Thursday, October 31, 2019

Mailbag Question: No, You Don't Have To Have Right Wing Political Views To Be a Traditional Catholic


Hi James,

I have become "red-pilled" on the Catholic Church but I'm wondering why so many people who call themselves "traditional Catholics" hold political views that are so right-wing that they seem to go against the teachings of the Church on many issues? 

This has bothered me for some time as well.

We all have seen that leftist parties in the Western world have subscribed to a series of political views that the Church deems abhorrent. The sinful promotion of abortion, sodomy, gender theory and irregular families are clear cut. It is also apparent that the left believes religiously in the separation of Church and State that inevitably leads to a decline in the belief, respect and worship that is due to God alone and re-directs it to the worship of self or to government. Worryingly, the left also consistently attacks Christian education and social institutions and periodically tries to interfere in the practice of the faith itself (see California's bill to tamper with the sacrament of confession for example.)

However, that is not the complete picture.

Right wing parties in the Western world have an appalling record of modifying the tax code to provide billions and billions of dollars to the richest people in society at the expense of the very poor. Right wing parties routinely cut social services and support programs for the most vulnerable of people and make it harder for those in jail or mental housing units to re-integrate into society. Right wing parties routinely make it easier to obtain weapons of war that have no practical purpose for hunting or self-defense. The Church condemns, in the strongest terms, all of this.

Right wing parties routinely encourage a "capitalist culture" that forsakes God for mammon. This is how we get man-made climate change and oceans that are tragically being destroyed before our very eyes.

There is a reason that Catholic political parties in Europe had been referred to as "Catholic Centre." Catholicism is not right-wing or left-wing. It insists on timeless moral truths that are today called "traditionalist" or "right-wing" while demanding that we care for one another and the common good in a way that is called "left wing" or "socialist."

Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Wednesday, October 30, 2019

Oh, So You Recognize a Pope That You Aren't Going To Obey? Here's Your Cookie

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world. - Galatians 6:14


What matters to your salvation?

It matters that you are baptized and confirmed in the Church. It matters that you confess your sins when you are aware of having committed a mortal sin. It matters that you pray regularly and have a personal relationship with Christ. It matters that you observe all holy days of obligation, receive the Eucharist at least twice a year during Advent and Easter and that you observe the commandments of God as the Church understands them. It matters that you regularly perform corporal and spiritual acts of mercy.

Notice the word "pope" appears nowhere in the above paragraph.

If you die having been baptized as a member of the Catholic Church, having confessed your mortal sins, with the belief that Christ atoned for them at Calvary, received the Apostolic Pardon before death and sincerely repented of your transgressions while desiring God's friendship you will eventually experience the Beatific Vision.

That is a certainty. In the end the attainment of salvation is the entire reason for the Church and all debates that spring from it.

It is insane to think that God will damn a person because they recognized the wrong person as pope. It is nuts to believe that God is so horrible that He would expect a person to navigate these complex theological issues and eternally punish a person someone who errs.

So why mock Catholics who do not feel comfortable following the obvious errors of Francis as protestants?

The tweet above is malicious and empty in equal parts. Malicious because it is absurd for someone like Sammons and his ilk, who call Francis the worst kinds of names and accuse him of serious spiritual crimes on a daily basis, to belittle others for following the natural conclusion of that rhetoric to its end. It's empty because Sammons and his ilk have no intention of providing religious submission of will and intellect to Francis. To them, recognizing Francis as pope is a way to signal a respectability to people that they are not like....those.....people who do not recognize Francis as pope.

Which is absurd because the average Novus Ordoite does not make these distinctions. They see the rhetoric against Francis and conclude that they are coming from a sede or a crypto-sede.

Francis occupies extremely helpful terrain for R&R types - they can beat up on him and interpret the Faith for themselves while "recognizing" him as pope while giving him no special privileges over their lives in doing so. It's a rotten position that stinks.

Me? I suspect that Benedict was forced to resign with immense amounts of pressure and that could negate the resignation in the eyes of Christ. I don't think Christ would reward the evil plotters with the papacy just because they bent Benedict to their will. The technicalities of Benedict's resignation don't mean anything to me. But I am not 100% sure. And I will attend Mass and continue not to care who the priest invokes as pope during the Canon. Because papal politics aren't going to determine whether or not I achieve the beatific vision.

Sunday, October 27, 2019

So if the Third Secret of Fatima Released in 2000 Was a Fabrication, What Was Actually In it? And What Now?

For there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come abroad. - St. Luke 8:17


In part one I demonstrated that the "Third Secret" of Fatima released in 2000 was a fabrication.

This forces us to consider a new question:

So What Was in the Third Secret of Fatima?

In order to decipher the answer to this question we must evaluate Pope John XXIII's response after reading the letter from Sr. Lucia:

"This does not concern my pontificate."

The confident response is most likely because the Secret details actions by a pope that John XXIII believed he would never do. It is the only reasonable way to understand the absolute assurance of John's response. He did not release the Secret because if it says what I just asserted every pope would be under suspicion of apostasy. The filial bonds of loyalty and obedience would break down in the Church.

Considering the tenor of the messages received throughout the 19th and 20th century, culminating in Fatima and Tuy, it is reasonable to discern that the messages were warning of dangers to the Church and to believers around the world. Indeed, 23 years later at Akita, after the conclusion of Vatican II, Our Lady made her starkest proclamation of what is to come if men do not better themselves - a chastisement so severe "that the living would envy the dead" after fire falls from the sky. The "fire from the sky" detail echoes that of Revelation Chapter 20 (from whence the name of this blog derives):

And they came upon the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast And the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Contrast this with the disposition of John XXIII. "We feel we must disagree with those prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand. In the present order of things, Divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by men’s own efforts and even beyond their very expectations, are directed towards the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs."

I often wonder if John XXIII ever considered that he was offending Our Lady who was the chief vessel by which God chose to send these messages to the world.

Who turned out to be accurate? Our Lady, who prophesied severe apostasy in the Church? Or John XXIII, who told us that happy days were here? 50 years of degradation in the Church makes the answer perfectly clear.

The exact content of the message is unknowable. We will all know, at the Judgement, what it said.

The purpose of this trip down memory lane, like so much of my work, is to hammer home this simple point: These are emergency times. This is not normal. Dexterity in thinking, belief and action is required of all of us at the moment.

The prophecies of Akita are yet to be fulfilled. When I saw Notre Dame burning, the most famous house dedicated to Our Lady, I interpreted it as a dramatic way to get our attention about what was happening in the Church, in our society, in our homes, in our lives.

Our house is burning. We were warned. Some of these warnings, like the Third Secret, were suppressed, while others, like Akita, were not.

An age that thinks it is perfectly normal to provide 7 year old kids with drugs that attempt to change their biological sex is an age that is destined to be destroyed by God's righteous justice. We do not need to read the Third Secret to understand this. It's clear as a bell for anyone paying attention.

Friday, October 25, 2019

I Know With Certainty That the "Third Secret of Fatima" Released in 2000 Was A Lie. Here's Why.

“Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.”
― Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

God gave us the ability to reason to find the truth.

Let me ask you a simple question. I ask you to exercise your God given reason to decipher the answer. 

In 1960 Pope John XXIII read the Third Secret of Fatima. This is not disputed by anyone in the Church. Upon reading it he exclaimed, before having it suppressed, “This does not concern my Pontificate.”


After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God. 

Here is the question.

You are Pope John XXIII. You just read the above "secret" as it was released in June 26, 2000.

How do you know, after reading the contents of that message, with the absolute certainty that he displayed, that it does not concern his pontificate?

There is no plausible way that Pope John XXIII had that reaction after reading that message. It makes no sense whatsoever.

I actually do believe he responded in that way ("this does not concern my pontificate") upon reading the message. But he responded in that way because the message was entirely different from what was released.

Part two tomorrow.