Certain of our Twitter / X posts will be listed here. As well as long comments from anywhere.
"Certainly the concept of a 'diabolical disorientation' among the
whole hierarchy AND the papacy is a *novel* doctrine. It results in a
classic cognitive dissonance, in which one holds that the hierarchy is
untrue and yet true at the same time. It is Schrödinger’s hierarchy, but
not the Catholic one".
Aug.9/26 Theosophical Society's motto discussed in Novus Ordo Watch's post regarding illicit occult mixing with Catholicism:
"The Theosophical Society's "There is no religion higher than truth" is
quite the false dichotomy and gaslighting both at once. By 'truth' they
mean 'material facts' which is not the same thing and is manifestly
lower than than truth and what it means. Material, statistical 'facts'
may be interpreted this way or that - but this is where what is
true/truth trancends it all, being of an infinitely higher order".
Aug.8/26 Considering 'Atheist Objections' to the existence of God and our responses, or rather additions, on two fronts: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2026/08/contending-for-faith-part-54.html
(1) To add to one of the objections:
"Atheist Objection: “A perfect God could not have created an imperfect world. Since the world is obviously imperfect, God does not exist.”
I would add response number three: "Why what measure does he define 'perfect', being as that he is not perfect either so as to be able to make such an estimation ?"
"Atheist Objection: “A perfect God could not have created an imperfect world. Since the world is obviously imperfect, God does not exist.”
I would add response number three: "Why what measure does he define 'perfect', being as that he is not perfect either so as to be able to make such an estimation ?"
(2) This is an indirect reply to the mammoth comments between TradWarrior and Introibo regarding the dates and ages of the universe and how it is dated. It is separate because it's not exactly the same thing:
A possible solution to the Genesis/origin of the universe question, and how it is done. Given that Sacred Scripture is not, and was never meant to be, a scientific manual of the workings of the universe, we can only conclude that the presentation of Genesis *means* something. Now what it means is that there is a *hierarchical* order to Creation: The order listed in Genesis is simply from lower to higher forms.
As I've said elsewhere, "hierarchy" is the principle of existence and the 'engine of creation' (From God, then all else); whereas 'equality' is the root, stock and branch of what was called "Russia's error's" (communism, now also wokeism and other nonsense). This is why I call it "the false god, equality" ( #thefalsegoequality ). It is the undoing of all Creation since, when pushed to its absolute conclusion, absolute equality is zero, or non-existence.
A possible solution to the Genesis/origin of the universe question, and how it is done. Given that Sacred Scripture is not, and was never meant to be, a scientific manual of the workings of the universe, we can only conclude that the presentation of Genesis *means* something. Now what it means is that there is a *hierarchical* order to Creation: The order listed in Genesis is simply from lower to higher forms.
As I've said elsewhere, "hierarchy" is the principle of existence and the 'engine of creation' (From God, then all else); whereas 'equality' is the root, stock and branch of what was called "Russia's error's" (communism, now also wokeism and other nonsense). This is why I call it "the false god, equality" ( #thefalsegoequality ). It is the undoing of all Creation since, when pushed to its absolute conclusion, absolute equality is zero, or non-existence.
Aug.1/26 Unam Sanctam and the requirements: For gathering, for possible electory https://x.com/SJ_cairsahr/status/2083602982386503962
I am wondering how Unam Sanctam is coming along. Where I am I don't get news unless I search it out. In any case earlier I floated the idea of excluding , from a possible papal election, those who doubt Pius XII as the last true pope. I wish to clarify (see next post) 1
2 What I mean is that. FOR NOW, no one is exluded from this gathering; but if there is no 2/3 consensus (at least) for 1958 and Pius XII as the last reigning true pope then stop it now for it will be of no use except to make 17 parallel 'Catholic' churches theoretically.
Aug.1/26 Response to long commentary by TradWarrior at https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2026/07/beware-of-tai-chi.html
Use find function for
AnonymousJuly 29, 2026 at 6:29 AM
TradWarrior
Thanks
for the reply. Speaking of THE theologian of the Church, St. Thomas
Aquinas, that even he made a few errors shows, like you said, that he is
not infallible either. This makes me wish to speculate somewhat on the
nature of papal infallibility and its relationship to the Church. We
notice that theologians like St. Thomas are allowed to speculate on
things, using Tradition, Scripture, and defined dogma as a guide; but we
also notice that we are not given all the answers, complete, on
everything as though from a Catholic Doctrine Encyclopaedia on all
things. No, the Holy Father intervenes on matters of doctrine when there
is division and possible heresy. But that the Immaculate Conception was
not yet defined at the time, to not affirm it or even to deny it was
not then a heretical act. I suppose the question of when life begins
brought this doctrine to the fore (due to the advancements of science in
the 19th century - not evolution, but micro-biology). And connected to
this question is when Original Sin is contracted by the conception. So
then it became necessary to establish that Our Lady was sinless *from
conception*. At least, I believe it came about partly in that way.
I
might further speculate that not all answers are immediately given
because then the devil would have time to spin a counter or some
strategem designed to induce people to contradict them. In this way
especially I believe it was necessary for the Apocalypse to remain
shrouded. God bless.
+JMJ+
Jul.31/26 Response to a comment at http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2026/07/beware-of-tai-chi.html#comment-form
Response to AnonymousJuly 31, 2026 at 11:44 AM:
This is happening because of the loss of Faith:
"5:13.
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour,
wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing anymore but to be
cast out, and to be trodden on by men" (Matt. 5:13).
On the other
hand, to be fair, the salt lost its flavour because of the utter
Machiavellian deceptive tactics and lies and depredations of the
"mystery of iniquity" and its "operation of error". I have faith that
this is balanced out in Heaven's judgements and Their mercies, and that
St. Joseph has a lot to say about this, being called "the just".
Jul.31/26 Definition of "progressive" (acc. to the narrative): 'Less rules'. Except for saying something is wrong for having 'less rules'; there are rules against that. In the end there are the same number of 'rules', except by being "progressive" these shift from moral to immoral 'rules'.
Jul.27/26 Papal elections considerations: https://x.com/SJ_cairsahr/status/2081751865037816202
"I wonder if, assuming there is an attempt to elect a true pope or at least designate one to be elected, those who reject Pius XII as the last reigning pope should be excluded from those deliberations.
If one rejects the last true pope why should they participate in an election ?
"To my mind, an actual pope would confirm the 1958 watershed as when the antipapacy was established. In any case, there ought to be a consensus arrived at concerning 1958.
On the other hand I do not believe the papacy can be re-established so long as the antipapacy is extant."
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".
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":
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.
[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
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.