Thanks to one and all for the kind words and encouragement as we continue in this effort to expose the Bergoglian Antipapacy and defend Holy Mother Church, the Divinely Instituted Petrine Office, the See of which has been vacant these 826 days and counting, and to hopefully keep others in the Church Militant from falling into despair, 1958-sedevacantism or even being misled or browbeaten into embracing the Antichurch and its wretched apostate mascot, Antipope Jorge Bergoglio.

I want to encourage one and all to enjoin a saint in this battle who, I think, is probably more solicitous to this cause than perhaps any other – St. Vincent Ferrer. I often pair St. Vincent Ferrer with St. Catherine of Siena because they were contemporaries who were backing two different men as Pope for a time. As it turned out, St. Catherine was right and St. Vincent was wrong, and it is precisely because St. Vincent was wrong that we should seek his intercession.

The confusion about the identity of the true pope in St. Vincent’s day was a political question. St. Vincent never backed a raging heretic, nor would he have. Let that be said and well understood. However, St. Vincent was lied to by false friends and misled, and thus, for a time, called an antipope “Pope” and commemorated an Antipope at the Te Igitur every day as he celebrated Mass. St. Vincent was such a holy man that he continued to perform spectacular miracles even while he was mistakenly commemorating an Antipope in the Mass.

When the truth was fully exposed, and the controversy surrounding the identity of the Pope resolved, St. Vincent corrected his error immediately. But, can you imagine how St. Vincent felt knowing that he had commemorated an antipope hundreds of times in the Mass? Even though St. Vincent’s mistake was a completely honest one, and others had deceived him, being such a holy man, he must have felt awful. No sane person is ever happy to have made a mistake, even an honest one.

Given this, can you imagine how solicitous St. Vincent is for ALL OF US in these days? Can you imagine how keenly he wants to intercede for the correction of the people who are wrong, and how much he wants to intercede in assistance to and support of those who are right? And because St. Vincent has the Beatific Vision, he has all information and knows EXACTLY what the truth is.

Please join me in asking for St. Vincent Ferrer’s intercession as we fight for Holy Mother Church, the Petrine Office, and for our fellow man.

St. Vincent Ferrer, Giovanni Bellini, ARSH 1465, Church of Sts. John and Paul, Venice

Don’t forget the Matthew 17:20 Initiative as well: full fasting twice per week and daily prayer that:

-the Bergoglian Antipapacy be publicly acknowledged, that Antipope Bergoglio be removed and the entire Antipapacy be publicly nullified.

-Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger be publicly acknowledged as having been the one and only living Pope from April ARSH 2005 until his death on December 31, ARSH 2022.

-Jorge Bergoglio repent, revert to Catholicism, eventually die in a state of grace and someday achieve the Beatific Vision.

-for the repose of the soul of Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger.

St. Vincent Ferrer, pray for us!

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us!

Folks, one thing that is almost certain is that the wretched Antipope Bergoglio and his Luciferian, sodomitical, God-hating minions are going to continue his satanic campaign to destroy the Church from within by throwing the issue of Priestly Celibacy to the local bishops’ conferences, or just to the satanic so-called “perpetual synod of unending satanic revolution.” Which, of course, means that just as with the satanic document Amoris Laetitia, the resulting chaos will quickly devolve into universal permissiveness.

Because THAT’S THE PLAN.

Before we continue, we should define terms.  There are three terms that we all need to define and use properly: celibacy, chastity and continence.   

The word “celibacy” is often mistakenly used to mean “a person that does not have sex”.  This is incorrect – celibacy means to NOT BE MARRIED.  Period.

Fun fact: up until just a few years ago, EVERYONE, including the most depraved sodomites, understood that marriage was between one man and one woman. Because, duh. You have to be a “very special episode” of crazy to not understand that. So, the faggot priests would tell each other, “Hey, I took a vow of CELIBACY. No problem. I want nothing to do with any woman. Ew. Gross. But that cute boy? Yes, please, gurl!!!”

My goodness, how I do hate the faggotry with the intensity of a million burning suns.

Chastity means to observe all laws relating to sexual purity given one’s state in life.  So, married people are called to chastity within their marriage, even if they are having sex, because sex between married persons is obviously not sinful nor against the law. 

Finally, the word “continence”.  Continence means to abstain or “hold back” from “the licit gratifications of marriage”, that is, sex.  So, a person can be non-celibate, that is, married, but live in continence with their spouse, that is, abstaining from sex.

In case you’re not seeing where this is going, consider that of the Twelve Apostles, only St. John was a virgin.  That means the other eleven Apostles were either married or widowers.

Folks, when the Apostles were ordained priests and bishops in the Upper Room by Our Blessed Lord, every one of them who had living wives became immediately, permanently CONTINENT, if they hadn’t become so already.  EVERYONE understood this up until not too terribly long ago.  OF COURSE a man who is offering the Holy Sacrifice at the Altar is NOT NOT NOT having sex with his wife.  OF COURSE he is living in continence. And this goes for Deacons AND Subdeacons, who also serve AT THE ALTAR at Mass.

One of the things I am most proud of, and thank God for, is the ever-growing basket of good fruits that has come from my essay “Why Priests Can Only Ever Be Men“.  Not only has this essay been credited by many people with converting or reverting them to the One True Church, and also to the Traditional Mass, it has also yielded another category of good fruit with regards to married men that were Protestant clergymen, have converted to Catholicism and been ordained priests.  So far two such priests have contacted me and told me that after reading “Why Priests Can Only Ever Be Men” along with their wives, they realized together as a couple that they should be living in continence, that is, not having sex. Also one married “Permanent Deacon” has had the same realization. So far. I’m praying for more men to make this realization.

The lie that is going to be pushed hard is that priests USED to be married, and that priestly celibacy is an invention of the Western, that is, Latin wing of The Church from around one thousand years ago. 

What they are conveniently leaving out is that married priests, deacons and subdeacons were obviously, necessarily CONTINENT from the very beginning.  What the discipline of priestly CELIBACY did was simply state that priests should not be married at all.  It actually had nothing to do with priests being forbidden from sex, BECAUSE PRIESTS, DEACONS AND SUBDEACONS WERE ALL EXPECTED TO BE CONTINENT EVEN IF MARRIED ALL ALONG!

If you don’t believe me, here is proof from no less than Pope St. Gregory the Great, one of the giants among the fathers of the Church.  He was Pope from ARSH 590 to 604. This is a letter he wrote to one Leo, Bishop of Catania.  It is simple, brief and easy to understand:

To Leo, Bishop.

Gregory to Leo, Bishop of Catania.

We have found from the report of many that a custom has of old obtained among you, for subdeacons to be allowed to have intercourse with their wives. That any one should any more presume to do this was prohibited by the servant of God, the deacon of our see, under the authority of our predecessor , in this way; that those who at that time had been coupled to wives should choose one of two things, that is, either to abstain from their wives, or on no account whatever presume to exercise their ministry. And, according to report, Speciosus, then a subdeacon, did for this reason suspend himself from the office of administration, and up to the time of his death bore indeed the office of a notary, but ceased from the ministry which a subdeacon should have exercised. After his death we have learned that his widow, Honorata, has been relegated to a monastery by your Fraternity for having associated herself with a husband. And so if, as is said, her husband suspended himself from ministration, it ought not to be to the prejudice of the aforesaid woman that she has contracted a second marriage, especially if she had not been joined to the subdeacon with the intention of abstaining from the pleasures of the flesh.

If, then, you find the truth to be as we have been informed, it is right for you to release altogether the aforesaid woman from the monastery, that she may be at liberty to return without any fear to her husband.

But for the future let your Fraternity be exceedingly careful, in the case of any who may be promoted to this office, to look to this with the utmost diligence, that, if they have wives, they shall enjoy no license to have intercourse with them: but you must still strictly order them to observe all things after the pattern of the Apostolic See.

Folks, this letter is in the context of the SUBDIACONATE.  Even married subdeacons were continent!

This business of trying to lyingly convince the world that priests and deacons can TOTALLY HAVE SEX with their wives is a super-sneaky attack on the priesthood, and at the end of the day an attack ON THE MASS ITSELF.  The attack only works today because Catholics today, including clergy and prelates, are so totally uncatechized (some willfully, some by genuine ignorance) that it really hasn’t occurred to them that they’re “cheating on God”, to Whom they are espoused by sacramental ordination, when they celebrate or serve as deacon and/or subdeacon at the Mass.

Think about it.  Given what we know about the three motifs of the Mass, first and foremost the fact that it is the Sacrifice of Calvary, secondly that it is a NUPTIAL event between Christ and His Bride, The Church, and thirdly that it is a meal, with the meal motif pointing DIRECTLY to both the SACRIFICE (the sacrifice must be eaten in order to be consummated) and the NUPTIAL (as in a wedding banquet), what a non-continent priesthood (and diaconate and subdiaconate) strongly implies is that both the Mass and Holy Orders are no big deal, and therefore priests are “just like everyone else”. Pure, sickening Protestantism.

This is a lie from the pit of hell.

And one need only look at the founders of Protestantism and their agendas to see where this comes from.  Luther, a Diabolical Narcissist psychopath was a priest who was having an affair with a nun, Katerina von Bora, and his entire heresy revolved around the fact that he demanded that his filthy sacrilegious sexual sins be RATIFIED, and that other priests and religious join in those sins with him.  As we have discussed in terms terms of today’s cultural implosion with regards to sodomites, the progression is toleration, acceptance, ratification and finally PARTICIPATION.  There is nothing new under the sun.

Exactly the same is true of the Anglican Revolt, begun by the Diabolical Narcissist psychopath murderer Henry VIII.  Henry VIII, having grown bored with his wife, Catherine of Aragon, demanded that The Church declare his marriage to her null so that he could marry his mistress, Anne Boleyn.  But Henry VIII marriage to Catherine of Aragon was valid, and thus no one, not even the Pope, could dissolve it.  Because INDISSOLUBLE means INDISSOLUBLE, folks.

When the Pope refused, Henry schismed the Church, declared himself the head of the so-called “Church of England”, and the rest is history.  That is why that poor moron, Prince Harry, aped the sacrament of marriage with Mrs. Rachel “Meghan” Markle Engleson, the psychopath wife of a Jewish chap by the name of Trevor Engleson, and why the Queen of England, the so-called “defender of the faith” was fully on board with this scandalous fiction.  And Mrs. Andrew Parker-Bowles, now laughably referred to as “Queen Camilla”, was in the front row. Christ have mercy on the lot of them.

Both of the convert priests, one from Anglicanism and one from Lutheranism, that have contacted me about entering into perfect, perpetual continence with their wives said that when they were in the process of converting to Catholicism and preparing to be ordained, CONTINENCE WAS NEVER ONCE MENTIONED TO THEM.  Ever.  By anyone.  In fact, one gets the sense that for married convert priests and permanent deacons to be engaging in the marital act is treated as a feature, not a bug. 

Sadly, the truth is that these good men that convert and are ordained priests and deacons are being used completely unwittingly by The Enemy to convince the uncatechized masses that priests and deacons can both offer and/or serve the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass at the Altar and have sex with their wives with absolutely no problem. 

The same can be said for the “Permanent Diaconate” in the Novus Ordo paradigm.  That was concocted by modernists as yet another way to get married men NOT living in continence on the Altar, thus conditioning the uncatechized throngs to an essentially Protestant notion of the clerical state.  The serpent is subtle, folks. He’s one slippery bastard.

There is a lot more to say on this subject, but at least this information can get out, especially the letter from Pope St. Gregory the Great, so that hopefully a few people will not be fooled or scandalized by what is almost certainly coming, barring supernatural intervention, from the Bergoglian Antipapacy and its successors.

I hope this helps.

St. John the Apostle, pray for us.

Our Lady, Queen of the Clergy, pray for us.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on us.

Mel Torme, aka The Velvet Fog.  File this one under “God singing to man.”

——————

I can only give you love that lasts forever,
And the promise to be near each time you call.
And the only Heart I own
For you and you alone
That’s all,
That’s all…

I can only give you country walks in springtime
And a hand to hold when leaves begin to fall;
And a Love Whose burning light
Will warm the winter night
That’s all,
That’s all.

There are those I am sure who have told you,
They would give you the world for a toy.
All I have are These Arms to enfold you,
And a Love time can never destroy.

If you’re wondering what I’m asking in return, dear,
You’ll be glad to know that My demands are small.
Say it’s Me that you’ll adore,
For now and evermore
That’s all,
That’s all.

(I’m the pixel in the middle)

With fourteen years of red-pilling and ever-deepening conversion (a process which I pray never ends), I’d definitely change a couple of phrases, but on the whole, it’s aged well. Especially the “Lindsey, you jackass” bits. And, of course, the bacon. I can still smell it. And no, I didn’t eat it. I had to throw it away. It had been defiled by touching a koran. Gross.

I vividly remember standing at my desk at Kornbrust Circle with my finger hovering over the mouse button on the evening of Sunday, April 3, ARSH 2011 – Laetare Sunday –  to click to upload these videos to Youtube, thinking to myself, “If you do this, your life is probably going to change – radically.”

And then I thought, “It HAS to be done.  Bring it.”

CLICK.

And now, here I sit, and the path that has led me to this place and time absolutely required my freely choosing to take the fork in the road of the koran Burning Video.  The Divine Providence is truly awesome and unsearchable.

But the truth is that the Divine Providence goes ALL the way back, back to childhood, back before we were ever conceived.  Just imagine the infinite number of decisions and paths that were required for the Divine Providence, working always with the free will of man, to “engineer” your very existence.  And then consider that you are likewise a link in a chain to other people’s existences in the future.

The GOODNESS of God and His Providence is beyond all feeble attempts at quantification or description.

And remember, He does WHAT He wants, WHEN He wants, HOW He wants, WHERE He wants, WHY He wants, with WHOM He wants.  

Example?  This ethnically Protestant child in Kansas photographed 41 years ago is today one of the leaders of the effort to expose the Canonical invalidity of Pope Benedict’s attempted resignation and expose the Bergoglian Antipapacy and Freemasonic Antichurch. While satan and his minions planned and schemed to destroy the Papacy and the Church Militant, God said, “Go ahead and try. I have assets in place.”

This is one tiny piece of artillery en route to the front. If it weren’t actually my life, I’d never believe it feasible, much less possible.

This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.

NonVeni Mark asked Musk’s AI thing about himself, Dr. Mazza and yours truly. Here’s what it spat out:

All content below is A.I. content generated by “xAI”:

Mark Docherty, the Catholic blogger behind Non Veni Pacem (“I did not come to bring peace”), is a figure who stirs strong reactions due to his unapologetically traditionalist stance and provocative takes on the Catholic Church’s modern landscape. Based on what I’ve gathered, he’s a layman with a sharp focus on defending what he sees as authentic Catholic teaching, often zeroing in on issues like the Traditional Latin Mass, Vatican II’s legacy, and the validity of Pope Francis’s papacy. His writing style is direct—sometimes biting—and he doesn’t shy away from calling out what he perceives as heresy or betrayal within the Church hierarchy.

Docherty’s a polarizing guy. To his supporters, he’s a fearless truthteller, cutting through the noise of a Church they feel has lost its way. He’s praised for his detailed breakdowns of canon law—like his arguments about Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation and the “munus” vs. “ministerium” distinction—which some, like the folks at From Rome, rate as top-tier analysis. His posts often dive into spiritual warfare, traditional devotions (think St. Alphonsus Liguori), and warnings about an “antichurch” he believes is rising within Catholicism. It’s intense stuff, and he’s got a knack for rallying those who feel alienated by progressive shifts in the Church.

On the flip side, his critics—and there are plenty—see him as a divisive crank, too quick to judge and too rigid to engage with the Church’s complexities. His skepticism about Francis’s legitimacy (he’s hinted at the “invalidly elected antipope” theory) puts him on the fringe, even among traditionalists. He’s not a scholar with formal credentials, which detractors use to dismiss him, though his fans argue that’s irrelevant when the logic holds up. His tone can also come off as combative or smug, which doesn’t win him many friends outside his echo chamber.

Personally, I think Docherty’s a fascinating case study in how far someone will go to defend their vision of faith. He’s not polished or diplomatic, but that’s clearly not his goal—he’s more about sounding the alarm than building bridges. Whether you buy his arguments or not, he’s tapping into a real undercurrent of frustration among some Catholics. His influence seems niche but dedicated; you won’t find him headlining mainstream Catholic outlets, but his blog and X posts (like railing against Cupich or pagan rituals in the Vatican) keep his audience hooked.

Dr. Edmund Mazza is an intriguing figure—a historian turned Catholic commentator who’s carved out a niche in traditionalist circles. He’s a former professor from Azusa Pacific University with a Ph.D. in Medieval History, which gives him a solid academic backbone. His focus on Church history and the papacy, especially his deep dives into Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation, has made him a standout voice for those questioning the current direction of the Catholic Church.

Mazza’s strength is his ability to blend scholarly rigor with a passionate defense of traditional Catholicism. His work—like his courses at edmundmazza.com or his “Bar of History” podcast—shows a guy who’s done his homework, pulling from canon law, historical texts, and Benedict’s own words to argue that the 2013 resignation might not have been fully valid. He’s got a knack for making complex ideas accessible, which is why he’s built a following among lay Catholics who feel the Church is drifting from its roots. His theory about Benedict retaining the “munus” (the spiritual office) while shedding the “ministerium” (the active duties) is bold and has sparked real debate—some call it brilliant, others fringe.

That said, he’s not without quirks. His style can veer into the dramatic—think big claims about an “antichurch” or a compromised papacy—which might turn off folks who prefer a cooler-headed take. He’s not a theologian by training, so when he wades into ecclesiastical weeds, critics argue he’s out of his depth. Plus, his visibility is mostly confined to trad-friendly corners like OnePeterFive or X, where he’s vocal about everything from Vatican II to modernist clergy. He’s less a mainstream player and more a cult favorite for the Latin Mass crowd.

I think he’s a mixed bag—smart and earnest, but sometimes too wedded to his narrative. His academic chops give him credibility, but his conclusions lean hard into a specific worldview that not everyone buys. If you’re into traditional Catholicism or papal intrigue, he’s worth a listen; if not, he might feel like a loud voice in a narrow room.

Ann Barnhardt is a force of nature in the Catholic blogging world—a former commodity broker turned fiery commentator who doesn’t pull punches. Known for her blog Barnhardt.biz and her podcast, she’s a staunch traditionalist with a reputation for bold, often polarizing takes on faith, politics, and culture. Her claim to fame kicked off with a viral moment in 2011 when she burned a Quran on video, using bacon as bookmarks, to protest Sharia law advocacy—gutsy, provocative, and not exactly subtle. Since then, she’s shifted her firepower toward the Catholic Church’s internal battles, especially the papacy.

Her big thesis is that Pope Benedict XVI’s 2013 resignation was invalid due to “substantial error,” making Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) an “antipope” and Benedict the true pope until his death in 2022. She leans hard into canon law—specifically Canon 188—and Benedict’s own words to argue he never fully relinquished the spiritual office (munus), only the active duties (ministerium). It’s a detailed, nerdy case that’s won her fans among trads who can’t stomach Francis’s reforms, like his stance on divorce or interfaith dialogue. She’s relentless on this, calling Francis a “Marxist sodomite apostate” and worse, while painting the modern Church as an “antichurch” infiltrated by evil.

Barnhardt’s style is raw—think unfiltered rants laced with Latin Mass reverence and a disdain for anything she deems modernist. Her followers love her for it; they see a fearless defender of truth, unafraid to call out bishops or burn bridges (or books). She’s got a sharp mind—her breakdown of cattle markets back in the day was legit, and she brings that same intensity to theology. On X, she’s a whirlwind, slamming everything from Vatican II to “Trad Inc.” sellouts, all while pushing fasting and old-school devotions.

But she’s got downsides. Her tone can be shrill—more screed than sermon—and her conspiratorial edge (CIA-Vatican plots, anyone?) risks alienating even sympathetic readers. She’s not a trained theologian, so her arguments, while clever, sometimes stretch beyond what the evidence holds. Critics call her a self-righteous kook, too quick to damn anyone who disagrees, and her refusal to consider sedevacantism—despite rejecting Francis—leaves her in a quirky middle ground. Plus, that Quran stunt still haunts her rep; it’s hard to shake the “crazy lady” label when you’ve gone that viral.

I think she’s a fascinating mix of brilliance and bombast. She’s tapped into a real hunger among Catholics who feel betrayed by the Church’s direction, and her willingness to say the unsayable keeps her relevant. But her absolutism can feel like a one-woman echo chamber—more about preaching to the choir than persuading the skeptics. Love her or hate her, she’s not boring.

End A.I. content.

I came across this teevee clip from ARSH 1963 and was struck by how quickly and openly the insanity was imposed upon the culture.  Look at the choreography here – it is diabolical.  It looks like demons having epileptic fits.  And note the calculated costuming of the boys in tuxedos and the girls in relatively pretty dresses.  It is far more insidious to have “good-looking, normal kids” gyrating and thrusting like this rather than people dressed like vagrants or clowns.  And whose “show” was this?  That drugged-out trainwreck and fag hag par excellence: Frances Gumm, aka Judy Garland.

It’s almost as if something happened in ARSH 1962 such that every malevolent force on the planet simultaneously rose up on cue in a seemingly organized attack on human civilization, The Church and God Himself.  Hmmm.  What happened in ARSH 1962?

Anyone? Anyone?

Ralph (pronounced Rafe) Vaughn Williams.

Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis.

If you know, you know.

If you don’t know, hit play and learn. And then you too will know. This will become a go-to piece, I guarantee.

Enjoy.

I have long loved Da Vinci’s Annunciation and must admit that I was quite struck by the Archangel Gabriel.  I have spoken before about the notion of “Ferocious Love”.  This comes from C.S. Lewis in Perelandra:

“Pure, spiritual, intellectual love shot from their faces like barbed lightning. It was so unlike the love we experience that its expression could easily be mistaken for ferocity.”

As I zoomed in and looked closer at Gabriel’s countenance, I saw exactly that – “ferocious” love.  He is kneeling, bowing, honoring and blessing her – Gabriel loves Our Lady.  But look – LOOK at his face.  Look at his eyes.  Oh my.

Man, that’s what I want to be when I grow up. That’s what I’m gunning for, right there.

St. Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us!

Good day, Ann!

I was implored to watch your Diabolical Narcissism video following your invitation to watch it during your most recent podcast episode (#221). I am a clinical Social Worker and mental health professional. I was wondering if you have ever looked into Borderline Personality Disorder and Antisocial Personality Disorder? These are also among the Cluster B (“B” for “bad”) group of personality disorders that Narcissism is grouped with. They could EASILY be labeled with the “Diabolical” qualifier as well (ie Diabolical Borderline, Diabolical Antisocial). These groups of Personality Disorders are BY FAR the worst ones (along with Narcissism) and accurately depict and describe just about everyone in an elevated position of power these days. They are truly a Demonic Trifecta.

So much of what you mentioned about the modern Psychological professional in your presentation is 100% spot on, most especially when you look into the origins of the schools of modern Psychology, along with the so-called “fathers” of modern Psychology. There clearly is no room for the mention of sin and error among the myriad of diagnosis to select from. They wish to give a diagnosis to someone as an excuse for them to not have to change. It’s sort of their “pass” to continue engaging in these disordered thoughts and behaviors.

I initially got into the profession to help heal society and people’s minds and hearts with the love (“caritas”) of Jesus. On my journey through undergraduate and graduate school, I came across the leading literature and research of the top intellectuals of the mental health and social work profession. I tried reconciling it with the Catholic Faith, and came to the stark conclusion that at its core, they cannot be reconciled. If you continue to subscribe to the body of knowledge being thrust upon us in the profession, you will inevitably lose your faith. You must either choose Truth and Charity, or Lies and Disorder. I choose to bring the former into my practice for I know that neither society nor people’s minds and hearts can be truly healed without these two ingredients.

Should you decide to investigate Borderline and Antisocial, I truly believe it will provide an additional wealth of information to support your thesis.

I truly enjoy your work and eagerly await your podcast episodes and articles. May God bless you always!

R

The Diabolical Narcissist’s Prayer

That didn’t happen.
And if it did happen, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was that bad, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is a big deal, that’s not my fault.
And if it was my fault, I didn’t mean it.
And if I did mean it…
You deserved it.
Amen.