Skip to main content


Showing posts from August 4, 2019

Is Francis the CIA's Pope?

Former FBI consultant and journalist Paul Williams, PhD, in his 2015 book on the CIA and the Vatican wrote: "On March 13, 2013, Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio ascended to the throne of St. Peter as Pope Francis I. The nagging questions about his background may never receive a satisfactory answer. Nor will concerns that the CIA manipulated the [papal] election as it had in the past with Juan Peron. Argentine journalists and scholars with insight into the Agency's [the CIA's] activities in their country have labeled Bergoglio 'Washington's Pope.'" (Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between The Vatican, The CIA and The Mafia, Page 126) The former FBI consultant apparently is claiming that his Argentine sources with "insight" into the American Deep State in their country are labeling: Francis as the CIA's Pope. If this is true then the American Deep State picked the right man because Francis appears to have as much enmity and hostil

Here is How "Conservative" Francis Catholics like Mike Lewis become Liberal Catholics and finally Modernist Heretics

- Updated December 30, 2019 Mike Lewis of the Where Peter Is website who is an apologist for Communion for adulterers and pachamama worship has finally shown me how so-called "conservative" Francis Catholics become first liberal Catholics and finally Modernist heretics. The answer appears to be that they reject Thomistic realism and it's principle of non-contradiction as applied to the infallible teachings of the Church and believe that Cardinal John Henry Newman's speculations on "Development of Doctrine" as well as his nominalist philosophy which denies the principle of non-contradiction are more infallible than the actual infallible Church teachings against Communion for adulterers and idolatry. Lewis explains Newman's nominalist thinking: "Newman himself spoke of the need to understand that doctrine might not DEVELOP [my capitalization] in a way that we can anticipate or in a way that our preconceived notions are prepared to accept.&quo

Patrick Coffin: "[T]hat the 2013 [Conclave] Election may be Invalid is... a Gorilla in the Room"

The former Catholic Answers radio show host Patrick Coffin did a interview with Bishop Rene Gracida on the evidence of "activity... canonically illegal" at the conclave that elected Francis which casts "the validity of the papal election... in doubt." After the interview, Coffin on his website wrote: "[T]he reaction of most Catholic pundits to the notion that the 2013 election may have been invalid is met with guffaw or a "that's crazy talk." It's a gorilla in the room whose existence needs to be acknowledged before it can be dismissed as harmless." (, "83: Pope Francis and the Crisis of Confusion - Bishop Rene Henry Gracida," no date given) The Pope John Paul II conclave constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" which ruled over the Francis conclave states only the cardinals can interpret that conclave document and therefore pass judgement on if it was a valid or invalid conclave. For this r

Could Socci be Implying "the End of the World" is near if the Pope doesn't Consecrate Russia by Name?

The respected Catholic scholar Dr. Peter Kwasniewski in reviewing the Antonio Socci book "The Secret of Benedict XVI: Is he still Pope?" said: "Socci['s]... careful analysis... above all, the interpretation [of] canon lawyers... argue that the resignation lacks several conditions for validity." In the last page of the book, Socci's "careful analysis" of the lack of Benedict XVI's "resignation... validity" brings him to the conclusion that we must: "United to Pope Benedict [not pope emeritus Benedict]." In Twitter on July 26, Socci wrote: "Bergoglio [not Pope Francis]... is dismantling the Catholic Church." The world renowned Fatima expert Socci at the end of the book revealed from little known "documents" that quotes from Fatima Seer Jacinta Marto have her "speaking about": "[T]he 'end of the world' if people 'do not do penance and change their lives.'"

Why are US Bishops Embracing "Satanist" Democrats Rhetoric & Ignoring Democrat inspired Dayton Shooting?

The U.S. bishops' conference issued a statement enthusiastically embracing the logic of the extremist pro-abortion Democrats "racism" rhetoric. The statement cited the "El Paso shooting" while ignoring the Democrat endorsing Dayton shooter. The Catholic News Agency apparently joining the bishops in embracing the Democrat logic even quoted the two pro-abortion Democrats who the Dayton shooter endorsed. ( Catholic News Agency, "Citing El Paso shooting, US Bishop's condemn divisive , hateful rhetoric," August 9, 2019) If the Democrats logic that Trump is a racist is correct then it means they are Satanist and the CNA as well as the U. S. bishop conference support Satanism. The Democrat presidential candidates as a group with their ridiculous rant of President Donald Trump is a racist because the El Paso shooter is a racist deserves mockery. If what they said is true then Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are Satanic Socialist who love ki

Rush's Question: "How many Mass Shooters went to Day Care?" is Answered by Fr. Ripperger

On November 7, 2017, Rush Limbaugh on his show, mentioning the research of psychoanalyst and researcher Erica Komisar into the negative psychological effects of day care, asked the question: "How many mass shooters went to day care?" Scholar and author Fr. Chad Ripperger, P.hD., who wrote "Introduction to the Science of Mental Health" answered Limbaugh's question: "I am waiting for her [,a psychological expert,] to actually write the article.... because she is a phenomenal psychologist and a fantastic researcher. She was noticing all these people mowing these people down, not the Moslems, but the actual people from our culture going in and shooting people." "She said 'I wonder if they have a common element?'" "They only had one thing in common: day care!" "The Church has known for centuries or for millennia that the primary period of moral formation for a child is between two and six. That's when the as

Why is Taylor Marshall now saying there is No Possibility that Benedict Resigned because of Duress thus Possibly making it Invalid?

Dr. Taylor Marshall in his new book says: "My response to... Benedict resigned under duress or fear. He claims that he did not and without knowing anything more, we cannot claim it to be so." (Infiltration, Page 237) As we shall see Marshall does "know... more." Marshall, who apparently has no legal background, seems to think because Benedict XVI "claims that he did not" resign under duress there is not a case to be made that a elderly person could have been under pressure despite claiming that he wasn't under duress. Marshall made this same claim in one of his YouTube TnT shows about a month ago to his co-host Timothy Gordon who went to law school. Gordon explained that under the law a person could have been under duress despite claiming he wasn't under duress. Strangely enough when I went to the YouTube playlist so I could quote the show it appears to be listed as "Deleted video." It is possible I could be wrong, but all t