+St. Anacletus, Pope and Martyr+

Some readers have expressed almost disbelief that the “for all men” in the consecration of the wine could have been printed in the 1959 missalettes and been openly approved (or ignored) by the bishops; and that after all these years, this is just now coming to light. But this was first made public on my site in an article entitled Death Knell for “Good Pope John,” which was later retitled and rewritten. I myself only became aware of it in 2004, and this almost by accident. At the time, like everyone else, related it only to the aberrations revolving around the Mass. This because I already had proven that Roncalli was invalidly elected and all the clergy were excommunicated and unable to function. Greater emphasis now needs to be placed upon this find to prove to those still in doubt that the bishops were complicit in all the Vatican 2 changes, lost their offices under Can. 188 n. 4 through heresy and schism in January 1959 and violated the oath they took at their consecration to obey the pope and defend the faith.

Some have asked why the date of the Great Apostasy even matters, but truth always matters. Perhaps we should ask the question: Why didn’t those championing the Mass early on, or those who exited the NO and followed them into the Traditionalist movement ever notice it? The man who wrote the most comprehensive study of the “for all men,” Patrick Henry Omlor, did not write his work until 1967-68, when “for all men” debuted in the U.S., even before Paul 6 made it official in 1969. That happened on October 22, 1967, Black Sunday, when the U.S. bishops first introduced the revised Vatican 2 “mass,” with a vernacular canon containing the words “for all men.” What is striking about Omlor’s singular work The Robber Church, is that it clearly states that:

“THIS “FORM” IS HERETICAL. Since UNTO denotes efficacy, this ‘form’ says that the benefits of Christ’s Passion are actually communicated to ALL MEN UNTO the forgiveness of sins.  And this is contrary to faith… The mutilation in question (to wit, ‘FOR ALL MEN SO THAT, etc.’) is a forgery of Christ’s words recorded in Holy Writ…  St. Thomas Aquinas defines HERESY as ‘a species of unbelief, belonging to those  who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.’” (Summa Theol., II-II, Q. 11, Art. 1).”

What is most notable here is that throughout his work, Omlor applies these words only to the invalidity of the consecration. Nowhere does he even so much as intimate that the men promoting such a blatant heresy could themselves be rank heretics. There is a sense of outrage only that the Mass is violated and mutilated. In other words, he entirely misses the point. And it demonstrates that even someone such as Omlor, seminary and college educated prior to Vatican 2, was clueless regarding the true hierarchical structure of the Church, its inner workings, and the devastating implications of such a heresy.

That bishops could allow Christ’s very words to be falsified and remain blameless is a travesty, one that obviously prevails even now. And this after decades of proofs that the destruction was the result of careful planning, engineered by Masonic agents of the Devil, who long ago infiltrated the Church. The denial of this infiltration and the full realization of its consequences is what keeps many confused and attached to Traditionalist groups. So below we will try to explain why the laity did not recognize the treachery in the 1959 missalettes, and why the liturgy was the very bait used to deceive them.

Michael Davies on the Liturgical Movement

I am no fan by any means of Michael Davies but what he says here is an example of Baalim’s ass speaking the truth. “Crushed by St. Pius X, the Modernists understood that they could not penetrate the Church by theology, that is, by a clear exposé of their doctrines. They had recourse to the Marxist notion of praxis, having understood that the Church could become modernist through action, especially through the sacred action of the liturgy. Revolutions always use the living energies of the organism itself, taking control of them little by little and finally using them to destroy the body under attack. It is the well-known process of the Trojan horse.” Wikipedia defines Marxian praxis as “…concrete practical activity that directly influences social life;” the belief that “theoretical contradictions can only be resolved through practical activity…doing something, and then only afterwards, finding out why you did it… trusting experience, before institution or dogma” – Wiki). This “experience” is addressed by Pope St. Pius X  in his encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis as follows:

“…Given this doctrine of experience united with the other doctrine of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being met within every religion?… But this doctrine of experience is also under another aspect entirely contrary to Catholic truth. It is extended and applied totradition, as hitherto understood by the Church, and destroys it.” The Pope goes on to explain that by appealing to human traditions via the power of suggestion, the Modernists would then involve people in experiencing their religion (greater lay involvement) and in this way attract both new converts and awaken the “sluggish.” And this they accomplish both by “books and oral transmission.”

Kinkead’s Baltimore Catechism no. 3 lists approved “books of worship” as belonging to revealed Traditions in the Church (Q. 560). So the reformers went straight for Tradition, knowing that Catholics were generally uneducated in dogma, (as St. Pius X pointed out in Acerbo Nimis) and also knowing that many of them wanted a more active role in the Mass. This to appeal to the “sluggish” and attract others to the faith who were put off by Latin and passive attendance at Mass. And so by preaching and encouragement, beginning in the 1920s, clergy and religious fostered the idea of liturgical reform, eventually holding annual liturgical conferences and organizing groups (promoting these changes. This rather than focusing, as Pope St. Pius X and his successors urged, on education in Church teaching and participation in the forms of Catholic Action that promoted catechesis. And yet as Davies noted in the 1970s, “…most Catholics know very little about the liturgical movement.”

The groundwork already had been laid; the bottom rungs of the Masonic pyramid accomplished. Materialism had eroded the Catholic ideal of self-denial  over time and Catholic and Protestant Liberalism emerged en force in the late 1800s. The Great Depression and the war years only hastened the spread of these two errors. Then came the push for liturgical reform,  accomplished in increments. This is nothing more than gradualism, another Marxian tool based on evolutionary principles used to facilitate change: “In politics and society, gradualism is the theory that social change can be achieved in small, discrete increments,” rather than sudden eruptions, such as revolutions or uprisings. In other words, heat the water very slowly, little by little, to boil the frog. “Gradualism is one of the defining features of political liberalism and reformism,” and reformism is defined as “…a political doctrine advocating the reform of an existing system or institution instead of its abolition and replacement” (Wikipedia).

In condemning excesses in liturgical reform in Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII brought the reformers resorting to methods of praxis and gradualism up short, writing: “The entire liturgy has the Catholic Faith for its content…. For this reason whenever there was a question of defining a truth revealed by God, the Sovereign Pontiff and the Councils, in their recourse to ‘theological sources,’ as they are called, have not seldom drawn many an argument from this sacred science of the Liturgy…[Lex orandi, lex credendi]: The rule for prayer determines the rule for belief.’ [However] The Sacred Liturgy does not decide or determine independently and of itself what is of Catholic Faith… If one desires to differentiate and described the relationship between faith and the Sacred Liturgy IN ABSOLUTE AND GENERAL TERMS, it is perfectly correct to say…‘let the rule of BELIEF determine the rule of prayer.’”

In other words, only the pope may determine what is of Catholic faith; As Pope Pius XII also taught in Sacramentum Ordinis: “The Church has no power over the substance of the Sacraments; i.e., over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign.”

Davies continues: “After the Second World War, the movement became a force that nothing could stop. Protected from on high by eminent prelates, the new liturgists took control little by little of the Commission for Reform of the Liturgy founded by Pius XII, and influenced the reforms devised by this Commission at the end of the pontificate of Pius XII and at the beginning of that of John XXIII. Already masters, thanks to the Pope, of the pre-conciliar liturgical commission, the new liturgists got the Fathers of the Council to accept a self-contradictory and ambiguous document, the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Lercaro and Fr. Bugnini, themselves very active members of the Italian Liturgical Movement, directed the efforts of the Consilium which culminated in the promulgation of the New Mass.

“How could Pope Pius XII, the Pastor Angelicus, the most scholarly Pope of the century, and one whose orthodoxy could not possibly be questioned, have allowed the young wolves of the liturgical movement to consolidate their power during his pontificate? Father Bonneterre makes it clear that this saintly pontiff was well-aware of the subversive elements within the Liturgical Movement. In His encyclical Mediator Dei, perhaps the most sublime exposition of the true nature of the Mass ever to be written, Pope Pius wrote: “We observe that certain people are too fond of novelty and go astray from the oaths of sound doctrine and prudence…. They sully this sacred cause with errors, errors which affect the Catholic faith and ascetical teaching.” Father Bonneterre insists that, alas:

“‘Pope Pius XII did not know the true position of the Liturgical Movement. Its most dangerous leaders were being supported and protected by the highest dignitaries of the Church. How could the Pope have suspected that the “experts” who were so highly praised by Cardinals Bea and Lercaro were, in fact, the most dangerous enemies of the Church? …The news of the death of the Angelic Pastor was received with almost delirious joy by the deviated Liturgical Movement.” The aged Dom Lambert Beauduin had not the least doubt as to the cardinal he hoped would be elected, and confided his hopes to Father Bouyer: ‘If they elect Roncalli,’ he said ‘all will be saved. He will be capable of calling a Council and canonizing ecumenism…’ Silence fell; then, with a return of his old mischievousness, he said with flashing eyes, ‘I believe we have a good chance. Most of the cardinals are not sure what to do. They are capable of voting for him.’” (The Destruction of the Traditional Roman Rite; Davies quotes end here.)

As noted in our June 23 blog, Beauduin and Roncalli were known to be friends. If Pope Pius XII had been the advocate for the type of liturgical reform the progressives desired, why would they have been delirious with joy at his death? No, the liturgical reform was merely a prelude to the theological reform that would succeed it, and “for all men” was the mantra which would be the key to transforming not just the liturgy, but the very scope of Catholic theology.

Whence cometh the theology behind “for all men”?

It seems the fear of Communism drove Pope Pius XII to cast the Church’s lot with America, which he believed was dedicated to fighting Communism and to winning the fight. This explains why the pope seemingly tolerated the installation of the OSS-funded Pro Deo group headed by the suspected CIA operative Fr. Felix Morlion, O.P., a friend of the man who was rewarded by the Pope for having done the Vatican a great service during the war years — William “Wild Bill” Donavan. Morlion, with Giovanni Baptiste Montini’s assistance, established his intelligence service, Pro Deo, in the Vatican. This occurred  in 1944 during WWII, once Rome was liberated from the Nazis. Montini had been collaborating with the OSS using priests in various countries as spies, however, long before Pro Deo’s move to Rome (Messianic Legacy, Lincoln Leigh and Baigent, 1986). And it was precisely at this very time that the liturgical movement began to explode. It is no coincidence that Morlion would later figure into the very heart of the ecumenist movement and would play a major role in the theology that would emerge from the false Vatican 2 council.

In The Phantom Church of Rome, I went into great detail regarding the extent of what the American government called doctrinal warfare, first implemented in 1953. In his book John Courtenay Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition, international attorney David Wemhoff described it as a “planned attack against a basic hostile doctrinal system” combined simultaneously with a propaganda-style campaign to promote socially acceptable religious ideals. Originally developed as a program to combat Communism, it was redesigned to primarily target (religious) “decision makers and their staffs.” It grew “out of the propaganda agencies of World War II,” agencies that were later coordinated from the Vatican by then pro-secretary of state Giovanni Montini. Using Montini’s contacts, priests and other clergy engaged in teaching positions were employed to pump neo-Modernist poison into the veins of the Catholic intelligentsia. And who was one of those well-versed in at least the campaign to combat the spread of Communist ideology? None other than Felix Morlion.

A later-released 1957 intelligence document reveals that: “Felix A. Morlion, O.P., is a Belgian who became a Dominican after engineering studies at Louvain. He served for Psychological Warfare Activities in the United States from 1941-44 with other leaders of anti-totalitarianism. He was first on the Nazi blacklist for his Brussels International Pro Deo Center. The impact of the American way of life brought him and his associates to plan the creation of a university to apply the philosophy of the American Founding Fathers to the international promotion of democracy under God.” It was Morlion, Wemhoff relates, who first hosted the promulgation of the American proposition at Pro Deo University in November of 1953. It was a much-awaited reversal of Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of Americanism, seemingly coming from the Church Herself. Embattled as She was, it appeared that a Catholic institution endorsed democracy as the savior of the world and a governmental system that would be acceptable to, and even protective of, the Catholic faith.

Democracy and the Novus Ordo church

We wonder today why democracy is touted as the only acceptable system of government in the world, without understanding how those barriers were first beaten down by those who would later canonize it at the false Vatican 2 council. So now we know. The infamous “innocent “ cardinals would do nothing to oppose the American proposition and later would approve Dignitatus Humanae on Dec. 7, 1965, almost unanimously. The U.S. branch of Pro Deo was headed up by Francis Cardinal Spellman (Wemhoff, p. 367). Spellman also was the de facto head of the Knights of Malta, its “protector and spiritual advisor” (Messianic Legacy). Later Pope Pius XII would refuse to appoint a new head for the Knights of Malta, setting up a commission to determine if they had been infiltrated by Freemasons. The K of M remained headless until after Pope Pius XII’s death, when Roncalli appointed a new head for the group.

Henry Luce, owner of Time magazine and the tireless promoter of John Courtney Murray’s American proposition, taught by Morlion at his university, is featured with Murray as the antagonists in Wemhoff’s book. It was the American proposition that Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton and his one-time boss Rev. Francis J. Connell so strenuously opposed at the false Vatican 2 council. Murray’s proposition was best summarized in a 1999 Crisis magazine article: “Murray claimed that America was a pluralistic society divided into four disparate camps: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and secularist [as also described in Protestant, Catholic, Jew by the Jewish theologian Will Herberg in 1955]. For all Americans, the First Amendment’s clauses amounted to “articles of peace” that enabled them all to coexist. Murray wanted more than mere coexistence, though. He hoped that Americans would rediscover the natural law and use it.” This in direct contradiction to Catholic teaching. As Fr. Francis Connell insisted, the Church must preach Christ’s message to all nations, America included, and civil authorities must recognize Christ as their true King.

Murray was censured by the Holy Office in July 1955, but the fact was not widely broadcast. As a  2008 article published by the liberal Catholic World later revealed : “[T]he Holy Office was preparing an official condemnation… of Jacques Maritain and another architect of the Council, John Courtney Murray, also others who played a role in… the Declaration on Religious Liberty…… only the death of Pope Pius XII on October 8, 1958… prevented this from happening.”(Catholic World, “Censuring of John Courtney Murray Part Two,” by Robert Nugent; March/April 2008) “…In the spring of 1963, during a break in the Council, Murray was still persona non grata in some quarters. Murray, along with Godfrey Diekmann, Gustave Weigel and Hans Kung, was barred from speaking at the Catholic University of America at the urging of the Apostolic Delegate to the U. S. (1958-1967) Egidio Vagnozzi. Finally, on April 4, 1963, at the insistence of Cardinal Francis Spellman, Murray received his official invitation to attend the Council as a peritus and later served as the chair of the commission drafting the document on religious liberty.”

That document on human liberty, Dignitatis humanae, states: “The declaration of this Vatican Council on the right of man to religious freedom has its foundation in the dignity of the person, whose exigencies have come to be fully known to human reason through centuries of experience… It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community.” In other words, no one would be able to identify anyone as a heretic in a Catholic country and Church authorities would not be able to discipline him, nor enjoin the civil arm to arrest them and prevent error from being taught to the faithful.

Given the above, a Martin Luther would be allowed free rein even in a Catholic state, and no one could prevent him from ensnaring Catholics. The democratic notion that: “religious freedom has already been declared to be a civil right in most constitutions, and it is solemnly recognized in international documents” supersedes the teaching of the Church and places Catholics under the civil rule of democracy worldwide. Yes, centuries of experience that have witnessed the fatal promotion of democracy as the only government compatible with free exercise of religion — free meaning the RIGHT to choose to believe and promote error. This despite all the papal condemnations of errors arising from democracy. And to call a council in the face of the ONLY Vatican Council, and despite the refusal of previous popes to do so, was sheer madness. Below find a summary of thinking that guided both Pope Pius XI and Pius XII NOT to call such a council, taken from the work of Joseph A. Komonchak, co-author of the work, The History of Vatican II.

The dangers of an ecumenical council

[Joseph de Maistre, in his work The Pope wrote]: “’I never saw a council assembled without danger and inconvenience…. To speak truly, I must say that I avoid, as much as I can, assemblies of priests and bishops; I never saw so much as one concluded in a happy and agreeable manner, and which did not tend rather to increase evils than to remove them’ (St. Gregory Nazienzen)… The more enlightened the world becomes, the less will a general council be thought of. There have just been twenty-one the whole time since the origin of Christianity, which would give about one general council to each period of eighty years; but we see that for two centuries and a half religion has done very well without them; and I do not believe that any one thinks of them, notwithstanding the extraordinary wants of the Church, for which the Pope will provide much better than a general council, if men only understand how to make use of his power. The world is become too great for general councils, which seem only to have been intended for the youth of Christianity…” (Caprile’s Il Concilio Vaticano II, V [Rome: Ed. “La Civiltà Cattolica,” 1969], 681-701), cited from the latter, 692).

Earlier Caprile had summarized Billot’s view: “Providence itself, in his opinion, took it upon itself to close the Vatican Council by means of a series of well-known events. It thus appears to have wanted to make us see that, with the definition of pontifical infallibility, the age of Councils is terminated, since they are ‘so expensive, so inconvenient, so full of difficulties and dangers of every sort… [Cardinal Billot said in full]: “Finally, here is the most serious reason, the one which would seem to me absolutely to militate for a negative reply. Resuming the Council is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, the modernists, who are already getting ready — as quite certain indications reveal — to profit from the estates general of the Church in order to make revolution, a new 1789, the object of their dreams and hopes.

“They will not succeed, of course, but we would see again those very sad days of the end of the pontificate of Leo XIII and of the beginning of that of Pius X; we would see things even worse, and it would annihilate the happy fruits of the Encyclical Pascendi which silenced them all.” Billot was also especially fearful that “…the proportion, considerable both in numbers and in means of action, of the Irish-American element in Council, would introduce procedures of discussion and propaganda more in accord with democratic usage than with ecclesiastical traditions.” Cardinal Bonzano was concerned about “the danger that a certain number of bishops, especially foreigners, would try to emphasize their own rights, in opposition to the prerogatives of the primacy of the Supreme Pontiff, under the pretext that Rome centralizes too much” (Caprile, V, 688). ‘” Komonchak observes:

“Councils are no longer necessary, are too expensive, and too full of difficulties and dangers, that there were no matters which either had not already been dealt with by the popes or could not be dealt with by them in the future, and that the unsettled state of the Roman Question made it unwise to hold a Council, which would demonstrate the ability of the pope to carry out his task even without the temporal power. Other reasons advanced against the idea of the Council included the political and psychological conditions of the world (particularly nationalism among the hierarchies), certain dangerous tendencies among the bishops and clergy (modernism, democracy, episcopalism [better understood as Gallicanism]), a lack of theological preparation and skills, the technical and financial difficulties, and the fear of how the press would exploit a Council.”

“Information about the idea of an ecumenical council during the reign of Pope Pius XII was revealed late in 1959 by Cardinal Ernesto Ruffini. On October 28, 1959, in a lecture on the first year of Pope John’s pontificate, Ruffini wrote: ‘Twenty years ago, at the feet of Pius XII, I, the least of all priests, dared to call for an Ecumenical Council. It seemed to me to be urgently required by the circumstances, and that there was as much material to treat as the Council of Trent had had. The venerable Pontiff did not reject the proposal and took note of it, as he used to do on important matters. I know that he later spoke about it with other prelates, but Divine Providence reserved to his successor the difficult and arduous enterprise.’”

But Pope Pius XII did at least investigate the possibility of calling a council. “In March 1948, Monsignor Alfredo Ottaviani, Assessor of the Holy Office, discussed the subject with Pius XII, urging the need to clarify and define certain doctrinal points… The Pope stated some of the difficulties about calling a Council, but authorized some initial preparatory work, to be carried out secretly and within the Holy Office… Two weeks later, on March 15, 1948, Ottaviani presided over a meeting of six consultors and informed them of the pope’s charge. (Ibid. Komonchak and end of his quotes. See https://jakomonchak.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/pius-xi-pius-xii-on-a-council.pdf).

After calling for the preparatory work and pursuing the possibility, however, the council idea was abandoned. Pope Pius XII’s health was given as the reason, the pope being too compromised by his illness to withstand all the necessary preparatory work and other organizational details that would accompany such an effort. And perhaps the pope, like his predecessor, realized in the end — particularly after his vision of Christ and miraculous recovery from his poison-induced illness — that a council would not be the solution, but a great danger. In both sets of the preparatory council documents from Popes Pius XI and XII listed by Komonchak, there is not one mention of the liturgy or the Mass as a possible focal point; almost the entire focus was on doctrinal matters and a few social issues. This tells us what we need to know: first vacate the papacy, then destroy the Mass. We end with this warning from the Council of Trent:

“It is certain that the Church was instructed by Jesus Christ and His apostles and that all truth was daily taught Her by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, it is obviously absurd and injurious to propose a certain ‘restoration and regeneration’ for her as though necessary for her safety and growth, as if she could be considered subject to defect or obscuration or other misfortune. Indeed these authors of novelties consider that a foundation may be laid of a new human institution, and what St. Cyprian detested may come to pass, that what was a divine thing may become a human church.”

Conclusion

It must be remembered that throughout the Church’s history, the popes have, for better or for worse, relied upon the protection of various heads of state when outside forces threatened to disturb the Church’s autonomy. This happened particularly in the early days of the Church when the emperors assisted in selecting the pope and during the Avignon exile in France. Gradually all lay intervention was excluded. But throughout papal history, various countries and factions lent aid to the papacy and helped protect the pope. Pope Pius XII may have believed that the U.S. was a trustworthy ally at first, but later realized his mistake. He was convinced that the threat of atheistic Communism was of paramount importance and thought that American officials were fighting to curb this menace. Unfortunately he underestimated the extent of Masonic influence in this country and the vast inroads it had made into government. He also was the victim of an unparalleled disinformation campaign carried out by a coterie of Jesuit infiltrators who were advising him, something Msgr. Fenton refers to in his diaries.

The false Vatican 2 council was everything and much more than Pius XI and Pius XII had feared or Card. Billot had predicted. Modernism and democracy were canonized. The secret societies ruled those passing as popes, who were among their own members. The true Church was replaced by the Church of Antichrist. And the “innocent cardinals” made it all possible. In our previous blog it was noted that Ruffini, Ottaviani and certain “other cardinals” were the very ones who, once it appeared Roncalli would be elected, urged him to call a council (Bro. Michael of the Trinity, The Whole Truth About Fatima; Peter Hebblethwaite. See his work at: https://www.catechistcafe.com/books/john-xxiii-pope-of-the-century-by-peter-hebblethwaite-part-4). Given what Komonchak says above about the eagerness of Ottaviani and Ruffini to hold such a council, their visit to Roncalli prior to his election, based on Ottaviani’s own account, is credible. And we will go a little further here.

It seems to us that this established the necessary nexus that made Roncalli’s election possible. For according to the link above, Ruffini and Ottaviani visited Roncalli the day before his election to secure a promise the council would indeed be called. And surely that request for such a favor was accompanied by an offer to cast their votes for Roncalli; that is simply how things are usually done. And we are to believe these two so-called conservative cardinals were innocent?! We know Roncalli himself was a Mason, although this was learned only after his death. We also know Lienart was a Freemason and that Spellman was compromised. Ottaviani and Ruffini are now thrown into this mix. How many others were there who should never have been admitted to the Conclave?

The entire Wemhoff book, all 911 pages of it, is documented proof of what happened to the Catholic Church, when and how it happened and the absolutely incredible lengths those implementing its destruction were willing to go to in order to accomplish it. The intricate web of complicity Wemhoff reveals leaves no doubt that American Catholics especially were deliberately brainwashed and conditioned to believe what Vatican 2 later taught long before Pope Pius XII died. Their natural quietistic apathy and neglect to learn the faith on an adult level, their desire to be served rather than dedicate themselves to the service of God, their love of conformity was glaringly obvious and has been documented in such works as The Mystery of Iniquity by Rev. Paul Furfey and Peter Michaels’ This Perverse Generation, among other works.

As difficult as it may be to admit it, our parents and grandparents were largely oblivious to what was going on in the Church and chose to simply follow their pastors blindly. They had come to take the Church for granted. The few who did realize something was wrong were either ridiculed or ignored. Many of them gave up. The pastors being struck the flock was scattered, just as Our Lord predicted. We now must struggle each day to simply keep what we know of the faith alive, study to learn it completely to the best of our ability, sacrifice ourselves for our loved ones and the poor souls, ignore the chaos that surrounds us and pray for deliverance. Those coming from the outside to create that chaos must be excluded from our purview as much as possible, for involving us in their ridiculous reassessments of the situation only obscure the truth and disturb our hard-won peace. “…Rejoice, be perfect, take exhortation, be of one mind, have peace; and the God of peace and of love shall be with you” (2 Cor. 13:11).