Habemus Papam

See here

What's in a name?

The significance of Pope Leo XII provides us with a clue. See here.

On the Feast of the Apparition of Saint Michael:

St. Michael the Archangel, 

defend us in battle. 

Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. 

May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, 

and do thou, 

O Prince of the heavenly hosts, 

by the power of God, 

thrust into hell Satan, 

and all the evil spirits, 

who prowl about the world 

seeking the ruin of souls. Amen. .

O glorious prince St. Michael, 

chief and commander of the heavenly hosts, 

guardian of souls, vanquisher of rebel spirits, 

servant in the house of the Divine King

and our admirable conductor, 

you who shine with excellence

and superhuman virtue deliver us from all evil,

who turn to you with confidence

and enable us by your gracious protection

to serve God more and more faithfully every day.

A balanced perspective here

Antichrist arising...

From The American Conservative, Antichrist arising.

There are all too many Catholics who scoff at the idea of an Antichrist.  Such people have already lost their faith or are well on their way toward doing so.  Such people, enamored with their own intellectual abilities and puffed up with pride, view the idea of a personal Antichrist as a legend of man's fantasy. But the truth regarding the Man of Sin comes to us from God revealing it to His prophets, His Apostles, and to His Church throughout salvation history. Fr. Paschal Huchede, in his excellent work entitled "History of Antichrist," explains:


"Some have thought that the word Antichrist is only a generic term by which all the enemies of Christ are designated, a word comprising in its signification all heretics, schismatics, apostates, infidels - in a word, all the impious or antichristian empire. St. John seems to hold this opinion when he says, "Even now there are become many Antchrists. He who denieth that Jesus is the Christ, this is Antichrist." (1 In. 2:18-22). But that this supposition is erroneous is proved by the context of the same epistle. "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are many Antichrists."

Let it be remembered that in the Greek or original text, the article 'O is employed in connection with Antichrist in the first instance, and not in the second, and the Greek article serves to determine persons and things; whence, it follows that St. John did not mean that all the enemies of Jesus Christ were to be comprised in one generic term expressed by the word "Antichrist". On the contrary, he very succinctly, but clearly, distinguishes Antichrist personally from all the other adversaries of Christ.


Moreover, the Sacred Scriptures speak of Antichrist in various places as being a particular person or individual. "The Man of Sin," "Son of Perdition," terms such as these cannot mean a collective body since the individual is specifically pointed out, while it is easy to explain why St. John employs the same word to distinguish the enemies and adversaries of Christ. The similitude of tendencies and actions suffices to justify the identity of names. The priests, prophets, and kings of the old law were called "Christs". This, however, did not hinder the Jews from believing in the coming of Christ, the Anointed par excellence, source of all sacerdotal, prophetic, and royal unction. And is not the same thing true of Antichrist and the Antichrists, that is, of the enemies of Christ? But there shall come an Antichrist of whom all the others are only the precursors. And this Man of Sin will combine in himself all the malice collectively found in all the others. All the Fathers and theologians unanimously concur in this belief as to Antichrist's individuality. And consequently, his personal existence and future event must be considered as an object of divine faith, such as stated by Suarez and Bellarmine." (History of Antichrist, pp. 11-12, Tan Books).

"Antichrist will pervert some in his day by exterior persuasion...He is the head of all the wicked because in him wickedness is perfect...As in Christ dwells the fullness of the Godhead, so in Antichrist the fullness of all wickedness. Not indeed in the sense that his humanity is to be assumed by the devil into unity of person...but that the devil by suggestion infuses his wickedness more copiously into him than into all others. In this way all the wicked that have gone before are signs of Antichrist." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa III, 8:8).

Related: Toward a one-world religion here.

Francis is determined to change doctrine and to politicize the Church

As explained here "Francis has pledged he will not be deterred from making changes by the strong rhetoric of the 'ultra-conservative' wing of the Catholic Church...nor will he chop off their heads."

"There are some people in the Church who say no to everything," said the Masonic Francis.

I'm sure he won't be deterred from opposing the mind of Christ as made known by the perennial teaching of the Church (Tradition) . For the Depositum Fidei means nothing to a modernist or a Freemason.

Note how Francis uses the term "ultra conservative" to describe Catholics who accept the Church's Tradition and who refuse to believe that one should roll the dice every week to determine what the Church will hold as truth.  Because some of us refuse to become as Unitarians, we must be marginalized by Francis and his cohorts and demonized as "ultra conservative, " "rigid," or "fundamentalist."

My good friend Alice von Hildebrand, in an essay entitled "The secular war on the supernatural," gets to the root of this problem. She writes, "Now let us abolish the terms 'conservative' or 'liberal,' the terms 'left' and 'right' which are secularistic. I suggest that we say from now on 'those who have kept the sense of the supernatural and those who have lost it.' That is the great divide, that is the essence...Do you look at the Church and her teaching, whether dogmatic or moral, with a supernatural eye, or do you look at it with secular lenses? That is the divide. Left and right confuses the issue.."

Francis has lost his supernatural faith. He is a modernist who cannot steel himself to admit that he has abandoned the supernatural faith of Roman Catholicism and replaced it with a demonic construct, a humanitarian religion fit for the coming Man of Sin.

Francis may not lop off our heads (another will see to that, the very Son of Perdition whom he will worship), but clearly he has already lost his own head.

Pope Francis' attitude toward dogma and his Brothers in the Episcopate: Evidence of Satanic pride?

"Pride is to be avoided, that pride of intellect which is more dangerous and more difficult to overcome than the pride of will, as Scupoli says.

This is the pride that renders faith and obedience to superiors difficult. One wants to be self-sufficient; the more confidence one has in one's own judgment the more reluctantly does one accept the teachings of faith, or the more readily does one submit these to criticism and to personal interpretation. In like manner, one so trusts to one's own wisdom, that it is with repugnance that others are consulted, especially superiors. Hence, regrettable mistakes occur. Hence comes also obstinacy of judgment, resulting in the final and sweeping condemnation of such opinions as differ from our own. Herein lies one of the most common causes of strife between Christian and Christian, at times even between Catholic writers. St. Augustine calls those who cause unfortunate dissensions, destructive of peace and of the bond of charity, 'Dividers of unity, enemies of peace, without charity, puffed up with vanity, well pleased with themselves and great in their own eyes.'*

To heal this intellectual pride: 1) we must first of all submit ourselves with childlike docility to the teachings of faith. We are undoubtedly allowed to seek that understanding of our dogmas which is obtained by a patient and laborious quest with the aid of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, especially St. Augustine and St. Thomas; but as the Vatican Council says, this must be done with piety and with discretion, following the maxim of St. Anselm: 'Faith seeking understanding.' Thus we avoid that hypercritical attitude that attenuates and minimizes our dogmas under pretense of explaining them. We submit our judgment not only to the truths of faith but to the directions of the Holy See.." (Fr. Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S., D.D., The Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology, p. 388, Tan Books).

Docility  to the teachings of faith is a remedy for pride of intellect.  But do we witness such docility in Pope Francis?

Recently he told an Argentinian newspaper that, “The world has changed and the Church can not withdraw into supposed interpretations of dogma."

Supposed interpretations? The Church's dogmas represent more than "supposed interpretations" of truth.  As the Catechism explains in paragraphs 88 and 89.

It was Archbishop Fulton Sheen who said that, "The modern man must decide for himself whether he is going to have a religion with thought or a religion without it. He already knows that thoughtless policies lead to the ruin of society, and he may begin to suspect that thoughtless religion ends in confusion worse confounded.

The problem is simple. The modern man has two maps before him: one the map of sentimental religion, the other the map of dogmatic religion. The first is very simple. It has been constructed only in the last few years by a topographer who has just gone into the business of map making and is extremely adverse to explicit directions. He believes that each man should find his own way and not have his liberty taken away by dogmatic directions. The other map is much more complicated and full of dogmatic detail. It has been made by topographers who have been over every inch of the road for centuries and know each detour and each pitfall. It has explicit directions and dogmas such as, 'Do not take this road - it is swampy,' or 'Follow this road; although rough and rocky at first, it leads to a smooth road on a mountaintop.'

The simple map is very easy to read, but those who are guided by it are generally lost in a swamp of mushy sentimentalism. The other map takes a little more scrutiny, but it is simpler in the end, for it takes you up through the rocky road of the world's scorn to the everlasting hills where is seated the original Map Maker, the only One who ever has associated rest with learning: 'Learn of Me...and you shall find rest for your souls.'

Every new coherent doctrine and dogma add to the pabulum for thought; it is an extra bit of garden upon which we can intellectually browse; it is new food into which we can put our teeth and thence absorb nourishment; it is the discovery of a new intellectual planet that adds fullness and spaciousness to our mental world. And simply because it is solid and weighty, because it is dogmatic and not gaseous and foggy like a sentiment, it is intellectually invigorating, for it is with weights that the best drill is done, and not with feathers.

It is the very nature of a man to generate children of his brain in the shape of thoughts, and as he piles up thought on thought, truth on truth, doctrine on doctrine, conviction on conviction, and dogma on dogma, a very coherent and orderly fashion, so as to produce a system complex as a body and yet one and harmonious, the more and more human he becomes. When, however, in response to false cries for progress, he lops off dogmas, breaks with the memory of his forefathers, denies intellectual parentage, pleads for a religion without dogmas, substitutes mistiness for mystery, mistakes sentiment for sediment, he is sinking back slowly, surely, and inevitably into the senselessness of stones and into the irresponsible unconsciousness of weeds. Grass is broad-minded. Cabbages have heads - but no dogmas." (The Electronic Christian, pp. 74-74).

We have a pope who says that he likes to argue with "conservative" Bishops (read orthodox, political terms do not belong in the Church).  Does this suggest humility or pride?

A Sign of Contradiction...

It was Archbishop Fulton John Sheen who once said, "The acceptance of the fullness of Truth will have the unfortunate quality of making you hated by the world. Forget for a moment the history of Christianity, and the fact that Christ existed. Suppose there appeared in this world today a man who claimed to be Divine Truth; and who did not say, 'I will teach you Truth,' but 'I am the Truth.' Suppose he gave evidence by his works of the truth of his statement. Knowing ourselves as we do, with our tendency to relativism, to indifference, and to the fusing of right and wrong, how do you suppose we would react to that Divine Truth? With hatred, with obloquy, with defiance; with charges of intolerance, narrow-mindedness, bigotry, and crucifixion. That is what happened to Christ. That is what our Lord said would happen to those who accept His Truth." We have only to meditate upon the Fifteenth Chapter of the Gospel of John, verses 18-19 to see the truth of Archbishop Sheen's statement.

Readers of this Blog know that I'm not a partisan. I'm on the side of truth. Which is why I have worked to expose error wherever it may be found, whether in those circles which pretend to be "traditional" or in those which advance what is considered a "liberal" agenda. And so, I have been condemned, attacked, villified and even threatened by those who consider themselves to be "conservative" and by those who consider themselves to be "liberal." But this comes as no surprise since we are all called to be a sign of contradiction.

The Archdiocese of Boston has failed to appreciate this fact. Which is why they view bloggers who are faithful to the Magisterium, even while being critical of certain elements in the archdiocese, as "causing harm to the community." The Boston Globe cannot appreciate recent events. In a recent article, the newspaper said that:

"The blogs are a departure from the usual attacks against the Church because they offer a conservative critique of the local hierarchy. The archdiocese is more accustomed to fielding complaints from those pushing for a liberalization if Church teachings.."

But there is a profound difference between fraternal correction and an "atack." A point which those who publish The Boston Globe do not fully appreciate. My good friend Alice von Hildebrand, in an essay entitled "The secular war on the supernatural," gets to the root of the problem. She writes, "Now let us abolish the terms 'conservative' or 'liberal,' the terms 'left' and 'right' which are secularistic. I suggest that we say from now on 'those who have kept the sense of the supernatural and those who have lost it.' That is the great divide, that is the essence...Do you look at the Church and her teaching, whether dogmatic or moral, with a supernatural eye, or do you look at it with secular lenses? That is the divide. Left and right confuses the issue.." (See here for more).

Do we have a truly Catholic intellect? Do we see what the Church sees? It was Frank Sheed who reminded us that, "we must..see what the Church sees. This means that when we look upon the Universe we see the same Universe that the Church sees; and the enormous advantage of this is that the Universe the Church sees is the real Universe, because She is the Church of God. Seeing what She sees means seeing what is there. And just as loving what is good is sanctity, or the health of the will, so seeing what is there is sanity, or the health of the intellect." (Theology and Sanity, p. 4).

If the Archdiocese of Boston views Catholic bloggers faithful to the Magisterium (who see what the Church sees) as "harming the community" with their posts, what would that suggest about the sanity of the Boston Archdiocese?

In any event, the retreat from truth is a preparation for the Reign of Antichrist.