“Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen…”

Today is the Second Sunday of Advent. The first portion of today’s Gospel is from Matthew 11, and goes like this:

At that time, when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: “Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another?” And Jesus making answer said to them: “Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me.” 

Before we get to the reasons why John may have sent these disciples to question Christ, let us first get out of the way that this is definitely not John’s faith failing. John, in prison, perhaps only days from his earthly end, had perfectly fulfilled his mission as Forerunner. About to go to his reward, he still has his own disciples hanging out near him. So John sends them so that they too might believe in Christ. That’s the first interpretation.

The second, favored by St. Jerome, is that John sent them to find out if John was to yet continue his mission into the next life… to be the Forerunner to dead, announcing Christ’s coming even to them.

Either way, we can see that a theme is common to both: Care for souls.  The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Can you imagine if She still acted that way?

And as I’ve written many times before, Christ answers these disciples in a way that should make every Cardinal in attendance at the 2013 faux “Conclave” terrified. Why?

“Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen…”

What do your senses say? How do your senses inform your intellect? What is the evidence laid out before you? What do you hear? What do you see?

In short: “Examine the evidence”

Dear Cardinals of Feb/March 2013: Do you see two popes dressed in white, both living in the Vatican, both granting audiences, both addressed as His Holiness, both with their Fisherman’s Rings, both giving their Apostolic Blessing, etc, etc. Does the older pope seem to think he is still papal in some way? Is that possible? If that’s what Pope Benedict thought when he wrote his resignation, that he could somehow remain some way “papal,” doesn’t Canon 188 render the resignation invalid? It seems he was in Substantial Error, his mind giving assent to an erroneous notion regarding the essential nature of what he was doing. Isn’t there at least enough evidence to call for an investigation? Another piece of evidence, the cherry on top, is that the younger “pope” isn’t even Catholic. Maybe that is the first clue that something isn’t right. How many shall he scandalize out of the Church before you do something?

The salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Get cracking.

Redux and a beauty: “He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

Miss B. reposted this essay of mine from several years ago (May, 2018). It concerns the mind of Pope Benedict, what role he now believes himself to be fulfilling, and what he was thinking when he… did what he did(n’t). How can we know the mind of Benedict? Because he tells us, over and over and over again. I want you to focus on something as you read through this.

As I’ve oft repeated on the podcast, proving that Pope Benedict was in Substantial Error (Canon 188) regarding his purported resignation, and thus retained the papacy in full, is a very LOW BAR to prove. Why is this true?

Because all that is needed is to show evidence that Pope Benedict intended to remain papal in any way. If he thought he could retain or share any portion of the papacy by only partially resigning, it is game, set, match. Tell me, is there any evidence at all that Pope Benedict still considers himself papal IN ANY WAY?  But remember, Benedict’s mind is not the arbiter of reality. He isn’t still pope by direct causation of his own thoughts, he is still pope because his erroneous notions invalidated his resignation, leaving him not just partial pope but the one and only true pope.


“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.” A NonVeni Mark greatest hit.

(NonVeni Mark wrote this up several years ago, and it can’t be said any better, so I am shamelessly lifting and reposting it. -AB ’22)

“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

That headline was the response given by Abp. Ganswein to the question of certain irregularities in the papal abdication. Pope Benedict had supposedly decided to resign, yet had chosen to retain his vesture, retain his title as pope, albeit with ’emeritus’ added (which is impossible), retain his residency within the Vatican enclosure, and his form of address as remaining “His Holiness”. HERE

The press questioned, “Why?”

The answer, “He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

In Pope Benedict’s mind (“he considers”) that the title “Pope (Emeritus)” and the formal address “His Holiness” corresponds to reality.

But hey, I’m the crazy one for pointing out obvious stuff. Just go ahead and try to suggest on the interweebs that Pope Benedict thinks he retained some portion of the papacy. YOU’RE TWISTING HIS WORDS! YOU’RE NOT A MIND READER! After all, we clearly had a conclave, and “Francis” was clearly elected, and this result seems to have been clearly greeted by peaceful universal acceptance by the cardinals, right?

Do you know what is coming up this Saturday? Everyone is talking about it… The Royal Wedding! Harry and Meghan! It will be televised all around the world, and tens of millions of people will watch. It will look spectacular. All the rituals will play out, the ceremony will unfold, vows exchanged, and the prince and princess will be husband and wife.

Except they won’t be. You see, Meghan is still married to her first husband, because divorce doesn’t exist. Divorce is anti-reality. (Markle is married to the Hollywood Jew Trevor Engleson, and as both were unbaptized at the time, the marriage is a totally valid marriage and as with any valid marriage, indissoluble. -AB ’22) So all that will take place on Saturday is the appearance of a wedding, but in reality is simply fancy formalized adultery and fornication. Even though everything will be done correctly according to formula, nothing will actually happen. It doesn’t matter that all the attendees and everyone watching on television will believe that a wedding just took place. The metaphysical reality of the situation is that nothing happened, because a prior event (her actual wedding) nullifies the “result” of Saturday’s proceedings. In the words of Louie Verrechio, “an act of deception, no matter how cleverly conceived or convincingly executed, cannot change the objective reality of a given situation.“ HERE

Which is exactly why the 2013 conclave didn’t actually happen. It looked like it happened, everyone believed at the time it was real, but now we know that the weight of the evidence points towards a prior event nullifying its occurrence: Pope Benedict intending to hold on to at least part of the papacy. And if that is true, which I believe with moral certainty to be the case, then he didn’t resign any of the papacy, because Canon 188 says he didn’t. No resignation, no conclave.

“He considers that this title corresponds to reality.”

Out of error, truth.

“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.” – Pope Benedict

Archbishop Gänswein:

… Pope Francis and Benedict are not two popes “in competition” with one another, but represent one “expanded” Petrine Office with “an active member” and a “contemplative.”

“Therefore, from 11 February 2013, the papal ministry is not the same as before,” [Ganswein] said.

“…before and after his resignation” Benedict has viewed his task as “participation in such a ‘Petrine ministry’.”  

“He left the Papal Throne and yet, with the step he took on 11 February 2013, he has not abandoned this ministry,” Gänswein explained, something “quite impossible after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005.”

And lastly, Professor de Mattei:

“Benedict XVI had the ability to renounce the papacy, but consequently, would have had to give up the name of Benedict XVI, dressing in white, and the title of Pope emeritus: in a word, he would have had to definitively cease from being Pope, also leaving Vatican City. Why did he not do so? Because Benedict XVI seems to be convinced of still being Pope, although a Pope who has renounced the exercise of the Petrine ministry. This conviction is born of a profoundly-erroneous ecclesiology, founded on a sacramental and not juridical conception of the Papacy. If the Petrine munus is a sacrament and not a juridical office, then it has an indelible character, but in this case it would be impossible to renounce the office. The resignation presupposes the revocability of the office, and is then irreconcilable with the sacramental vision of the Papacy.”

Russian Duma passes law prohibiting LGBTQIXYZ propaganda and so-called “gender reassignment” targeted at children

The bill also stipulates a ban on selling merchandise, including imported items, which contain material that is administratively or criminally liable for disseminating any information of this sort

Russian State Duma Sergei Fadeichev/TASS

Russian State Duma © Sergei Fadeichev/TASS

MOSCOW, November 24. /TASS/. The State Duma on Thursday approved the third reading of a bill prohibiting propaganda that promotes non-traditional sexual relations, pedophilia and information capable of causing someone to seek gender reassignment surgery.

The bill bans LGBT propaganda in the media, on the Internet, as well as in commercials, books and movies. Also, any calls for gender reassignment among minors on the Internet, in the media, and in books, audiovisual services, movies and commercials will be prohibited.

In addition to that, movies containing material with propaganda promoting non-traditional sexual relations or preferences will be banned from screening. Under the ban, children will have limited access to LGBT information on paid audio or video platforms. For example, viewers will be asked to enter a code or take some other steps to verfify their age. Those under 18 years of age will not be able to access LGBT information.

The bill also stipulates a ban on selling merchandise, including imported items, which contain material that is administratively or criminally liable for disseminating any information of this sort. A provision on propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations, pedophilia and information capable of causing minors to seek gender reassignment surgery will be added to the law protecting children from any information harming their health or development.

The Federal Service for Supervision of Communications, Information Technology, and Mass Media (Roskomnadzor) will have the right to formulate the procedure for online monitoring to detect any information access, which should be limited under the federal law on information. A special entity authorized by the government will be in charge of this monitoring.

About 400 legislators, including Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, are among the bill’s authors. As Volodin noted during a meeting earlier, the bill is being approved exclusively in the interests of Russians. “We are following a different path chosen by our grandparents and great-grandparents. We have traditions, and we have a conscience, and we understand that we should think about our children, our families, and our country in order to preserve and protect [the values that] our parents handed down to us,” he emphasized.


US Poised To ‘Dramatically Expand’ Training Of Ukrainian Forces

THURSDAY, DEC 01, 2022 – 06:10 PM

As if the Pentagon and US intelligence hadn’t already escalated its presence enough inside Ukraine, given there are already literally a small contingent of “boots on the ground” – as we detailed last month, CNN is now reporting that the Biden administration is considering “dramatically” increasing its training of Ukrainian forces.

The proposal would involve US advisers training “much larger groups of Ukrainian soldiers in more sophisticated battlefield tactics” at American installations in Germany, and perhaps other locations in Europe, according to the new report.

CNN begins by reporting that “The Biden administration is considering a dramatic expansion in the training the US military provides to Ukrainian forces, including instructing as many as 2,500 Ukrainian soldiers a month at a US base in Germany, according to multiple US officials.”

“If adopted, the proposal would mark a significant increase not just in the number of Ukrainians the US trains but also in the type of training they receive,” the report continues, also noting that this far “only a few thousand” Ukrainian soldiers have been trained on specific US-provided weapons systems.

According to further details in CNN:

Under the new program, the US would begin training much larger groups of Ukrainian soldiers in more sophisticated battlefield tactics, including how to coordinate infantry maneuvers with artillery support – “much more intense and comprehensive” training than Ukraine has been receiving in Poland or the UK, according to one source briefed on the proposal.

This is a significant statement given the ongoing British program at multiple UK bases is large in size. However what’s being mulled by the Pentagon would see some 15,000 Ukrainians trained by the United States every six months. Multiple US officials have meanwhile projected they expect the war could take years before there’s a final ceasefire and resolution.

The UK’s own infantry training program for Ukraine forces has a stated goal of training at least 10,000 Ukrainian troops.

The Kremlin for its part has warned repeatedly of such deepening Western involvement which clearly is now going far beyond just weapons shipments. Russia this week walked away from New START nuclear arms reduction treaty negotiations with the US while citing its growing involvement in backing Kiev as a major reason for halting resumption of talks…


Another Covid warplan against humanity, this one from 2017 and Johns Hopkins, of course

Their planning was meticulous.

Originally posted April 19, 2021

Read the entire 89-page PDF here:


BTW, I will never, ever, commit suicide.

All of the panic, messaging, social media control, downplaying side effects… all of it was in the playbook.

Here are some tasty screenshots:

Hundreds of thousands of open, empty, unused vaxx slots all over the county at this very moment.

Care to write the next chapter?

BMJ Article Calls for Governments to “Neutralise Misinformation” and Ban Dissent in Pandemics

As a director of the U.K. Medical Freedom Alliance, the U.K.’s most recognised and respected organisation advocating every individual’s right to informed consent, bodily autonomy and medical choice, I was shocked and appalled to read the article “Understanding and neutralising COVID-19 misinformation and disinformation“, published in the BMJ on November 22nd 2022. The article contains insinuations and unsubstantiated and unreferenced allegations concerning the UKMFA (and other organisations including HARTUsForThem and Children’s Health Defense) and which appeared to seek to undermine the contribution of our organisations to a critical debate of national importance.

My shock at the tone and text of the article, and its inclusion in a highly respected medical journal like the BMJ, has been echoed by notable scientists and doctors around the world including Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, who posted this strongly worded tweet calling out the “authoritarian nonsense” proposed by the authors of the article, which violates “key civil rights” and is “inconsistent with long standing free speech norms in democratic countries”.

My fellow directors and I were disappointed not to have been offered the customary ‘right to reply’ by the BMJ before the article was published, and we have, therefore, been compelled to write an open letter of complaint to Dr. Karam Abbasi, the Editor in Chief of the BMJ, to be published as our rebuttal to the article (reprinted in full below). In it we comment that it is regrettable that the approach of the authors borders on the defamatory, is manifestly unscientific, and falls short of the editorial standards that the BMJ professes to uphold. In our letter we request an immediate retraction of this article and a published apology…


Reminder that it was the first Sunday of Advent 2020 that United Airlines shipped the first batch of covid “vaccine”

On the First Sunday of Advent, in the TLM, our Lord instructs us to look for signs in the sky…

COVID-19 vaccine distribution: United Airlines has started shipping coronavirus shot

WPVI logo
Sunday, November 29, 2020

CHICAGO — United Airlines has begun shipping the first batches of the COVID-19 vaccine on charter flights, a source told ABC News.

The source is familiar with the operation, according to ABC.

The Federal Aviation Administration had already given the OK for the first mass air shipment of a COVID-19 vaccine.

The FAA said it established a transport team in October to “ensure safe, expeditious and efficient transportation of vaccines.”

The agency said it is also ensuring around-the-clock air traffic services in an effort to prioritize flights carrying vaccines and personnel.

DHL will also be involved in the transportation and storage of the vaccine in various locations, a spokesman said Saturday. The delivery service would not disclose exactly where the COVID-19 vaccine would be stored.


Last chance: Mazza University Advent Mini-Course begins TONIGHT: “APOCALYPSE NOW: THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA”


Mazza Advent Mini-Course

Is an Antipope Predicted? Is the Ukraine-Russia War Mentioned? Why was the Secret Suppressed? Why is it still Suppressed? Who is the “Bishop dressed in white?” When will it be released? In what will the Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart consist? How can I save my family and friends?

(at the very least, give a listen to this quick preview. -nvp):

Join DR. ED MAZZA each Sunday of Advent @6pm Pacific starting Nov. 27th

Attend classes live or watch the videos anytime. Enroll by Nov 27th and the Mini-course is only $99



Reader response to Archbishop Chaput’s derogatory comments toward Traditional Catholics

The following was submitted by a reader, concerning the divisive commentary Archbishop Chaput offered to Trad Catholics of the Diocese of Arlington, in the wake of the destruction of the TLM there. Shameful, indeed. Read the Lifesite coverage here:


Reader response follows. I apologize for the wonky formatting.

Men of the Council

November 14, 2022

This past October 22nd,, the retired Archbishop of Philadelphia, the Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, OFM Cap., spoke to Catholics attending a Eucharistic Symposium at the cathedral in the Diocese of Arlington, Virginia, and answered questions pertinent to Catholic life today. Present in the audience were Catholic laity and clergy, including Philadelphia native and local Ordinary, Bishop Michael Burbidge, who recently crushed diocesan Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) celebrations in his jurisdiction.

The archbishop noted that he has dealt with TLM Catholics who, if scratched, would ooze anti-Vatican-II blood. He never bothered to ask why this might be. He and his like-minded fellows never ask such questions. They are not with traditional Catholics in their concerns.

Why will these ecclesiastics not be wholly with us? (Play on words intended.). After all, we TLM-ers are simply striving to be faithful to our Holy Catholic Church as were our forebears of happy and sainted memory. Shouldn’t these men bearing the name “Catholic” be solidly with us?

Archbishop Chaput, who in the past opened the doors to the celebration of the TLM since his early days as a bishop in Rapid City, South Dakota, seems to find it all too easy today in retirement to dismiss many TLM Catholics as some kind of schism-leaning, noisome whiners too odd for his tastes. His episcopal motto, “As Christ loved the Church,” is a noble ideal, but he seems to fall short of its realization, given his Arlington comments. Are the lowest and most despised members of the Mystical Body of Christ to be scorned? Let not the head say to the feet: “Go away; either get on the Vatican II bandwagon or get lost!”

I would agree that many traditional TLM-loving Catholics, myself included, are odd, but only because we are part of a small but increasing minority of baptized Catholics who hold to the integral Catholic Faith and its perennial practice, and who, therefore, question what has happened to the Church since the opening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962. I would suggest that fidelity to Holy Mother Church requires us to at least examine Vatican II with a critical eye.

Prelates in our present day, such as Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano and Bishop Athanasius Schneider, both well-known figures in traditional Catholic circles, have been critical of Vatican II, although they differ as to what the Church will have to do with it when the Faith returns to the City of Rome and the spotless Bride of Christ returns from her present exile. These men are not alone in their critical views of the Council. They were in fact preceded by others as early as the opening of the conciliar proceedings in October of 1962.

The former Archbishop of Philadelphia apparently believes that the touchstone of fidelity in the Catholic Church is at a minimum the full-throated and unquestioning acceptance of every jot and tittle of the sixteen Vatican II documents officially promulgated by Paul VI. This very same Paul VI declared in his closing address to the Council that the finished work of Vatican II stands as a testimony to the (unbelieving) world that “we too have the cult of man,” to the denigration of Jesus Christ and the mission of the true Church. Should this not raise eyebrows? Yet Chaput, without shame or hesitation, spoke for himself and nearly all post-conciliar bishops when he declared: “I am a man of the Council.” This conciliar revolution is the idol to which they swear fealty.

Therein lies the answer for our inquisitive minds. Why is Chaput so dismissive of traditional Catholics in his replies to Arlington Catholics? Easy. He is a man of the Council. He cannot abide criticism of Vatican Ii, else his house of cards, called the “Conciliar Church” (and, more recently, the “Synodal Church”) be exposed for the fraudulent Antichurch that it is. He would never ask dangerous questions that might point to an unpleasant reality. He dare not honestly address our concerns, lest he become like us and see the true evils afflicting the Church today. No, it is much easier to ridicule and dismiss what cannot be faced.

If he holds Vatican-II-skeptical, traditional Catholics, who are faithful to the entire patrimony of the Church, its dogma and doctrine, its moral teaching, its timeless liturgy and rich devotional life, as near-schismatics if not worse, then it is he who has distanced himself from the Church. As he echoes Bergoglio, he by his own words condemns himself, not us. He and his fellow travelers have declared that the old Faith is dead, and that Vatican II ushered in an entirely new ecclesial reality that must not be questioned, much less repudiated. They tell us with unaccustomed gravity that we must embrace their novel enterprise with enthusiasm or lose our Catholic credentials.

For all their efforts, these churchmen cannot sweep truth under the rug. By the very ambiguity of its texts alone—let’s leave aside elements of error and heresy—Vatican II and the evil it has spawned cannot be a work of the Roman Catholic Church.

You see, the post-conciliar churchmen, having ditched their true Spouse, have gone a-whoring with the post-conciliar religion. Not only will they not be with us on the side of the unchanging and immutable religion given to us by Christ and His Church; they cannot be with us, or it will be their undoing.

Are we not allowed to question Vatican II, their “super dogma,” their “new Advent” and “new Pentecost” ushered into the body ecclesial by “the Spirit?” What spirit, I ask? Why is the entire Vatican II enterprise alone immune from criticism and condemnation while these “men of the Council” dismiss the Church as it was up to the eve of Vatican II?

Allow me now to tread too close to home. Let’s move beyond Chaput & Co. to the traditional Catholic milieu. While we, no more nor less than Catholics at large, have our faults both individually and collectively, and I myself am at the head of the line here, it strikes me as strange that so few voices are willing to rise above the crowd and to declare to the powers ensconced in the ecclesial structures that “the emperor has no clothes.” Why such pathetic if not treacherous silence on the part of so many?

For the past two to three years many traditional Catholics have at best shrugged their shoulders in the face of attacks aimed against them. How about lockdowns of churches and sacramental life in the name of a virus? Or jab evangelization by clerics? Or Traditionis Custodes? Hello? Anyone? In the midst of these evils, too many Catholics in traditional circles have bent over backwards to try to please these “men of the Council” failing in their duties as spiritual shepherds. Much more tragic still are the painful and embarrassing efforts too many of them have made to convince their conciliar overlords that they, too, embrace the Council and that they, too, are faithful and loyal to the very “men of the Council” who would destroy them.

Where among the lay faithful and the lower clergy are the voices of truth to challenge these “men of the Council?” Why are we effectively begging these men wedded to a new religion for permission to believe and to act as Catholics? How sad to see so many Catholics effectively saying to their clerical superiors: “Please mock us, beat us down, spiritually abuse us . . . so we may have your permission for a TLM and the practice of our Faith.” Co-dependency, anyone? Stockholm Syndrome? Fear unbecoming a follower of Christ and His Church?

May the Lord rouse us from our slumber, prod us in our laziness, and banish all fear from our pusillanimous hearts. We will soon hear in the sacred liturgy the words of St. Paul to the Romans (and we ourselves, heirs to their Faith, are Romans, too!) that “it is now the hour for us to rise from sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed. The night is passed, and the day is at hand..”

May these “men of the Council” be struck with fear and awe when they witness in faithful Catholics what they least expect. May they live to see those whom they presently ridicule and “scratch” with condescending pablum newly arisen from slumber, ready and happy to bleed. Yes, to bleed. To bleed with deep red faith, hope and charity, for the love of Jesus Christ and His one, true Church.

Yours in Christ +