Be silent no more! Cry out with one hundred thousand tongues. I see that, because of this silence, the world is in ruins, the Spouse of Christ has grown pale; the color is taken from her face because her blood has been sucked out, that is the blood of Christ, which is given as a free gift and not by right – St. Catherine of Siena
In the 3rd century BC, King Pyrrhus of Greece went to war against the Romans. Initially, his forces were victorious, but the casualties they sustained were so high that Pyrrhus was unable to win a more decisive later battle. From this historical failure is derived the term, Pyrrhic victory, which has come to mean a victory which is hollow: one which loses more than it gains.
Two thousand years later, Italy is again the scene of a Pyrrhic victory; mainstream traditionalist media is claiming a triumph while also sustaining great losses, both of credibility and of personal integrity.
A deal with the devil
The Tridentine Mass of the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage held in St. Peter’s Basilica was hailed by some as the sign that Pope Leo is welcoming tradition into the Vatican. It was a product of the “Zip It” policy which promised to “see no evil” in return for access (for some) to the Latin Mass.
With a huge crowd of faithful Catholics and a number of high-ranking prelates in attendance, the liturgy was accompanied by an exorcism prayer offered by Cardinal Ernest Simoni. Cardinal Simoni, aged 97, had been tortured and imprisoned for 28 years in Albania for refusing to renounce his faith.
Without casting shade on the piety of the Cardinal, it must be asked whether a single exorcism prayer could be sufficient to cleanse St. Peter’s from the multitude of abuses she has endured over the past decade. Surely a solemn reconsecration would be necessary before traditionalists could dare to offer Mass inside St. Peter’s walls?
The Vatican’s liaison was Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, who was also in attendance on the day. Zuppi has been assisting at traditional liturgies around Rome for a number of years, one example being the Pontifical Mass he offered for Laetare Sunday with the FSSP in 2014.
Yet, Zuppi is so closely aligned with the promotion of sodomy that his presence at these Masses should be a source of scandal to traditional Catholics.
The pilgrimage of sodomites which entered the Basilica last month, organised with the explicit support of Cardinal Zuppi, was only the latest in a series of his sodomy-related scandals.
It seems ironic that the same voices that condemn collegiality among the bishops are insisting traditionalist Catholics unite under a milquetoast banner of love, in an effort to secure their Latin Masses. This tactic is flawed and will lead, in some cases, to the most tragic of consequences that can befall a Christian: the loss of his eternal soul.
Much of the current appeal to unity is based in emotion and not reason; there is little substance in the arguments which are often ad hominem (“You’re all sedes!” or “You hide behind your avatars!”) or straw men (“You say the Mass doesn’t matter!”)
Yet the most obvious weakness is the appeal to an obsolete tactic: that of tolerance in the face of an extremely devious enemy. While it may be argued that it was this approach which led to the widespread availability of the traditional Latin Mass under Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum (I would posit that it did not), relying on previously-used tactics for their own sake is a great weakness for anyone engaged in a war.
The ancient military strategist, Sun Tzu, set out his approach to defeating an enemy in his treatise, The Art of War and warned against re-using a previous tactic because it worked in the past.
His advice to military commenders has been relied upon for centuries. He wrote:
Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.
Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards. So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak.
He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain.
Sun Tzu – On the Art of War, #28-31
Reassess Tactics
Sun Tzu wrote these words more than 2500 years ago and they still ring true. “Let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.” Applying this to the current crisis in the Church, we could say that during the pontificate of Pope Francis, many conservative, but Modernist prelates began to wake up to the fact that there was, in fact, a crisis and that Bergoglio was not its cause, but merely its symptom. That process, sometimes slow but at other times more rapid, of realising that something devastating happened at the Second Vatican Council was evident, as these good men began to piece together the pattern of revolutionary infiltration and indoctrination which led the Church to the sad state in which She finds Herself today.
Sun Tzu
Now that we have another Pope spouting the same heresies and errors, albeit in a more smooth and sophisticated manner, it is simply not reasonable to give the conservative Novus Ordo prelates ane more time, allowing them to gradually come to the conclusion that is evident to those with eyes to see: this is the time to declare strongly, clearly and without equivocation, the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church.
This is the time to boldly draw attention to the errors being taught by Pope Prevost and his Synodal mouthpieces with calm and simplicity.
Avoid the strong
Sun Tzu recommended that strategists “avoid what is strong and strike at what is weak.” In the case at hand, what is “strong” is the Pope’s popularity, a perceived belief that the Church is back on track and, it must be said, the universal relief that Pope Francis is dead. Thus in order to avoid “what is strong”, conservative prelates should be maintaining the state of high alert which existed under Bergoglio, exposing the reality that the Church is still in grave danger, that souls are threatened and that aesthetics do not compensate for heterdox teaching.
This obligation extends to those traditionalist commentators who, having accepted the strategy of appeasement as laid out by Cardinal Burke, are now refusing to call out Pope Leo for his errors and have taken to chastising those who do have the fortitude to expose him.
When we add our approval of the new Pope’s actions and words to that already given by the mainstream Church and the world at large, we only magnify the errors and soothe guilty consciences, putting souls at risk of eternal damnation.
Attack the weakness
The tactic of attacking an opponent’s weakness is so obvious that it should require no explanation, yet this is precisely what the group we have come to know as “Trad. Inc.” has decided to avoid doing.
The great weakness of Pope Prevost is that he is literally speaking heresy. When he says that “we have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question”, this needs to be called out as heresy.
When he says that it is “highly unlikely” rather than impossible, that doctrine on sexuality will change, this needs to be called out as heresy.
No amount of incense, lace or Latin can make up for errors like these. (For an excellent appraisal of the Pope’s disastrous Crux interview, see this video by The Catholic Esquire.)
Swallowing the Bait
Many are overjoyed that Cardinal Burke is to offer a Latin Mass in St. Peter’s during the upcoming Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage. We are told that this is a sign that God has not abandoned His Church (But who says that He has? The neo-counter-revolutionaries certainly do not.) This permission is somehow seen as a gift, an olive branch being held out to traditionalists by the new Pope, as a sign of his good will.
But what has Sun Tzu to say about such a thing? He suggests caution unless the intentions of the enemy are known.
We cannot enter into alliances until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbours. Do not swallow bait offered by the enemy.
Sun Tzu – On the Art of War, #32-33
The permission given for the Latin Mass does indeed have the appearance of bait intended to harm the traditionalist movement and it is not only “anonymous podcasters” suggesting there is a problem. Respected priests like Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea and Fr. Murr have also expressed their disappointment and fears about the Mass. Fr. Murr even said that St. Peter’s needs to be re-consecrated due to the Pachamama incident, this need being compounded by the more recent appearance of a sodomite pilgrimage group within its walls. (Alas, I have lost the reference video for this comment by Fr. Murr. The link will be added when I track it down.)
Pope Francis with the Pachamama idol in St. Peter’s Basilica
The ancient Roman poet, Virgil, had his own warning for cases like this one: “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts”. This was a reference to the Trojan Horse, a Grecian gift to the ancient city of Troy, which was filled with soldiers who then infiltrated and utterly destroyed the city and its inhabitants.
It’s worth pointing out that the term, “Greek love”, was used as a euphemism for sodomy by Classical scholars, which brings us back to one of the major themes of this pontificate and a red flag for anyone wishing to make peace with it: homosexuality. Pope Leo’s appointments and those of Pope Francis which Prevost has left in place are an ongoing source of scandal to the faithful.
St. Paul points out exactly what should be our attitude to sodomites and those who tolerate them or condone their sin:
“For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (2 Cor 6: 14-16)
Scripture would seem to preclude offering Mass in a Church which has been defiled by pagan worship and a depraved, sacrilegious pilgrimage. It only adds to the scandal for Cardinal Burke and the Summorum Pontificum organisers to offer a TLM under such circumstances, yet we are told this is a sign that we are “winning”.
Ignorance of the enemy leads to a defeat
Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
Sun Tzu – On the Art of War, #34
There is no question that, at some point in the future, the Church will rise again and our enemies will be thwarted. It shows a lack of faith in Our Lady’s promise of Her Triumph to believe otherwise. Yet until that day comes, the Church Militant will continue to suffer and will, most probably, experience an escalation in suffering and persecution, which only by the grace of God, we will be able to endure. This could be thought of the way that Catholics “know themselves.”
To say that the rallying of Traditionalist troops around a well-meaning, but Modernist, prelate like Cardinal Burke is a sign of the coming Restoration is not only delusional, but it is dangerous. Failing to point out Leo’s errors endangers souls – perhaps not the souls of Traditionalists who are better catechised, but the souls of those countless Novus Ordo catholics – the “normies”, who trust in the pope and uncritically accept what he teaches.
Narcissistic revolutionaries thrive on the tolerance produced by misplaced charity. The silence of Trad. Inc. is a fruit of “knowing oneself but not knowing the enemy.” According to the philosophy of Sun Tzu, such a situation leads to a defeat for every victory.
It may well be that those aligned with Burke will see their Masses protected or restored, but the price of this “victory” could be enormous. Doubtful Catholics who once had the opportunity to be challenged by the Resistance movement, who were provoked to investigate Vatican II and its errors and to question mainstream Catholic narratives, are now being confirmed in their sin by the silence of Trad. Inc.
It is not only sodomites who are at risk of this: when we consider that most Catholics today live in habitual mortal sin via the use of contraception, failing to confess honestly, making sacrilegious Communions, denying dogma such as the Real Presence and extra ecclesiam nulla salus, it offends against charity to allow them to believe that doctrine can change.
Silence is tantamount to saying “to hell with the rest of the Catholic world as long as we have our Masses.” That is the defeat which will be the cost of any perceived victory: a rejection of supernatural charity which will lead to the widespread loss of souls.
It’s a little like the Golden Rule (Those who have the Gold Make the Rules) except that in this case, those who think they are greater get to decide what is good.
For when traditional Catholic commentators were told to “zip it” rather than criticise the current papal aberrations, the “good ” involved was not the good of the Church nor was it the salvation of souls. Rather, the apparent “good”, decided by the “greater” ones, was their attempt to secure for themselves their Latin Masses. This, it seems, would be in return for a very small fee: keeping quiet about Leo and his papacy’s remarkable similarity to that of Bergoglio.
The Greater Good must be contrasted with the Common Good, which is actually the Catholic position.
Whereas the Common Good must take the needs of everyone into account, the Greater Good always involves the sacrifice of some for the sake of the whole. This principle is never more consequential than in the matter of salvation, where every individual’s soul needs to be considered.
For to remain silent when Pope Leo unashamedly continues the agenda of Bergoglio and his conciliar and post-conciliar predecessors does put souls at risk – of despair, of error and of deception.
One is reminded of the words of Our Lady of Buen Suceso of the Purification at Quito, Ecuador, where she said several times that ” that one who should speak will fall silent”.
If “the one”, presumably the Pope, falls silent then it is not surprising that other Catholics who should speak out would also follow suit. That is, those traditional Catholic commentators who were so quick to point out Bergoglio’s errors and who did so much good in alerting the faithful during his reign, fell silent when it came to Prevost.
Thankfully, it does appear that the ‘zip it” crowd already have egg on their faces and that some, at least, have begun to rethink their ill-fated strategy.
One commentator, notorious for his self-promotion, has already backtracked somewhat. This is the same man who made a video prior to the conclave in which he said that the election of Prevost would be the worst possible scenario for the Church. After the conclave, he scrubbed that video and refused to call our Pope Leo’s errors. (Thanks to Novus Ordo Watch, the original video can be found here.)
It should be mentioned that this backtracking coincided with the release of his latest book which he unashamedly promoted during his first foray into criticism of the new Pope. Perhaps he realised that the book’s target audience included those Catholics who are feeling dazed and confused by the traditionalists’ Zip-It policy.
Another Zip-it proponent has also begun to loosen his lips to allow some initial criticism of the shameful desecration of St. Peter’s during the James Martin crowd’s pilgrimage. Yet another has put out a strident blogpost, explaining that this LGBT pilgrimage crossed his bright line, allowing criticism to spring forth from his keyboard. We are assured that his wait-and-see policy was born, ever so ‘umbly, out of charity alone.
Don’t forget, these are the men who until now, gave Leo a pass when the red flags first began flying. They remained quiet when footage emerged of a talk he gave, praising the evil Cardinal Bernadin. Likewise, when Leo de facto canonised Bergoglio, the most prominent traditionalist commentators had nothing to say. The pagan Mass for Creation? Silence. Scandalous appointments? Crickets.
If the Great Unzipping really has taken place, it will be interesting to see what the future holds for the likes of Chris Jackson, Steven Kokx and The Catholic Esquire. They have done the heavy lifting during this wait-and-see phase of the new papacy, unflinchingly calling it as they have seen it, rather than kowtowing to the compromise directive issued, as has become all too clear, from the doyen of Trad-dom, Cardinal Burke.
For it is difficult to draw any other conclusion than this: that Burke was the middle-man in a mutually beneficial transaction between wealthy traditionalists and Modernist Rome.
Consider: a group of rich, traditionalist Catholics pulled their purse-strings closed under Bergoglio, thereby making a significant impact on the Vatican’s bottom line. Remember, Rome is in a quite desperate financial situation these days.
Those same wealthy Catholics had been suffering under Bergoglio. His outrageous behaviour caused them a loss of prestige and influence as they were no longer ‘in’ with the papacy, in the same way they had been under John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
In order to restore their reputations as the Catholic elite, it would be necessary to find a new Pope who matched their sensibilities – of aesthetics, anyway. Doctrine doesn’t matter when one has a private chapel with any number of cancelled priests willing to provide bespoke Latin Masses.
And so a deal was struck: in return for the flow of money to Rome, the mild-mannered Prevost would have to be elected. He looked the part and fluently spoke the correct languages: English and Latin. It would fall to Cardinal Burke to do the lobbying prior to the conclave.
If all this seems a bit far-fetched, it should be remembered that Steve Bannon said from the beginning that the conclave was “rigged”.
Additionally, some months ago, Anthony Stine, on Return to Tradition, cited an article from a big legacy media outlet in the US, which revealed that a secret meeting took place in Rome prior to the conclave. It was apparently attended by wealthy Italian and American Catholics who promised to send money to the Vatican if an American was elected Pope.
Remember also that the Italian news outlet, Corriere della Sera, confidently reported that Prevost was seen entering Cardinal Burke’s apartment on April 30 for ‘a top-secret summit’, even though this was strenuously denied by reliable reporters like Diane Montagna and Ed Pentin.
From whom is it likely that Montagna and Pentin receive their Vatican-insider information? Could it be from Cardinal Burke himself? Is it possible that the journalists were set up – no doubt for the Greater Good?
From where did Montagna receive the results of the bishops survey that shows Bergoglio had lied about the Latin Mass being unpopular with the hierarchy? Could those documents not have been leaked by Cardinal Burke himself?
Why did they not come out during Bergoglio’s reign? It was certainly possible to have arranged it.
Was it because such a revelation would have only hardened Bergoglio’s heart against the traditional Mass? Leaked under Prevost, however, the latter would potentially have the opportunity to play the Good Guy and rescind Traditiones Custodes, or at least, not bother to see it enforced.
Where does the so-called Trad Inc. fit into the picture? Well, if they want their Masses secured, and hopefully Traditiones Custodes rescinded, they would have to toe the line. No more criticism of Rome, no more bad press for the Pope. The rest of Christendom would then have to take its chances with the mish-mash of heresy, sodo-liturgies and Modernism going on outside the small enclaves of tradition. This would appease the Catholic elite by making the papacy look reasonable once more and start the coffers flowing to Rome.
Rome would have its income restored; the wealthy Catholics would have their prestige restored; Trad Inc. would have its Masses restored. At least, that was the plan, with Cardinal Burke as the lynch-pin. He was to be truly cardinalis. (Latin for ‘pivotal’).
There were two sticking points in this plot – other than whatever small murmurings came from the consciences of those involved. One is the yearning for truth that exists in the soul of every person of good will; the other is the fact that silence in the face of outrage has a limit.
Many traditional Catholics knew that this silence was unnatural and so sought their news from the few honest reporters, like those mentioned above. And this website, although very small, should be included among those who has tried to expose Pope Leo’s agenda from Day 1. (eg here.)
Now that Trad Inc’s floodgates of histrionics appear ready to open, releasing a barrage of complaints against Pope Leo onto the faithful, we should all be cautious as we begin again to consume their commentary. For they abandoned faithful Catholics in a time of need, no less than the shepherds whom they like to so roundly denounce as having abandoned the faithful.
The public’s trust in Trad. Inc. has been severely eroded and without a clear apology, the damage may be irreparable.
As Pope Leo’s papacy progresses, his role in advancing the Revolution is becoming clearer: make Modernism more palatable by gently “developing” his predecessor’s radical and destructive anti-Catholic doctrine. This is an opinion echoed by Atila Sinke Guimarães from Tradition in Action. He writes:
…. what the Conciliar Church needs now, more than anything else, is to have a long period to digest the progressivist “conquests” that Francis won for it. The aim is not to deny what he did. It is to “reinterpret” it under a more moderate light in order to make the average Catholic assimilate his legacy in small and less repulsive doses.
This attempt at reinterpretation is precisely what we are seeing from conservative Catholic circles – despite Bergoglian loyalists assuring us that Prevost is cut from the same cloth as Pope Francis. For example, there is an attempt to promote “Pope Leo’s version” of Liberation Theology, which is supposedly less extreme than the original version. Then there was the case of the conservative Catholic publication from Melbourne that wrote of its hopes to see the new Pope’s “interpretation of the application” of Synodality.
These are the hopes and dreams of naive Catholics who fail to understand the scope of the Crisis and the momentum it has gained: Prevost is not the Pope who is going to save the Church, any more than Trump was the politician “chosen by God” to save the free world.
Critical Reading of Scripture
Despite his smiling photo-ops and calm demeanour, Pope Leo has shown on more than one occasion that he is intent on applying critical theory to the Word of God. This includes playing down Christ’s miracles, by suggesting that the deaf-mute of the Gospels chose not to speak. “Just as it can sometimes happen to us, perhaps this man chose not to speak anymore because he did not feel understood; he chose to shut off every voice because he had been disappointed and wounded by what he had heard.”
This is a followup to previous occasion when Prevost suggested that the miracle of the loaves and fishes wasn’t so much about the sovereign power of God as it was about natural charity:
“However, when we read the account of what is commonly called the “multiplication of the loaves” (cf. Mt 14:13-21; Mk 6:30-44; Lk 9:12-17; Jn 6:1-13), we realize that the real miracle performed by Christ was to show that the key to overcoming hunger lies in sharing rather than in greedily hoarding.
False Ecumenism
Prevost has shown his tolerance for the errors of non-Catholics on many occasions since his election. Possibly the most concerning of these meetings was with representatives of the Eastern Orthodox church, which some Catholics hope will soon reconcile with Rome.
Yet, as pointed out by the WM Review, unless the Eastern orthodox church recognises the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, such a reconciliation can only take place if the Catholic Church embraces error. Specifically, these errors comprise the “redefinition of the Church’s property/note of unity, redefinition of the supernatural virtue of faith, redefinition of the nature of the papacy and constitution of the Church.”
Prevost’s record on clerical sex abuse
The new Pope’s tolerance of clerical sex abuse is another marker which confirms that, morally, he is little different from Bergoglio. An article from May in the Chicago Sun Times points to Prevost’s role as a prominent leader within the Augustinians and suggests that he helped cover for an alleged clerical sex offender. In the article, Prevost is accused of “perceived inaction on improving transparency in his order over sex abuse.”
More than that, the article points to a previous one from the same news outlet that claims “while he was in charge of the Augustinians in Chicago in 2000, allowed an accused pedophile priest to live at a South Side monastery without telling a nearby Catholic elementary school the man was there. Indeed, church records assert there was no school nearby when there was.”
There are other abuse-adjacent claims by the website against Prevost: none of them directly accuse him of abuse, but rather, point to a repeated lack of transparency and accountability.
This leads to another point that should have been raising red flags from the beginning of Prevost’s pontificate: why has the media been so quiet? As a whole, mainstream generally can’t move quickly enough to cover a story with even the faintest scent of a cover-up of abuse by Catholic priests. Yet Prevost’s role in a number of these affairs has largely been ignored until now.
This case, now back in the news, was known prior to Prevost’s election as Pope, yet until now received little media coverage. The details of this case are conflicting and even sketchy, yet that has never proven to be an obstacle for the media, who in Pope Leo’s case, continually assume his innocence.
Then there is this case, where the Pope is allowing Cardinal Carlos Castillo of Peru to remain in his position past retirement date, despite his track record of covering for sodomites in his seminary. As has been mentioned in these pages before, Prevost, as former head of the Dicastery for Bishops, knows all there is to know about the hierarchy, yet continues to promote or tolerate anti-Catholic prelates.
Jubilee of Youth
The Jubilee of Young People, which has just taken place in Rome, is the perfect of example of the way Pope Leo is continuing the Modernist agenda of the previous Popes under the appearance of orthodoxy. Catholic media hailed the Pope’s presence at Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, attended by up to a million young Catholics, as an indicator of the Church’s return to its glorious past.
Yet all conciliar and post-conciliar popes have led liturgies like this one. Images of all of them holding monstrances can be found online: all of them had moments of giving the appearance of a truly holy Pope, despite their many deviations from tradition on other occasions.
Without being too cynical, the question should be asked: what young Catholic would not want to attend an event like this one – a holiday in Rome, usually subsidised by the Archdiocese or family and friends, full of emotional experiences but without any substantial impetus for conversion to a holy life?
The truth is that large gatherings are the norm at events like this one, and that huge numbers for objectively excellent practices like Adoration and confession, while giving the appearance of a wholesome Catholic atmosphere, are not themselves indicators of a Catholic revival.
This is evidenced by the Jubilee meeting for Catholic “influencers”, most of whom attended the Holy Sacrifice of Mass in t-shirts and shorts. Despite being extolled as representatives for Catholicism, the majority of these “influencers” were not event aware of how to pray the Pater Noster in Latin.
Along with the trappings of tradition at the official events, Modernist novelties could also be found; novelties that undermined the reverence and decorum necessary for flourishing of true piety. There was the ubiquitous rock concert in St. Peter’s Square, which some thought was perfectly fine because the altar had been removed.
Then there was the strange group of ‘Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist’: they looked for all the world like neo-pagan priestesses, yet they distributed the Sacred Species at the Pope’s Mass. SOURCE
Events included a liturgical dance-show in front of the altar in the piazza near St. Peter’s. The group danced to Scripture being read in Italian by a woman. While their dress is quite modest by today’s (admittedly very low) standards, it does not reach the higher standards expected by anyone taking part in any form of liturgy. That is not to suggest that liturgical dance can ever be anything other than an embarrassing and inappropriate display of post-conciliar emotionalism.
Perhaps Leo’s papacy can be summed up in the image of Luce, which remains omnipresent throughout the Eternal City.
What appears to be Catholic, and even quaintly so, is in reality something sinister and dangerous to souls.
Like Luce, the Jubilee mascot with ties to the occult, and which was created by an artist who is a promoter of LGBTI rights (and a sex-toy vendor), the Vatican may seem newly orthodox, returning to tradition and appealing to young people.
Yet, the truth is that underneath the lace and Latin lies a cesspool of corruption and heresy, sodomy and vice, and that Prevost is the man of the hour, handpicked by the most corrupt men of all, to make Modernism palatable to unwitting Catholics. Please, dear friends, read the signs of the times and don’t be taken in by this latest Modernist deception.
On July 9th, Pope Leo offered his first Mass “for the Care of Creation”. The Mass contained many clues that show his agenda is no different from the human-centred goal of his predecessor, Pope Francis. Significantly, the press conference announcing the Mass featured Cardinal Michael Czerny, the man who promotes the Integral Ecology of Liberation Theologian, Leonardo Boff and Archbishop Francesco Viola, the man who wears Annibale Bugnini’s ring.
Firstly, I’d like to present an alternative view to mine, that is, a traditional Catholic’s interpretation of this Mass as being entirely orthodox and in line with the correct Catholic approach to creation. It seems solid, ending with the comment: “The keystone of the entire homily lies in the final sentence: ‘Only a contemplative gaze can change our relationship with created things’,” then providing a thoughtful explanation of what this means for faithful Catholics.
The only problem is, Pope Leo’s ‘contemplative gaze’ quote is taken from Laudato Si – that is, straight from the mouth of Papa Bergoglio. When one reads the entire sermon, it becomes obvious that Pope Leo is not, in fact, as the author suggests, referencing the traditional teaching on creation. Rather, he is continuing Francis’ mission which is none other than that of the subversive forces who gave us the Pact of the Catacombs. Clues such as ‘cry of the earth and cry of the poor’ abound, as do multiple references to Pope Francis and his pantheistic encyclical, Laudato Si. (For a complete analysis, see this article at Novus Ordo Watch.)
Apart from the obvious display of devotion to Pope Francis, there may be even more to this Mass than first appears. For this, it must be viewed through the lens of occult symbolism and so some speculation is in order.
Borgo Laudato Si Gardens
The Mass for Creation took place at the Borgo Laudato Si (The “Praised be” Village) – the immense gardens of the Pope’s holiday residence, Castel Gandolfo. Pope Francis had this turned into a tourist attraction, meant to provide some income for the cash-strapped Vatican whilst educating the public about ‘integral ecology’ (worshipping the environment). Remember, this is the vision that would have us believe that “justice and peace will only dwell on the Earth” when everyone has access to clean water.
The gardens made the perfect setting for a pagan ritual: that is, outdoors, in a grove. Groves were condemned by God throughout the Old Testament for their relationship to paganism and the prophets were often instructed to destroy these places where adulterous Israelites would gather to worship false gods.
The Dicastery for Integral Human development posted this to social media with the following caption: ‘Only a contemplative gaze can change our relationship with #Creation and bring us out of the ecological crisis’. But, it must be asked, where is Christ in this scenario?
Groves and the Divine Feminine
Is the statue behind the altar Our Lady? It’s certainly possible and at least she is dressed more modestly than Papa Bergoglio’s false Mary, undoer of knots. But in the current context, I’d like to explore another possibility: that this female figure represents a pagan goddess: Pachamama or perhaps Isis.
The Hebrew word for ‘grove’ is ‘Asherah’ which can also mean a sacred tree or wooden pole or totem which was worshipped as an idol. The name ‘Asherah’ (or ‘Ašratu’ in Akkadian), can also denote the pagan goddess of groves who was worshipped by the Phoenicians, the Akkaddians, the Hittites, and the Canaanites. Ashrerah was considered to be the ‘Queen of Heaven’ and is sometimes identified with the ‘Divine Feminine’.
The Queen of Heaven archetype appears often in pagan belief systems. For example, in Egyptian mythology the Queen of Heaven was Isis, the sister-wife of Osiris, sometimes known as the ‘World Virgin’. Isis is the personification of Nature and like other types of this goddess is associated with fertility.
As a mother-goddess who was and is blasphemously believed by some to be the consort of God, Asherah can be equated with the Pachamama of South America. Pachamama, as we know, is identified with Mother Earth and with the Divine Feminine. A common offering to Pachamama is the gift of flowers, especially yellow ones, and these can be seen on the altar at the Pope’s Mass of Creation – in violation of the GIRM (General Instruction on the Roman Missal).
Yellow flowers, a common offering for Pachamama, were placed on the altar, in violation of the GIRM.
Asherah/Isis was goddess of motherhood, and wisdom and as such may also be identified with ‘Sophia’ – the personification of wisdom. In Gnosticism, Sophia plays a fundament role, as she is an aspect of god and an agent of chaos and confusion which can only be countered by the ‘gnosis’ of ‘Jesus Christ’ which humans require to escape the physical world and return to the spiritual one.
To see a statue of a woman placed prominently behind the altar during the outdoor Mass of Creation, hands crossed over her chest in the gesture of Osiris and surmounted by a triangle (an important occult/Masonic symbol ) makes one wonder if this is not meant to represent Our Lady, but rather the anti-Mary World Virgin who is known as Ashrerah, Isis, Sophia or Pachamama.
Wisdom Between Two Pillars
The placement of the figure of Isis/Pachamama between two pillars provides further material for discussion as this is a specific arrangement in the occult with its own meaning:
The World Virgin is sometimes shown standing between two great pillars–the Jachin and Boaz of Freemasonry–symbolizing the fact that Nature attains productivity by means of polarity. As wisdom personified, Isis stands between the pillars of opposites, demonstrating that understanding is always found at the point of equilibrium and that truth is often crucified between the two thieves of apparent contradiction.
Manly P. Hall, The Secret Teachings of all Ages
Another interpretation of the setting of a female icon of Wisdom between two pillars comes from the Tarot. In this system, the woman is associated with the mythical ‘Pope Joan’ – a false female Pope! Surely, that’s not the message being conveyed here!?!
Opposing Forces
As has been repeated often among these pages, the Great Work of the occultist is to access gnosis in order to reconcile opposing forces. The placement of the female goddess figure between the two pillars echoes that principle. It is repeated in the elegant reflective pool which appears in front of the altar, a perfect embodiment of the principle of ‘as above, so below‘.
The reflective pool expresses the principle of ‘as above, so below’
The occult pectoral cross
For the occasion of the Mass of Creation, Pope Leo wore a pectoral cross decorated with an image of the Good Shepherd. While this appears at first to be the same cross was worn by the infamous Cardinal Bernadin (see article here) on closer inspection, this doesn’t seem to be the case. A separate article studies these crosses and may be found here.
Despite any differences in the crosses, it’s worth noting for our purposes that in the original version of this cross – the one worn by Cardinal Bernadin and Pope Francis – the ‘Good Shepherd’ was modelled on the Egyptian god, Osiris and that as mentioned above, the wife of Osiris was the goddess, Isis.
Conclusion
Rather than merely hijacking the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to promote the prevailing, disordered, emphasis on the environment, there were enough red flags here to indicate an occult ritual took place under the guise of, or in conjunction with, the liturgy.
Although we may never know the truth, it is educational to decode the hierarchy’s clues which were hiding in plain site in what at first appears to be a tranquil and thoroughly Catholic scene.
To see Mass offered outdoors in a lush grove, near twin pillars that are surmounted by a triangle, close to a reflective pool with all being overseen by the divine feminine should fill us with horror, rather than delight. It is yet another sign of the new papacy’s agenda: to present Modernism with a smile and to lure Catholics into nature worship using the tantalising bait of aesthetics.
An associate of Father Isaac Mary Relyea, made an interesting point on their Youtube channel : he said the name, Mass for the “Care of Creation” immediately reminded him of the “Cremation of Care” ritual performed at Bohemian Grove. Hmmm. Another ritual in an infamous grove. That certainly is food for thought.
In my recent article about Cardinal Bernadin, I referenced a pectoral cross he often wore which showed his allegiance to the occult and to other nefarious characters in the hierarchy. That article cited information from Rosicrucians which explained that their esoteric version of the ‘Good Shepherd’ was indicated by arms crossed over the chest.
Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Francis have also worn this same cross: in Bergoglio’s case, he wore it first as Archbishop and Cardinal of Argentina.
Crossed arms are also found in Masonry and in its offshoot, the OTO (Ordo Templi Orientis), and were inspired by the Egyptian god, Osiris.
Osiris
Aleister Crowley as Osiris
First sign in the Super-Excellent Master Mason Degree (Richardson’s Monitor of Freemasonry)
As an aside, celebrities seem to be as fond of being photographed making this gesture as they are of making the Illuminati ‘one-eye’ sign and devils’ horns.
Rapper Eminem
Author Steven King
Artist Marina Abramovic
Cardinal Fernandez pictured wearing the same cross at this year’s conclave.
Pope Francis wearing the occult-inspired cross.
The shepherd with arms crossed, slightly elongated body and background of lines or ridges – from the maker’s website.
Another shot of the cross showing the shepherd’s face looking straight ahead.
Pope Leo, as Robert Prevost, was apparently apparently photographed wearing the occult-version. I say ‘apparently’, because the photograph on the left is so outrageous that I had waited to see solid proof that it was not photoshopped. That is, proof was wanting until the photograph on the right was sent to me. It came from a Spanish website called Religion the Free Voice and shows Prevost againt wearing the occult-inspired pectoral cross.
Here is a picture of Pope Leo XIV, taken on the day of his ‘Mass for Creation’. As can be seen, he is wearing a pectoral cross bearing an image of the Good shepherd.
However, there is something very significant about his cross. As the closeups show, this doesn’t appear to be identical with similar crosses worn by Pope Francis, or Cardinals Bernadin and Fernandez: it has been changed slightly.
Zoomed-in image of the cross from the picture above.
Enhanced with Canva software
Here is Leo’s cross again, at even closer range.
What say you, friends? Is this the same cross? In all truth, it appears not to be. The shepherd appears to have only one arm crossed over his breast – his left arm – and his body is a little shorter than in the Bergoglio/Bernadin version. The robe is raised slightly on the right-hand-side (the shepherd’s left) as if he is walking. The Holy Ghost dove is in the same position but the vertical lines/ridges in the background have been removed, or are at least not so prominent. In contrast to the other cross, the shepherd’s head seems to be oriented downwards and slightly towards his right.
What does is all mean? Is Leo playing the players? Has he tapped in to the graces of his new state as Pontiff of the Holy Catholic Church? While I’d like to think this is the case, here is a different theory (as presented to me by my son.) If this ‘Good Shepherd’ is inspired by a god of Ancient Egypt, we must cast our minds back to that period.
We know that at times, ancient Egypt was governed by Pharaohs who demanded that they be worshipped as gods, but this wasn’t always the case. There was a time known as the First Intermediate Period during which the Pharaohs ruled in a more ‘synodal’ style. They shared power with the nomes, who were the rulers of a series of city-states called nomarchs. Most notably, this time came after the more authoritarian period of the Old Kingdom – and was later followed by another time of absolute rule by the Pharaohs.
Is it possible that the updated version of the pectoral cross indicates that the authoritarian rule of Bergoglio has given way to Leo’s ‘synodal’ path of cheerfully allowing bishops to implement whatever degree of orthodoxy or error they desire in their own dioceses? (For that is precisely what synodality entails.) Is this cross the symbol of the next phase of the revolution?
No matter what is the meaning of this strange development, please, PLEASE, dear Catholics, choose a simple daily penance to offer to Our Lady that this Pope will consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart and end the confusion which reigns around us. As I’m fond of saying: he doesn’t have to believe, he just has to do it!
Ecclesiastical Freemasonry 
