Twitter / X ~~~ Running Commentary From Anywhere

 

Certain of our Twitter / X posts will be listed here. As well as long comments from anywhere.

 

 

May.29/26  Part of a running commentary concerning Unam Sanctam at Introibo’s blog (https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2026/05/recognizing-occult-part-2.html).

"Somehow I have the impression that some believe that a council of *any* sort cannot be called if there is no pope to call it. That is like putting the road on top of the cart before the horse. If there is no pope to call one because none can normally be elected then it is 'called' by necessity, esp. when it is possible. With the internet, it is possible, even with the 'media' running interference for the overall narrative.

It is not going to be a rush election job. It isn't even going to be an election so much as establishing a consensus. Correct me if I am wrong. At any rate, if there emerges a firm consensus with the majority of those involved then this is very likely to keep growing, at least for a time. No pope as a principle of unity for now but agreeing that those are antipopes will have to do as a 'negative principle of unity', which is already in the direction of trying for actual unity.

In the meantime all can agree on defined Catholic dogma and establish before everyone gathered there which ones are trespassed by which antipopes. All can at least agree on that or one is not Catholic. It's a good baseline to begin with”.

At an earlier time (https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2026/05/is-it-right-approach.html).

"Having never walked into a Sedevacantist church or even met a Sede face to face (so far as I know) these scenarios are not known to me except second-hand. 

A common point all might agree upon is the 1958 cut-off point (perhaps to be decided at the upcoming 'proto council') and also to, in charity, agree to disagree on every other issue in the meantime. That means not fiddling around with 1955 Holy Week or anything else, so long as the 'state' of the Church upon the death of Pius XII is agreed upon.

The appeal to the bishops to work together is good. Perhaps they might, in charity and humility before Our Lord”.

"I might suggest that, although some may disagree with the 1955 Holy Week and a few other issues, that such differences may be deferred until such time in the future when there is a pope-elect according to the proposed future imperfect general council. I think there is a majority consensus to fix the 'cutoff' at the death of Pius XII; but for those who are unsure, may they defer their own differences in that regard (so long as they agree with the general consensus that Vatican '2' is a false council) until an election is accomplished; and then let all submit to the future pope-elect's final word on all these things.

I would not wish to overly complicate the required conditions nor to make them too broad.

For example, for those who believe Our Lady of Fatima (and the suppression of the 3rd secret in 1960) this ought to be satisfactory; and for those who do not place such importance on 'private revelation' (as it is called) it ought also to be satisfactory, so long as they have the Catholic Faith without Vatican '2'. Ditto for the ‘55ers”.

Mar.28/26  (The original post to which this is a response cannot be found, so there is no link. As far as is recalled, the original statement presupposes that Prevost/Leo14 is the pope, so that therefore whatever he teaches is legitimate.)

 

"An audacious statement. But really it is an example of the self-circular logic trap, spiralling ever inwards. You see, he means that 'Leo' teaches the things he taught, so it can't be in error. As though errors would consist of someone speaking falsely for him; or else he does not say what he means.

We mean his errors come from his not speaking with Christ. But this is never considered; they simply say that he is speaking with Christ's intention, because he is purported to do so. But the pope is supposed to represent, not replace, Our Lord". 

It is circular because, presupposing that Prevost/Leo14 is the pope, whatever he teaches is legitimate. As the pope cannot teach error and heresy, nothing he says can be considered error or heresy, even if he contradicts previous popes; even if he teaches what they taught was heresy. What this amounts to is replacing Christ, not representing Him, even as Prevost/Leo14 replaces the previous Popes, not representing them, even as they represented Christ by being consistent with His Revelation.

There are various ways to express this circular logic, but it is difficult to make it make sense, because it does not make sense. In this circle, if you believe someone is the pope, then he cannot teach heresy, if you believe the papacy is established that way (it is). But if you believe in the concept of heresy, but not for the papal claimant who commits heresy, then what it amounts to is a lawless 'pope' who is 'The Word Of God'.

The pope cannot teach heresy; a heretic cannot be pope - so here is the choice: Believe it is not heresy or believe it is not the pope who speaks. If the pope teaches heresy, then it cannot be heresy, right ? What, then, is heresy than contradicting the 'pope' ? In this circle, a heretic then becomes anyone who contradicts the pope - in the same way one might contradict Christ - and so the 'pope' replaces Christ, instead of representing Him in His stead.

"Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition / Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God" (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

Mar.21/26  (More of a comment regarding the whole 'recognize-and-resist' phenomenon, including those who do not resist much, with an example concerning "Trad influencers".)

"They seem to think that 'keeping the Faith' means to 'believe in the (anti)pope no matter what' instead of keeping the Faith' no matter what, even without the pope. Believing in the (anti)pope against the Faith itself is self-defeating".

 

Linked here.

 

 

Mar.19/26  (St. Joseph as first Head of the Church. See observations in comments afterward.)

Linked here.  [Our comment afterward:] Concerning St. Joseph and St. John the Baptist, Msgr de Lauriers wrote:  ' Jesus said in the Gospel: “Among the children of men, none is greater than Saint John the Baptist.” '

Perhaps He was speaking of those then living in the world at that time, not of those who had since departed.

As for how Our Lord willed to be brought up and taught by Joseph and Mary, it may be that He willed that the potentiality He embodied within Himself according to His Divinity was to be 'confirmed' or 'enabled', so to speak, by interactions with His parents.

This was very interesting. Gave me new angles not before considered.

Mar.19/26  (Concerning prayer and those who do not do it.)

Linked here.   [Our comment afterward:] "As for ‘emptying their already empty heads’ for transcendental meditation, it might be balm for the conscience, which might at times contain interior promptings to consider their lives of sin. By thus emptying their minds they consider themselves ‘healed’ from their anxieties which they consider to be their only spiritual problem, or at least the closest that they consider anything as ‘spiritual’."

Mar.19/26  (Pachamama observation from Twitter / X)

"They seem to be more serious about this Pachamama thing than we all thought at first. It appears, at this stage, to, be a focal point to represent all false religions - "mother of all", so to speak.

 

Novus Ordo Watch: Flashback Jan. 19, 2026: Leo XIV appoints Sofía Nicolasa Chipana Quispe as a consultant for the Vatican Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue. Quispe is “[a]ssociated with indigenous, feminist, and decolonial currents, [and] she maintains that she promotes ‘prayer with Pachamama’; she also cites a statement from 2025: ‘We are not Pachamama… we belong to Pachamama'” -"

 

To this we might add that this thing is yet another candidate for the 'abomination unto desolation' (Matt.24:15). But we must add that the time of which Our Lord was speaking, through the Gospel writers, was the time prior to His Second Coming. This is not yet. So the 'abomination unto desolation' first appears in our Apocalyptic times; then, at the end (the real end), it reappears as a proximate sign of the end of the world. At that time, it is something from the distant past which re-appears; but at this time, it is being established for the future.

 

 

Jan.7/26  (On 'policing' trends)

 

From what I've been seeing, there seems to be a trend towards policing as 'managing the carnage afterward' rather than preventing anything. This fits the 'criminals are not responsible' trend in the gutting of law and order in recent years. It's a problem because then why call ?

 

The 'police' as 'managing the carnage afterwards' also fits the 'anarcho-tyranny' which is emerging. As we see in England, the police are now the thought police. It might be likened to muting the bleating of livestock as they are being slaughtered.

 

But the description of the 'traitorous state' as 'anarcho-tyranny' seems to me to slightly miss the mark. It is trending to be worse than Bolshevism. They removed all opposition to the Party; but in the West all its past legacy (i.e. descendants) are thus marked for liquidation.

  

Jan2/26: to Danny Able on X: "The fatigue of suicidal empathy has almost run dry across the west." / X

It's a strange level of evil thinking, where one considers how to use law itself as an indirect weapon against a nation: Bring invaders under the banner of asylum and have them protected by the nation's own laws, but abandon the nation's citizens under those laws for the invaders.

Dec.31/25  

~~When speaking of jurisdiction in a time of extended interregnum, it should be pointed out that Canon Law has not treated of the situation in which the papacy is 'taken away'. If this is not admitted the discussion will forever be locked in a mode of irrelevance.

Some say lack of jurisdiction means the Succession is over; others insist jurisdiction is still valid. Perhaps it is not an issue. Perhaps technically being a valid bishop tracing his orders to Pius XII continues the Succession. This is a holding pattern. It is not permanent.

And there cannot be another pope nor an election as the papacy is 'taken out of the way' (2 Thess.2:7 & Apoc.12:5). The papacy and the establishment of its opposite appear to be mutally exclusive: They cannot both be in the world at the same time.

~~I think there was no further particular jurisdiction (bishop to diocese) when the woman flew "into the desert" (Apoc.12:14) which was out of the dioceses, because of V2. This did not cause defection of the Church (see Apoc.12:5). Others know a lot more about canon law etc... 

...but one can look over these things and logically sort it out (to make a long story short). The thing is, I think no one will ever find canons to refute this because it had never come up as an issue. How could it. So what effect does removing the papacy have on -requirements-?

 

~~This confusion between keeping the Faith and keeping 'the popes'. Apoc. 18:4 speaks of those who remain very late. But the thing is, if the antipopes are popes, then the apostasy cannot ever happen. The only thing that can happen is that whomever challenges 'the papacy' ... (or the appearance thereof) are seen as the bad guys. This means that, in the time of Apoc. Ch. 13, those who are blinded by the false popes will consider the true Catholics as 'the antichrist' or the 'false Christs' of Matt.24:4-5. Without seeing Apoc. 13 happen at all.

 

 

Dec.21/25

 

I would subtitle this "Psyops of the Operation of Error":

 

https://youtu.be/gp-HemMfBi8

 

Additional psyops: 1. Antiwhiteism /"privilege". Works with 'victim mentality' for Marxist oppressor/victim unrest. 2. Obvious fails. When justice should prevail, but does not, shows an apparent position of strength to be weaker than the opponents' position of weakness.

 

For #2 above, it is a demoralization tactic. It also shifts the goalposts for expectations of what *can* be accomplished; if obvious small goal cannot, what then ? This is why Ilhan Omar will not be deported or anything.

  

 

Dec.20/25 - Collective nullification

 

The collective blame game. The thing is, when it goes collective, it is relative; collective credit can be given too. So everything good that one group did which benefits another is credited to all. The result is a complete nullification both ways.

 

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYZW4FTBdRw

 

[Later follow-up]

The trick about the collective politics of envy (which should be nullified by counter-collective credit for good) is it tends to multiply the 'consent to iniquity' by teaming one group against another. It is contrived iniquity, deadly for souls, like conjob19 was contrived. 

 

 

Dec.20/25 - False paradigm of progress

 

The current 'revolution' underway (for it is one) is not marked by a sudden and obvious change at the top. Like the newchurch, which began with the first modern antipope in 1958, all the governments, etc., came to be working for the enemy without our knowing precisely how/when.

So today, due to the 'operation of error' well-established, everything is called "progress" which dismantles what used to be the West. It used to be that "progress" was generally understood as building things, but that would not be equal #thefalsegodequality  

Dec. 20/25 - Signalling damnation/virtue signalling

Nothing can stop what is going on with the West's dissolution (until the 6th Seal anyway), so the only thing to do is say to those who 'consent to iniquity' and think themselves 'virtuous' by condemning others as 'privileged' by saying such are only signalling damnation.