvation.