Contraception and sodomy go together like a horse and carriage, and both are officially coming soon to the antichurch in ascendance

But I repeat myself.
From the linked article by the always excellent Diane Montagna:

In 2018, at a public lecture held at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Fr. Chiodi said that there are “circumstances — I refer to Amoris Laetitia, Chapter 8 — that precisely for the sake of responsibility, require contraception.” When “natural methods are impossible or unfeasible, other forms of responsibility need to be found,” argued Fr. Chiodi in his lecture, entitled (KNOCK ME OVER WITH A FEATHER) Re-reading Humanae Vitae (1968) in light of Amoris Laetitia (2016).

In such circumstances, Chiodi said, “an artificial method for the regulation of births could be recognized as an act of responsibility that is carried out, not in order to radically reject the gift of a child, but because in those situations responsibility calls the couple and the family to other forms of welcome and hospitality.”

The lecture took place after Pope Francis purged the Pontifical Academy for Life, filling it with new appointees (including Fr. Chiodi), some with dissenting views on Humanae Vitae.

As any reader of these pages knows, contraception is a grave evil, because it is a usage of the reproductive system in a manner which blocks its primary function, procreation. All sexual acts which are not open to life or are intrinsically incapable of producing life are always contrary to the Natural Law, and thus, always gravely sinful. I did an exhaustive two-part essay on this, PART 1 and PART 2. I consider these two pieces to be among the most important of anything I’ve published in this space. I urge you to give them a spin.
But wait! Amoris Laetitia to the rescue!

Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage.  … [Conscience] can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized. (Amoris Laetitia ¶303)
A pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives…Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that ‘natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions. (¶305)

And the road from here to Sodom is not just a slippery slope, it is a bullet train. Once the antichurch approves contraception, it will take three nanoseconds for Paglia or Cupich or Marx to raise his hand and say, “But Wait! That means cornholing at Cocco’s is now totes legit!”
Helpfully, Fr. Chiodi was gracious enough to prove my point. Chiodi doesn’t draw out the rational argument quite yet, however he does let everyone know that he is totally on board with the buttsecks. From the same Montagna article at LSN:

The Italian Fr. James Martin?

More recently, Fr. Chiodi openly expressed heterodox positions on homosexuality, arguing that we need to go beyond “nature” and consider the possibility that homosexual acts can in certain circumstances be morally good.

In a July 29 interview with Luciano Moia of Avvenire, the official newspaper of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Fr. Chiodi was asked if he agrees “with those who argue that acts within a homosexual couple should be evaluated on the basis of the spiritual fruits they produce, whether or not they are ordered to build up the good of the person?”

Initially seeming to suggest that persons with same-sex attraction are called to live in perfect continence, Fr. Chiodi said: “The homosexual person is also called, in his specific way, to follow a path of chaste, virtuous relationships, capable of friendship and brotherhood. No one can escape this commitment, which is born of the gift of God.”

However, the Italian moral theologian then suggested, on the basis of Amoris Laetitia, that sexual acts within a homosexual relationship can be good, at least in certain circumstances. 

“As Pope Francis recalled, even if regarding another issue — the ‘divorced and remarried’ — it is clear that, within a historical perspective, each person is asked not only what is possible for him, but also what is possible for him in a specific moment of life,” Fr. Chiodi said.

Because if contraception is okay, and adultery is okay, and not only okay, but what GOD HIMSELF is asking, then keep your Rosaries out of my rectal vault.

Can a true pope invalidate infallibility?

Wait, say what?
The Law of Non-contradiction sure is getting a workout these days. But the truth is becoming so clear that honest people who see what is happening are able to assess it honestly and begin to evolve their mindset.
A post appeared the other day from Never-BiPer Steven O’Reilly at his blog Roma Locuta Est HERE.  Steven has long been open to the possibility that Bergoglio could be declared an antipope, at some point in the future, which would mean that he is an antipope right now.  But he has steadfastly denied any notion that Benedict might still be pope, hence the “Never-BiPer” moniker.  Steven has always been very respectful in our exchanges on this matter, so I hope to treat him fairly here.
He highlights in this post a passage from ++Müller’s lastest attempt to rehabilitate himself among the “good guys,” after his massive failing as Prefect at CDF at the beginning of the Bergoglian Antipapacy.

July 26, 2019 (Steven O’Reilly) – When is a “pope” not a pope? A recent commentary by Cardinal Müller seems to suggest, albeit in an oblique manner, how we might know.
Cardinal Müller recently released a statement “On the Synodal Process in Germany and the Synod for the Amazon,” … In the most recent commentary, rejecting the possibility of female deacons, Cardinal Müller writes the following (emphasis added):
“The Magisterium of the Pope and of the bishops has no authority over the substance of the Sacraments (Trent, Decree on Communion under both species, DH 1728; Sacrosanctum Concilium 21). Therefore, no synod – with or without the Pope – and also no ecumenical council, or the Pope alone, if he spoke ex cathedra, could make possible the ordination of women as bishop, priest, or deacon. They would stand in contradiction the defined doctrine of the Church. It would be invalid…”
If we assume hypothetically that Pope Francis were to make such an ex cathedra declaration on the subject above, there seems to me to be two implications embedded in the Cardinal’s statement. The first — obviously — what the Cardinal says explicitly, i.e., that such an “ex cathedra” declaration, in the Cardinal’s mind, would be invalid, and thus should be disregarded by the Faithful.
However, as Catholics well know, this poses an obvious difficulty.

That, my friends, is intellectual honesty. I’m sorry to say that Trad Inc. is sorely lacking this trait.
Steven continues:

Vatican I defined the dogma of papal infallibility in the following terms (emphasis added):
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, through the divine assistance promised him in blessed Peter, operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that his church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”  (Pastor Aeternus cited in Fundamentals of Catholic Doctrine, Denzinger, 1839)
In addition, this definition is followed by a canon, which states: “But if anyone presumes to contradict this definition of Ours, which may God forbid: let him be anathama” (Denzinger 1840).
Clearly, a faithful Catholic will note the seeming disconnect between what Pastor Aeternus defined infallibly, and what Cardinal Müller said above. But, the Cardinal is no dummy as to suggest ex cathedra statements can be disregarded. This suggests, to me at least, a hidden, unstated and inescapable implication in the Cardinal’s statement, as well as being an indication of how he and other Cardinals are now privately viewing Pope Francis–though this is speculative.
There is only one way, in logic at least, for a Catholic to accept Vatican I on papal infallibility but reject a heretical declaration that seemingly meets the formal conditions of being ex cathedra.
Given that a true pope is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching an error ex cathedra, it follows that if a man, seemingly “pope,” were to teach something which denies or conflicts with a known truth of the Catholic Faith it must be either (1) the man thought to be “pope” was never a true pope to begin with, or (2) the man thought to be “pope” had, at some point in the past, already fallen through heresy or apostasy from the Petrine office. Those are the logical implications as I see them. Whether these are intended by the Cardinal or not with respect to Francis, in such a hypothetical scenario as he outlined, I cannot say.
If this a fair analysis, it may suggest the Cardinal and at least a few others in the Sacred College are actively considering one of these options to be a real possibility in the case of Pope Francis. If nothing else, it certainly is a shot across the bow of Pope Francis. It does suggest, along with other statements from the likes of Cardinal Brandmuller, that some in the “resistance” are reaching the point where they can bend no more. So, after so many years, we may be reaching a decisive moment.

But it gets better, because Vatican I went further than a just a simple definition of the doctrine of infallibility as it relates Ex Cathedra (the portion quoted in Steven’s post). Take a look at the teaching leading up to formal definition of infallibility, and ask yourself: If these words are infallible, which they are, then is it possible that Bergoglio is pope? 

Chap. 4. The Infallible “Magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff

3065 Dz 1832 [Arguments from public documents]. Moreover, that by the very apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff as the successor of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, holds over the universal Church, the supreme power of the magisterium is also comprehended, this Holy See has always held, the whole experience of the Church approves, and the ecumenical Councils themselves, especially those in which the Last convened with the West in a union of faith and charity, have declared.
3066 Dz 1833 For the fathers of the fourth council of Constantinople, adhering to the ways of the former ones, published this solemn profession: “Our first salvation is to guard the rule of right faith [. . .]. And since the sentiment of our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be passed over when He says: ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church’ (Mt 16,18), these words which were spoken are proven true by actual results, since in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved untainted, and holy doctrine celebrated. Desiring, then, least of all to be separated from the faith and teaching of this [Apostolic See], We hope that We may deserve to be in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the solidarity of the Christian religion is whole and true” *
3067 Dz 1834 [cf. n. 171 f.]. Moreover, with the approval of the second council of Lyons, the Greeks have professed, “that the Holy Roman Church holds the highest and the full primacy and pre-eminence over the universal Catholic Church, which it truthfully and humbly professes it has received with plenitude of power from the Lord Himself in blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles, of whom the Roman Pontiff is the successor; and, just as it is bound above others to defend the truth of faith, so, too, if any questions arise about faith, they should be defined by its judgment” [cf. n.466].
3068 Dz 1835 Finally, the Council of Florence has defined: “That the Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to it in the blessed Peter has been handed down by the Lord Jesus Christ the full power of feeding, ruling, and guiding the universal Church” [see n.694].
3069 Dz 1836 [Argument from the assent of the Church]. To satisfy this pastoral duty, our predecessors always gave tireless attention that the saving doctrine of Christ be spread among all the peoples of the earth, and with equal care they watched that, wherever it was received, it was preserved sound and pure. Therefore, the bishops of the whole world, now individually, now gathered in Synods, following a long custom of the churches and the formula of the ancient rule, referred to this Holy See those dangers particularly which emerged in the affairs of faith, that there especially the damages to faith might be repaired where faith cannot experience a failure. * The Roman Pontiffs, moreover, according as the condition of the times and affairs advised, sometimes by calling ecumenical Councils or by examining the opinion of the Church spread throughout the world; sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by employing other helps which divine Providence supplied, have defined that those matters must be held which with God’s help they have recognized as in agreement with Sacred Scripture and apostolic tradition.
3070 For, the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth. Indeed, all the venerable fathers have embraced their apostolic doctrine, and the holy orthodox Doctors have venerated and followed it, knowing full well that the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Lc 22,32).
3071 Dz 1837 So, this gift of truth and a never failing faith was divinely conferred upon Peter and his successors in this chair, that they might administer their high duty for the salvation of all; that the entire flock of Christ, turned away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished on the sustenance of heavenly doctrine, that with the occasion of schism removed the whole Church might be saved as one, and relying on her foundation might stay firm against the gates of hell.

Barnhardt Podcast #89 and the implicit desire to be officially excommunicated from the antichurch

We finally did a podcast! I am told it could become a regular thing.
My favorite part was an intense exchange between 22:00 – 27:00, wherein we take turns extolling the “good guys’ in the hierarchy, particularly within the Cardinaliate, to finally MAN UP and declare Bergoglio to be an antipope, declare him to have never been pope, and declare his entire faux pontificate expunged. Aggressive offense, not “prevent defense,” needs to be the gameplan. They all need to reflect on the probable outcome of their Particular Judgment should they continue to sit back and let an antipope and likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist to rape the Bride of Christ.
But oh, the fear of reprisals, the fear of losing the red hat, the fear of schism, casualties, etc… and then Ann launches into the logical progression of this:
(I’m paraphrasing) “They should WANT to be punished; they should WANT to be declared in schism; they should WANT to be EXCOMMUNICATED — by an antipope — and likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist. Who wouldn’t want that? We are all at risk of that. I hope it comes in the mail, with a wax seal. Take that puppy straight away to get matted and framed within an inch of its life, and hang it over the fireplace. When I die, put it in my coffin; place it over my heart. Can you imagine showing up at your Particular Judgment and pulling out a piece of paper proving that you defended the One True Faith with such sacred fleekness that you got tossed out of the antichurch by the likely False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist?”
Not to be glib, dear cardinals, but think about this rationally. Antipope is not an office, it’s a criminal status. We are talking about ontological reality here. He holds no juridical power.  At most, Bergoglio is a cardinal without a bishopric. But he has almost certainly incurred latae sententiae excommunication (from the True Church, obvi) for a wide variety of misdeeds. So what are you afraid of, red martyrdom? You do know that’s why you wear red, right?
Combox is open!

Barnhardt Podcast #089: Wacky Wabbit Holes

[Direct link to the MP3 file]
In this special episode, Ann is joined by Mark Docherty of the NonVeniPacem blog. As expected, the conversation turned out to be 80 minutes of awkward silences punctuated by deep dives into the mysteries of the Church of Rome. Trigger warning: Ann uses the racist epithet “cracker”, and both Mark and Ann state that Bruce Jenner is, in fact, a man.
Links, reading, and YouTube:

Feedback: please send your questions, comments, and suggestions to

Cardinal Cupich is having a bad day, so you can be sure it’s a good day for Truth and Justice

Go check out the whole thread, HERE. There are other riveting arguments, such as, “But but but Saint Francis de Buenos Aires just changed the Catechism, so this is not allowed any more.” He’s really got his panties in a wad, and it’s a sight to behold. Can I get an amen?
Oh, his name is pronounced “Soopitch,” or if you are a lisping acolyte, “Thoopitch.”
It isn’t a difficult concept: The Death Penalty is a requirement of Justice to the CRIMINAL, who is not to be denied this in fairness to him, and for the benefit of his repentance, reparation, and hopefully attaining the Beatific Vision in the end. There can be no harm to his “human dignity,” when his supernatural end is the focus. The only way this becomes hard to understand is if you deny the supernatural, Heaven, Hell, etc.
Reblogging some stuff:

Remember…“The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”

image1 (1)

It would be INSANE to suggest a valid pontiff could reverse 2000 years of doctrine, AMIRIGHT?

It’s said that everyone has their breaking point. Anyone who continues on the “Pope Francis” train past this station should be prepared to start questioning their own sanity. How many times do you need to see the law of non-contradiction *seemingly* broken, before you start to scratch your head and think, “Wait, that can’t happen”?
You know how someone should have told Luther that you can’t just rip out the parts of the bible you don’t like, and you can’t change the verses to better suit your liking? Well, someone should have told the Argentinian the same thing about the Catechism of the Catholic Church, because not only did he change it, but now he has driven a stake through it.
Conveniently, Diane Montagna has put together a powerhouse follow-up to her initial reportage yesterday of the Bergoglian Faux Mercy Machine on the Death Penalty HERE.  Thank God for the work she is doing at LifeSite, since the general media blackout otherwise continues unabated. Her piece is a must read.
She first captures commentary by Edward Feser, and then she brings in an anonymous theologian: Dominican vs Argentinian in a steel cage death match. It’s a rather lopsided battle.  Next up is a Catholic historian, Dr. Alan Fimister, who ends the scene by quoting the great Elizabeth Anscombe. Turns out Anscombe vs Argentinian is pretty decisive as well.
God is immutable. The Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is immutable. It’s not that difficult a concept. When true popes teach, they document their orthodoxy by generously footnoting key points with references to Scripture, Fathers, Doctors, and past popes. A true pope goes out of his way to point out, “Hey, this isn’t new.” Go to and pull up any document from any past pope. You will quickly see, this is how it’s done.
What can one say about a “Bishop of Rome” who claims the One True Faith was wrong – long on justice and short on mercy, with an immature conscience – from 33 A.D. to 2013 A.D. How could he contradict scripture, Tradition, Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and all of his “predecessors’? How can he deliberately misquote Aquinas (as he did in Amoris Laetitia as well) in trying to get support for his utterly novel teaching (which a scholar of ten years old can discover in ten seconds that Aquinas teaches exactly the opposite, and he does it in Articles 2-3 of the very same Question 64 that the Argentinian cites HERE.)
Imagine how profoundly UNPROTECTED one must be from the supernatural graces our Lord and Savior promised to Peter and his successors, to wake up one morning and decide to take on Saint Thomas Aquinas and invert his teachings. Imagine then GETTING AWAY WITH IT, cue the accompanying endorphin rush, BECAUSE SILENCE.
Oh yes, BTW he is still Argentinian, you know. Renewed his Argentinian passport, even though he’s the purported Head of State of a different sovereign entity. It’s almost like a sign, or something. He also doesn’t live where popes live. He also doesn’t wear what popes wear. He also doesn’t give the apostolic blessing like popes do. He also likes to be called bishop, not pope. Nothing to see here.

“The judge who fails the criminal in punishment himself incurs a greater guilt.”

If you don’t think CCC#675 is in play right now, think again. We’ve reached the point where the Vatican is attempting to deflect from the infestation of moral decay within the episcopate by publishing heresy in the Catechism. This is the Antichurch in ascendancy.
The death penalty is not unjust, it is just. It is not unmerciful, it is merciful. It is a means of repentance, forgiveness, and salvation. It forces the penitent (that’s why it’s called a ‘penitentiary’) to reflect more deeply on his sins as his time draws near, and hopefully experience a conversion. Justice demands this. Failing to dispense proportional punishment for a criminal act, is itself a criminal act. But for someone who doesn’t believe in the supernatural, doesn’t believe in the eternal life of the soul, none of this makes sense.
Anyway, I’m short on time, and Ann has already put up a bunch of proofs from Doctors or the Church and others. The title quote is from the brilliant John Senior, whom I’ve quoted many times on this site. Read it all HERE.


New York state of mind, 2019: Purrrrfectly okay with infanticide, but don’t touch the kitties

HERE h/t Frank Walker
This is a state where killing a live human infant is legal. HERE

New York became the first U.S. state to ban the declawing of cats Monday…Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, signed the New York ban. He also signed the bill legalizing infanticide, in a scene that can only be described as chillingly demonic, HERE.
“This is a real triumph for cats and the people who love them,” said Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, D-Manhattan, who pushed for years and who yielded to temptation when it came feline-themed puns on Monday. “This has catapulted New York to a leadership position when it comes to cruelty against felines.”
The state’s largest veterinary organization opposed the bill. The New York State Veterinary Medical Society argued that declawing should be allowed as a last resort for felines that won’t stop scratching furniture or humans — or when the cat’s owner has a weakened immune system, putting them at greater risk of infection from a scratch.

I personally think declawing is sub-optimal for cats. My current set of cats are not declawed, and my arms, ankles, and furniture are witness to this. They also bite, and are a general pain in the ass to have around. But I’ve also had cats that seem to live pretty healthy, carefree lives without their claws. Yes, there is some sort term pain involved, but does that mean we should outlaw spaying and neutering?
Anyway, the point of this post has little to do with cats and everything to do with baby murder, and the people who have moral qualms about the former but not the latter.
I don’t even know what else to write.

“In fact, they argue that to deny that Francis is the true Pope is a sin against the Faith.”

In fact, they argue that if you believe that the pope is a different man than the man they believe is pope, then you are in SCHISM. I rather think it is a species of the leftist tactic wherein everyone who disagrees with me is literally Hitler.
I post here a condensed version of a letter, from an anonymous priest, to Bishop Gracida:
Original HERE

Dear Bishop,
I wish to comment on your Open Letter to the Cardinals of the Church :
The above Open Letter is absolutely brilliant!  …
Most people have a very strong position that Francis is Pope due to the fact that an Infallible Dogmatic Fact arises when a Cardinal is validly elected as a Successor of Peter. The book by John Salza and Robert Siscoe, True or False Pope?, has been hailed as a powerful source for that position, given their treatment on Universal and Peaceful Acceptance of a Pope. However, I have challenged that position precisely because there is apostasy within the Church…
I have argued with Mr. Siscoe, advancing quotes in support of my position from the renowned theologian Canonist Canon Herve, that given the Apostasy WITHIN the Church today, (which was foretold by Our Lady at Fatima and indeed is part of the Third Secret of Fatima per Cardinal Ciappi, Papal Theologian to Pope John Paul II, when he said that “The apostasy in the Church begins at the top”), there CAN BE NO TRUE UNANIMITY, I.E., UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE…
Furthermore, St. Pius X states in his Encyclical on Modernism:  “And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to the synthesis of all heresies.  Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done.  Nay, they have gone further than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the DESTRUCTION NOT OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION ALONE, BUT OF ALL RELIGION.”
Since that Encyclical how many modernists have entered the Church, are today running the Church and are bereft of “ALL RELIGION”?  I don’t know how Mr. Siscoe and Mr. Salza can argue that there is truly a “Consensus fidelium” and thus that we have the assurance that Francis is the true Pope.  In fact, they argue that to deny that Francis is the true Pope is a sin against the Faith.  And this is why I personally believe that Benedict, whose renunciation actually indicates that he intended to maintain the Petrine Office, is the true Pope and remains the true Pope until he dies. (edit: or until he VALIDLY resigns)
– A Catholic Priest
July 20, 2019

And then there is the combox:

Archbishop Chaput already announcing his impending ouster from the Philadelphian See?

This is tomorrow’s bulletin from St. Cornelius Catholic Church in Chadds Ford, PA:
I mean, not that I’m surprised. Everyone expects for the noncardinal to have his resignation immediately accepted upon its submission on his 75th birthday in September. Were it to NOT be immediately accepted by the petrine usurper, that would be a real shock.
But you’re really out there front-running it two months beforehand? Has he already been told to pack up his stuff and get back to the reservation? I suppose if you know there will not be a long goodbye, you might as well tailgate the pre-party.
Archbishop Chaput has long been an enigma. Conservative on most things, friendly to Tradition, pretty strong track record in Philly, and in Denver before that. One of the better bishops in the USA, I think would be a safe assessment, if not damning with faint praise.
But then there were those infuriating moments. He was a Never-Trumper, issuing hugely contradictory and unhelpful statements during the 2016 campaign, further confusion on immigration, etc, etc.
It’s late and it’s been a long day. Will be following this to see what comes next. I fear for my native place.

“He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross”

UPDATE: Commentary from Miss White can be found by scrolling further, inserted at the appropriate spot in this post.

“I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. For I am even now ready to be sacrificed: and the time of my dissolution is at hand.” 2 Tim 4:1-6

What you are about to read is not calumny. Neither is it detraction, since everything in this post is already a matter of public record. I am morally bound to cover this (Canon 1752, Salus animarum supemus lex esto), because I have personally recommended and directed the readership of this blog to the writings and rantings of a certain “thought leader” of Trad Inc., and I have written several blog posts praising her work. Her name is Hilary White, and her erratic actions in the past 6-8 months have been cause for concern, including some nasty calumny as well as public declarations of both heresy and borderline apostasy.
I have posted warnings previously, but in the past I had always redacted her identity, while correcting the errors. Vis:

Let’s move on to the law of unintended consequences. This happens when someone holds a conviction to be true because the data set seems to confirm it, but doesn’t think through the logical implications. The madness we are swimming in can make smart people operate in strange ways. I paste here a couple examples.
This person thinks neither Benedict nor Bergoglio is pope (de facto sedevacantism). They think Bergoglio is an antipope because of his myriad heresies, but that he really was the pope at one point. Which means the See is currently vacant. But they don’t really want to say so, and they certainly don’t want to try to do anything about it. We have to “carry on” doing nothing, saying nothing. It doesn’t matter that millions of souls are at risk, either by losing their faith or by being ratified in their sins by this wretched regime. Better to lie low, you know.
This person is taking the position of the Old Catholic movement: They reject the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as defined at the First Vatican Council. Since it doesn’t make sense that a true pope can be so very fallible, this person wonders if it is solemnly declared settled doctrine that’s wrong. Don’t do this. Don’t let the raging heresy of Bergoglio lead you to question previous magisterial teaching. Don’t become a heretic because a heretic “pope” is leading you to question everything you previously believed.
Keep the faith.
Don’t panic.
God knows what He is doing, and He doesn’t keep the truth hidden. FULL POST HERE

That was back in November, after which she swore off twitter for a few minutes. Prior to that, she had also shut down her blog for little while, but everything is back up and running now.
Below is the culmination of a series of tweets earlier this week, wherein she relentlessly mocked the new Mass. Every Catholic needs to be on notice, as the stakes are sort of high, as every single one of us tries to work out our salvation with fear and trembling.

This is an attempted justification for ditching the Third Commandment. What she is saying is that, if all that is available to you is the Novus Ordo, you shouldn’t go to Mass, because the Novus Ordo is poison. It’s deadly.
This is wrong. Don’t fall for it.
Trust me, I have first hand experience with the horrendous abuses of the Novus Ordo. I suffered through it for YEARS before I found Tradition, and still suffer through it in many other dioceses when traveling during the week, which is almost every week. In my own diocese, I am blessed to have several very reverent Novus Ordo parishes, with very few distractions. I often attend weekday Mass at these when I am home, on days when the Traditional Mass is offered at an inconvenient time.
Quick facts (not opinions) on the Novus Ordo Mass of Paul VI:

  1. This Mass was conceived in malice, however,
  2. THIS MASS IS VALID, which means,
  3. Christ comes down onto that altar, and oh by the way,
  4. The Third Commandment has not been abrogated

Miss B. has a beautiful, very inspiring essay on this topic HERE.
I learned a very valuable lesson once, and I learned it from an FSSP priest. I had made a mindless quibble to him about a certain Novus Ordo Mass that I was regularly attending a couple days a week, fully expecting him to express some sort of sympathy.  His four word response hit me like a ton of bricks: “It’s still the Mass.” Translation: “The Eucharist was validly confected, Jesus was there for you, and you are complaining?”
But but but it’s just AWFUL! It’s going to cause me to lose my faith! #feltbanners #guitars #bongos #sisterbutch #fatherjazzhands #hugofpeace #martyhaugen #SJWs #daisydukes
Sometimes being a grown-up means having to deal with unpleasantness. Look at it this way: Your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whom you should love above all things, wants you to be there, WITH HIM. God Himself, out of love for us, is subjecting Himself to the horrors, the abuses, the blasphemy, the gayness, the music from the pit of Hell. He loves you so much that he comes down from Heaven, naked on the Cross, and offers Himself, not for His sake, but for yours. Man up and figure out how to deal with it.
Then again, there was already something amiss even in Norcia, where the Ancient Mass was within walking distance:
Furthermore, if you think the Novus Ordo is poison, and you simply will not attend, yet after Norcia you move to a place where you know beforehand the Novus Ordo is your only option, what does that say about your intentions?
UPDATE, from the combox, in fairness:

Hilary White says:

Jesus is really there, body, blood, soul, and divinity. He is there, humbly offering Himself to you yet again, if you will only accept His invitation. He is there, DESPITE what they have done to Holy Mass. He does not abandon us. He is there, He wants your company, He deeply desires His love to be reciprocated. You know it’s true.
Miss White, if you are reading this, my Mass and Rosary were offered for you today.
Just one more thing. If someone tries to tell you that you are in mortal sin or a heretic or schismatic by the very act of attending Mass, which means you should NOT attend, and they make a little joke about a topic that puts souls at risk, give that person a very wide berth. The fate of your eternal soul hangs in the balance, and Trad Inc. thinks it’s funny.

“For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.” Philippians 2:5-12

(Aside: The words in Greek are so clear and immutable, the correct translation is even preserved in all the Prot bibles, even though none of them believe in this. How do the sola scriptura people square this passage with Once Saved Always Saved? It makes you wonder how Luther forgot to rip it out, like he did with all the other stuff he didn’t like.)
φόβου (phobou)
Noun – Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong’s Greek 5401: (a) fear, terror, alarm, (b) the object or cause of fear, (c) reverence, respect. From a primary phebomai; alarm or fright.
τρόμου (tromou)
Noun – Genitive Masculine Singular
Strong’s Greek 5156: A trembling, quaking, fear. From tremo; a ‘trembling’, i.e. Quaking with fear.
Man up! Get to Mass! Close your eyes and pray in Latin!

SSPX church in St. Mary’s isn’t just a magnificent edifice, it’s a tool to help get us to Heaven

The new SSPX Church at their St. Mary’s, KS campus is going to be incredible.
St. Paul Outside the Walls and St. Mary Major in Rome are the principal architectural inspirations. The vault is 150 feet high. Seating for 1500. $30MM project, and they already have half of it in the bank. Not pledged, mind you… In The Bank.
At one point in the video, one of the layman makes the remark that the grandness and the vertical plane aren’t merely tasteful, beautiful, pleasing to the eye… they are tools designed to inspire holiness. These things help us try harder, help us get to Heaven.

The video is 24 minutes long, and well worth it.
I attended my first SSPX Mass last Sunday. It wasn’t any sort of statement on my part; it was a matter of circumstance. It was absolutely beautiful, powerful, manly. The MC was tight, the servers were trained to a degree I’ve rarely seen, and there were ten of them. Solid sermon, about 20 minutes long. A second priest was hearing confessions when I arrived, and he stayed in the box throughout the Mass. The congregants were friendly.
The only nitpick was cheap incense. Buy your priests good incense, folks. Try THESE. I prefer the Cantica most, but the texture of the Laudate works better with thurible and boat.
I’m not sure where we would be right now if not for Archbishop Lefebvre, but it’s hard not to think of him in Athanasian terms.
Saint Mary, Undoer of Knots, pray for us
Saint Athanasius, Doctor of the Church, pray for us
Saint Pius X, pray for us

Every thought, word, and action

Our Lady of Mt. Carmel
O my God, in union with the Immaculate Heart of Mary (here kiss the Brown Scapular), I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ, joining with it my every thought, word and action of this day.
O my Jesus, I desire today to gain every indulgence and merit I can, and I offer them, together with myself, to Mary Immaculate, that she may best apply them to the interests of Thy Most Sacred Heart.
Precious Blood of Jesus, save us!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!