Over the transom from Italy: Exterminating the Young via coerced poisoning

My God, my God.

Excess deaths in Italy by age cohort, ARSH 2021 vs 2020.

The reason the elderly show a lower YTY excess death rate is because so many elderly were murdered in 2020 that it pulled forward. There were simply fewer elderly to kill in ARSH 2021.

Look at the YTY increase in excess death in the young in the green bar chart. Almost 100% of that increase is the DeathInjections, all of which were coerced. All of those deaths are because those young people were coerced in no uncertain terms – suicide or total disqualification from human society. Almost none of them would have taken the DeathInjections otherwise.

Fauci. Gates. Bourla. Bencel. Schwab. Draghi.

Fifteen minutes with a priest. Then send them to Christ Almighty in the manner of the Ceaușescus.

Source here.

A Friendly Reminder from God the Holy Ghost through St. Paul in Holy Scripture to All Sodomites, and Their Wretched Enablers and Tolerators. Think Twice Before Turning a Blind Eye.

St. Paul on sodomites and their enablers and tolerators in his opening paragraphs to his letter to the Romans.

For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient;  Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

Romans 1: 22-32

Mailbag: A Mother “Resigns”

A mother sends, to cuttingly illustrate the point.

Today I am resigning the active ministry of my motherhood. I remain in the enclosure (house) and will pray for the new mother who will bear the power of office for the governance of the family.

Whew! What a relief!

The sad thing is, a lot of first and second wave feminist women basically attempted exactly this in the second half of the 20th century. The analogy here is instantly and painfully recognizable to so many of their children.Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose….

Q: Ann, do you honestly think that Pope Benedict was too stupid to resign the Papacy correctly?

Q: Ann, do you honestly think that Pope Benedict was too stupid to resign the Papacy correctly?

A: No, and I cover this in my Part 1 Video presentation at length.  This is YET ANOTHER proof that the vast, vast majority of the people in Trad Inc. and elsewhere have NOT ENGAGED THE DATASET, and have neither viewed nor read the transcript of my video presentations (or even read the timestamps), nor read what I write in this space.  Let the insults of my: intelligence, credentials, mental health, looks, voice, eyes, etc. commence. (I’m still having to work on NOT laughing at these things, as laughter, especially of the self-deprecating variety, is my default disposition.)

Pope Benedict wasn’t “too stupid”, he was, as is the case with so many in the German academy today, “TOO SMART”.  Have you ever heard the sayings, “too smart for his own good”, or “too smart/clever by half”?  Yeah: (idiomatic, of a person, plan, theory, etc.) Shrewd but flawed by overthinking or excessive complexity, with a resulting tendency to be unreliable or unsuccessful.

The bigger the intellect, the bigger the capacity for ERROR.  To wit: Lucifer.

What this situation hangs on, and what I have been screaming from the mountaintops for going on six years now is SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.  Pope Benedict submitted an ATTEMPTED PARTIAL resignation of only the ACTIVE EXERCISE OF THE MINISTRY for the ACTIVE GOVERNANCE OF THE CHURCH – that he would REMAIN as the “contemplative” Pope, while the “active Pope” who would GOVERN the Church would be simultaneously elected and installed, thus resulting in a “NEW” “EXPANDED, COLLEGIAL, SYNODAL” form of the Papacy.  Which, as it turns out, is EXACTLY what the German theological academy had been openly writing and fantasizing about since the 1950’s.  You HAVE read the Miller Dissertation, yes?

The “always” is also a “for-ever” – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter. Saint Benedict, whose name I bear as Pope, will be a great example for me in this. He showed us the way for a life which, whether active or passive, is completely given over to the work of God.

Pope Benedict XVI, “Final” Wednesday Audience, 27 February, ARSH 2013

This isn’t stupidity on Pope Benedict’s part.  This isn’t 4-D chess on Pope Benedict’s part.  This isn’t Pope Benedict lying.

This is Pope Benedict being in SUBSTANTIAL ERROR.


Big brains make big errors.

Here is the Part 1 Video cued up to the 00:40:10 timestamp, with the transcription below.  Remember, the full professional English transcription of the Part 1 video is HERE.

0:40:10 Pope Benedict is an intellectual genius. Ganswein is no dummy. Remember: the most intelligent minds make the biggest mistakes. The more intelligent a person is, the bigger the error has the potential to be, and, to wit, Lucifer and one third of the angels. Massive, massive intellects, with Lucifer being probably the largest, greatest, created rational intellect. And look at the error that the massive, massive rational intellects of Lucifer and a third of the angels made. We can’t even begin to comprehend this. This error of Pope Benedict’s is the biggest papal error since Pentecost. Look at what’s happening. Look at what has come out of this. This is the biggest error that any Pope has made. Hands down. It isn’t even debatable.

Quick Question: If Office and Ministry are pure synonyms and identical concepts, what exactly is the Miller Dissertation going on about for 300 pages, and why did the Gregorianum publish it?

The Miller Dissertation is 300 pages of agonizing over the distinction between the Petrine Munus/Office and the Petrine Ministry/Function with an eye towards “fundamentally transforming” the Papacy, mostly in an effort to appease schismatics – Lutherans and Anglicans first among them.

So… if Munus/Office and Ministerio/Ministry are pure synonyms as the “Fwanciss is Pope shuddup stoopid schismatic” contingent keep trying to gaslight people into believing, then someone needs to explain what EXACTLY the Miller Dissertation is about, because it can’t be 300 pages of agonizing and distinction-drawing over two things that are the same thing. That would be irrational.

Further, if the Miller Dissertation is in fact 300 pages of irrational gibberish, drawing distinctions between two identical, purely synonymous concepts, Office/Munus and Ministry/Ministerio, why did the Gregorianum not only award +Miller a doctorate for it, but also then grant +Miller the honor of publishing his dissertation on the Gregorianum’s own publishing imprint, the equivalent of awarding a dissertation an “A+” grade?

Logic, folks. Simple, inescapable logic.

John of St. Thomas: LEGITIMATE, LAWFUL election is the necessary precondition for “Universal Acceptance” to even be in play

Trad Inc. keeps mis-representing poor John of St. Thomas as some sort of irrational, question-begging dilettante. Look, the John of St. Thomas citation is as clear as it gets:

“In the present controversy we discuss whether or not it is de fide that this specific person, who has been legitimately elected, is the Pope and the head of the Church, as well as the degree of certitude with which this proposition is to be held.”

“Our conclusion is the following.  It is immediately of divine faith that this man in particular, lawfully elected and accepted by the Church, is the supreme pontiff and the successor of Peter, not only quoad se (in himself) but also quoad nos (in relation to us) —although it is made much more manifest quoad nos (to us) when de facto the pope defines something.  In practice, no Catholic disagrees with our conclusion [that his legitimacy is de fide], even though, when he considers it as a theoretical question, he might not think that he believes it with divine faith. (…)”

It is, by now, mendacious for these “Francis is Pope shut up stupid” partisans to keep perverting this excellent citation. Further, the perversion is such a clear deployment of the fallacy of “begging the question” that it is almost laughably sad. It is certainly embarrassing.

John of St. Thomas being both morally sane and of above-average intelligence explicitly makes LEGALITY and LEGITIMACY of an “election” the utterly essential pre-requisite for ANY discussion of the dynamic of “Universal Acceptance”.

Does it make ANY sense to you on ANY level that God Almighty would RATIFY an illegitimate, illegal, unlawful, canonically invalid papal election… as long as “everybody goes along with it”?

Guys, that notion: the total, violent upending and trashing of the Law and the Rule of Law, can only be described with one word: LUCIFERIAN.

There was no valid, legitimate, legal conclave in March ARSH 2013, because per Canon 359 the College of Cardinals has ZERO ability, capacity or competence to call a valid conclave WHILE THE SEE IS STILL OCCUPIED, and even if the College of Cardinals is unanimously and peacefully on-board with the illegal, illegitimate, invalid “359 non-conclave”, as John of St. Thomas makes perfectly clear, repeatedly, it makes absolutely zero difference to the ontological reality of the situation. Zero. No valid conclave, no “universal peaceful acceptance” dynamic in play. Period.

Americans very commonly mis-use the term “to beg the question” thinking that it means to “lead to the next question in a logical argument”. That is NOT what begging the question is.

Begging the question is when you assume and argue that the CONCLUSION of your argument is true, and thus, thinking BACKWARDS, insist that your ASSUMED conclusion proves the truth of your base premise.

This is how you get the jaw-droppingly false assertion that a “universally accepted” “conclave” proves infallibly that the conclave was legal whether it was or not, (and shut up you’re stoopid and ugly and crazy and wimmin ain’t allowed to talk in the Christian religion where’s my video game controller shut up).

THAT is begging the question, aka petitio principii, assuming the initial point.

This is day-one logic and dialectic. But, that all stopped being taught a long time ago. So much for them fancy college degrees, eh?

I hope this helps.

Aristotle is rolling his eyes.

Petrine MUNUS vs. Ministry: “The two realities are, however, CONCEPTUALLY DISTINCT.”

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” 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.

“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.” -Karl Rahner, Pope Benedict’s mentor, colleague and close friend, and widely considered to be one of the most influential theologians of the 20th century.



Answering the Question: Why Has Christ Permitted the Bergoglian Antipapacy?

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.