TRUE or False Pope: Refuting Sedevacantism and other Modern Errors is a recently released 700-page book published by Angelus Press and written by John Salza and Robert Siscoe.

Very few people are likely to read this anti-sedevacantist polemic because of its length and dullness.

But it is sure to have great symbolic value.

As the Rev. Anthony Cekada, one of the foremost apologists of sedevacantism, says in this videotaped review of the book, people who don’t want to think about sedevacantism will find affirmation in the very existence of the book and its impressive length.

Sedevacantists hold that the Vatican II claimants to the papal see, including Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the mega-celebrity “Pope” Francis, are not true popes. This position does not entail the belief that these men were, or are, thoroughly evil or that they did not uphold some important Catholic truths. Let me repeat that point because it is so misunderstood and demonized: This position does not entail the belief that these men, and certainly not those who have faithfully followed them, are monsters. It contends that these men were, or are, not valid popes because they rejected key dogmas of the Catholic Faith. They didn’t — and don’t — have true authority.

In contrast, Catholic traditionalists such as Salza and Siscoe believe the Vatican II popes should be recognized as valid popes — and resisted. They adamantly reject the sedevacantist position.

This is an extremely important issue, not some marginal intellectual dispute.

Without settled dogma and a divinely-guaranteed authority to preserve it, Christianity is a fluctuating and unstable religion of man. Vatican II revolutionized Catholic worship and dogma. It was, and continues to be, comparable to the French Revolution in its wider cultural influence. A word to my Protestant friends, many of whom are so admirably devout and sincere in their beliefs: Your Bible wouldn’t exit without papal authority.

Here is the sedevacantist argument in brief by Fr. Cekada: (more…)

  A great speech given by British MP George Galloway before the Oxford Union this spring.

FROM Global Research:

A report in 21st of July edition of Le Figaro newspaper states that France’s anti-terrorist executive (sous-direction anti-terroriste- SDAT) has ordered Nice’s urban surveillance authorities to destroy all CCTV footage of the Nice Attacks on Bastille Day that rocked the city on the 14th of July 2016. (more…)

BROTHER Nathanael Kapner analyses Trump’s statements in support of the “LGBTQ community” at the Republican Convention. The Republican Party has irretrievably abandoned its family values. It’s over. It can never go back. Every major institution in America is pitted against God and the laws of nature. (more…)

WHERE'S THE PROOF?

THE alternative media has been abuzz during the past week with reports that the same German photographer, who is married to a former Israeli politician who previously worked for Israeli intelligence, just happened to be on hand to film both the Nice and Munich “terror” attacks.

Odd coincidence. (more…)

SARAH SILVERMAN, the Jewish "comedienne," was a celebrity warm-up act at the Democratic National Convention tonight in Philadelphia. Here she is in an earlier routine joking about the Crucifixion. She says she would happily crucify Christ again. (Profanity and blasphemy alert.)  

SINCE we’re going to hear a lot of blather from the Democratic National Convention about how remarkable and wonderful it is that a woman is running for president, I would like to say something you will not hear in Philadelphia:

No normal and healthy woman would want to be president.

All kinds of women, with different temperaments, gifts and talents, exist in this world, but no normal and healthy woman would want to be president of the United States, not now, not yesterday and not tomorrow.

No normal and healthy woman would want to have such power over men, who deserve the empathetic help of women because of the onerous responsibilities and competition life imposes upon them.

No normal and healthy woman would want to be drawn into the combat of presidential politics, combat which is so contrary to her nature. (A queen arrives at her position involuntarily, a president must fight for it for many years.)

No normal and healthy woman would want to emasculate her husband by being so much more powerful than he is.

No normal and healthy woman would want to boss as many people around as a president does.

No normal and healthy woman would want to send troops to war.

No normal and healthy woman would want to have so little time to call friends, visit the sick, comfort the dying and enjoy the company of young children.

No normal and healthy woman would want to have so little time to pray for the people she loves.

No normal and healthy woman enjoys being hated. A president accumulates many enemies.

No normal and healthy woman would want the complete lack of peace and quiet that comes with the presidency.

No normal and healthy woman is fulfilled by power.

No normal and healthy woman would want to promote the false idea to young and impressionable women that power is fulfilling.

With rare exceptions, women presidents, chancellors and prime ministers are sure to be deformed and cheated human beings, deprived of reaching their true potential by the androgynization of their societies.

No normal and healthy woman would want to be president. (more…)

[W]e live in the midst of a diabolical trap, the likes of which were described so accurately by Father Edward Leen, S.J., sixty-three years ago.... The devil continues to raise up men and women who are so completely committed to evil that anyone, including those who support the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, which can never be the foundation of making any nation “great” or “safe,” no matter the protestations of the man who believes that he “alone” can “fix” problems that have been caused by this nation’s promotion of sin and many of citizens’ unrepentant persistence in it, are said to look “better” by comparison. Believe what you want. This diabolical trap remains what it has been since July 4, 1776, no amount of projecting one’s fondest [hopes] onto secular saviours can make them into instruments of justice when they are, objectively speaking, unjust in their own lives and supportive of injustice [to] God and the good of souls in the public realm. This is simple truth. Those who reject it prefer to believe in an illusion of their own making as there is no semblance of rationality to believe that men will be different once elected to office than they had been beforehand. Alas, the problems that we face are supernatural, not merely natural, which means there is no merely natural solution for them. --- Thomas Droleskey, July 25, 2016

THE "I-am-personally-opposed-to-abortion,-but-support-legalization-of-it-for-others" position held by many Catholic politicians, including Tim Kaine, the vice presidential choice of Hillary Clinton, has been explicitly condemned by a pope and is contrary to Catholic moral theology. Pope Pius IX stated in 1930: Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.) Dr. Thomas Droleskey gives a detailed history, ugly as it is, of how this casuistic position came about and captivated Catholic voters. It originated with the Kennedy family in the 1960s, as Catholics sought to maintain their allegiance to the Democratic Party at all costs: The former Jesuit priest Albert Jonsen, emeritus professor of ethics at the University of Washington, recalls the meeting [between the Kennedys and theologians] in his book "The Birth of Bioethics" (Oxford, 2003). He writes about how he joined with the Rev.…

FROM an essay by the Most Rev. Donald Sanborn: The world has never known more oppressive governments or bigger governments than those which profess the cult of liberty. No governments have meddled more in the lives of their citizens. Since the abolition of the monarchies and the rise of democracies, the common man, the family and business have been subject to tyrannical oppression, emaciating taxation, as well as economic and social “engineering” which affects every aspect of life. The democracies of the past two hundred years make the most dictatorial monarchical regimes look like liberty fests. With democracy have come both liberalism and socialism, two sources of oppression for hundreds of millions of people, if not billions, over the past two hundred years. This fact tells us that the liberty which the cult of liberty seeks is not the freedom of the common man from big, oppressive, and tyrannical governments. It is a freedom from something else which the cult of liberty seeks.

ALAN writes:

One day last week I went into a store that sells old records and movies.  I made a small purchase.  When the lady behind the counter saw that I had selected some of the 1930s-‘40s B-Westerns of Hoppy, Gene, and Roy, she told me she had just watched an episode of the TV series “The Lone Ranger.” Like me, she was old enough to remember that series from the 1950s.  But the thing that struck her most when watching that episode, she said, was “how racist it was.” It was disgraceful how townspeople in the story treated the Indian Tonto, she said, and such disrespect would not be permitted in entertainment today. (more…)

  DON'T worry. It's all fake gunfire, with staged videos and photos. (Mild profanity.)

A MOVIE based on the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweizer is going to be released on the Internet for free this weekend. (I assume it is funded by Republicans.) Between 2001 and 20015, the Clintons made about $200 million, most of it one form of bribery or another, Schweizer contends. The vast sums the Clintons took in, much of it through the Clinton Foundation, is undisputed. Contributions to the foundation, the author contends, were often given in exchange for political favors, and for much of that time Hillary was secretary of state. "You can go from Columbia, to India, to sub-Saharan Africa, to Europe, to Asia, and wherever there’s somebody that needs a deal, the Clintons are there to monetize access,” Schweizer says. This documentary about the book alleges they profited from NGO work in Haiti after the earthquake.