LEO IS LYING AND THE CATHOLIC WORLD KNOWS IT

To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address FB or X, 

 

 No, this is not AI talking. We all wish it were but in fact it's the man who's meant to be leading the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Instead, by lumping in Latter Day Saints, universalists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Uncle Tom Cobley and all with faithful Catholics, Robert Prevost (aka 'Pope Leo XIV') intends to dissolve the Mystical Body of Christ and nullify the Sacraments by inclusion of the phony imitations of other heretical sects. 

Next thing, Prevost - who by this one heretical declaration reveals himself definitively to be more of an antichrist than a pope - will be endorsing Islam as a "fellow Abrahamic faith" and at his bidding weak-minded, ill-informed Novus Ordo-ites will be reciting the Shahada.

For an arch-Modernist like Prevost this is entirely predictable, but now he's gone too far. Abused and persecuted Catholics have had enough and the worm is turning. It may help them to know that very likely Prevost is a puppet, elected by the machinations of Latin Mass abolitionist Cardinal Blase Cupich, who like +Leo and the satanic Cardinal Joseph Bernardin is a denizen of Chicago. 

These evil men have a plan. Their aim is to legitimise sodomy and demolish the priesthood by blending Catholicism with heretical sects. Their ultimate target is Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

self-explanatory

From John-Henry Westen at Lifesitenews:

Pope Leo XIV has concluded the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity by declaring that different Christian faiths are already “one.”

 

“We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!” Leo said in his Sunday homily on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul at the Basilica of St. Paul outside the Walls in Rome.

 

As Vatican News put it, he stressed how “different Christian religions share the same faith.” His remarks were addressed to clergymen of schismatic and heretical churches, including the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the Anglican Communion.

 

Leo’s claim directly contradicts Catholic teaching as laid out in the Catechism of St. Pius X, according to which the Church is united by the “same faith,” “same worship,” “same law” “and in participation of the same Sacraments, under the same visible Head, the Roman Pontiff.”

 

Therefore, schismatic churches that reject the authority of the pope, such as Eastern Orthodox churches, and heretical sects such as the Anglican Communion cannot be said to be unified, or “one,” with the Catholic Church.

 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent affirms, “It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church.”

 

Likewise, in the encyclical Satis Cognitum, promulgated on June 29, 1896, Leo XIII taught that Christian unity is grounded in shared faith, the sacraments, and governance. The document explicitly rejected the idea of an invisible or merely spiritual Church and affirmed that full unity requires adherence to the authority established by Christ in the Catholic Church.

 

In his Sunday homily, Leo XIV also invoked Pope Francis’ claim that the “synodal” path of the Catholic Church “is and must be ecumenical, just as the ecumenical journey is synodal.” 

 

“As we look toward the 2,000th anniversary of the Passion, Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus in 2033, let us commit ourselves to further developing ecumenical synodal practices and to sharing with one another who we are, what we do and what we teach,” Leo said.https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-leo-says-different-christian-faiths-are-already-one/?utm_source=twittercath

 

'Cardinal' 'Tucho' Fernandez: notice the satanic Bernardin cross. They're not bothering to hide it any more

And now from former Navy (O6) Captain/Chaplain, seminary instructor, and diocesan Respect Life Director Gene Thomas Gomulka - a man who generally knows what's what: 

 

Pope Paul VI reigned for fifteen years from 1963 to 1978. Toward the end of his pontificate, owing to his failing health, certain cardinals in the Roman Curia took over many of his responsibilities. Hoping to hold on to their power, they succeeded in securing the election of Venetian Cardinal Albino Luciani, Pope John Paul I, whom they perceived as a weak, docile, and controllable candidate.

 

The Curia cardinals quickly discovered that they may have greatly underestimated the new pope when he began inquiring about the workings of the Vatican Bank which owned many shares in the failed Banco Ambrosiano. According to confidential sources, certain Curia cardinals were very disrespectful toward him and did not wish to relinquish the power they achieved under Paul VI.

 

Feeling emotionally isolated and under a lot of stress, Pope John Paul I, who had prior circulatory issues, died after only 33 days in office. While my inside Vatican sources do not believe the pope was murdered, they do believe power–hungry Curia cardinals contributed to his heart attack.

 

After having covered the election of Pope John Paul I in Rome as an accredited member of the press, and after being invited by Pope John Paul II (whom I befriended before his papal election) to distribute Communion at his inauguration Mass in St. Peter’s Square on October 22, 1978, I have my own interpretation of the election of Pope Leo XIV.

 

Just as most bishops, priests, and many seminarians knew that Cardinal Theodore “Uncle Ted” McCarrick was a homosexual predator who abused countless seminarians and young priests, so too did U.S. and European clergy know that Pope Francis, like most of them, was also homosexual.

 

 

self-explanatory

 

Unlike homosexual popes, straight popes and bishops do not surround themselves with known homosexuals like Cardinal “Tucho” Fernádez, Monsignor Battista Ricca, and several other gay clerics. Straight bishops like retired Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin are also far less inclined to underreport or cover up abuse as Pope Francis is documented to have done in Argentina, and as Pope Leo XIV is also reported to have done in Peru.

 

During his 12-year pontificate, Pope Francis appointed 108 of the 133 cardinals who took part in the last papal conclave. Because most of the electors were homosexuals like Francis, one would expect them to elect a fellow homosexual like Leo.

 

Recall what happened in the 16th century when straight St. Pope Pius V (1556–1572) was elected following the pontificates of gay popes Leo X (1513-1521) and Julius III (1550-1555). Pius never would have been elected were it not for a large number of straight cardinal electors at the papal conclave in 1556. The presence of heterosexual electors is supported by the fact that Pius V was followed by Pope Gregory XIII (1572-85) who was reported for having had an affair that resulted in the birth of Giacomo Boncompagni in 1548.

 

Why was Robert Prevost promoted?

 

My view of the election of Robert Prevost as the first American-born pope differs considerably from that of most Catholics and journalists. To appreciate how Prevost was elected, one has to go back in time to the November 2018 meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

 

When lay Catholics were pushing for the bishops to create a lay body similar to the National Review Board to investigate bishops who engage in and cover up abuse, it was not the USCCB President, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, but Chicago Cardinal Blase Cupich who addressed the bishops, telling them that Pope Francis wanted them to table the vote on the creation of a lay investigatory body, as the Pope wanted to address the problem on the international level at a February 2019 Summit in the Vatican.

 

It was also reported that the February 1, 2025, letter from Pope Francis to the U.S. Bishops criticizing President Donald Trump’s immigration policy was not composed in the Vatican, but originated in the chancery office of the Chicago Archdiocese.

 

 

Even though the majority of U.S. Catholics oppose illegal immigration and support efforts by President Trump to curb the flow of fentynal into the country, cardinals like Blase Cupich, Robert McElroy, and Joseph Tobin, known by Catholic bishops and priests to be homosexually oriented, recently issued a statement critical of our country’s foreign policy toward countries like Venezuela, Ukraine, and Greenland - a statement they claimed was “inspired by Pope Leo.”

 

One may question if the criticism originated with Leo in the Vatican or, actually, in Chicago, Washington, and Newark.

 

The fix is in

 

I would argue that Francis and Cupich knew that Cupich was not electable. Being born, raised, and working in the militarily, financially, and politically powerful United States was not going to gain him the votes that someone from a far less affluent country might earn. Besides, if Cupich was neither liked by his fellow U.S. bishops, nor respected and loved by the clergy and laity of his own archdiocese, how could he endear himself to the approximately 1.406 billion Catholics worldwide?

 

Even though the election of Albino Luciani in 1978 didn’t work the way the manipulating cardinals had planned, it didn’t mean it could not succeed if tried again. But what “weak, docile, and controllable” cardinal might be elected who would allow himself to be just a figurehead of a pope while Cupich held the real power?

 

While almost all of the voting members of the College of Cardinals were beholden to Francis, they did not attribute their appointment to Cupich. This led Francis and Cupich to go to “Plan B,” which involved Cupich promoting a bishop to cardinal who would then be endorsed as Francis’ successor.

 

It seems to me that Pope Francis approved Cupich’s recommendation that the American-born Bishop of Chiclayo, Robert Prevost, born and raised in Chicago, be appointed the Prefect for the Dicastery for Bishops, a position that would lead him to be named a cardinal who could participate in the next papal election.

 

While Prevost knew Francis when they met and worked in South America, he knew that his appointment would never have been made without the endorsement of Cupich who himself served on the Dicastery for Bishops. Like many politicians controlled by billionaires who may have funded their election campaigns, so too was Prevost beholden to and controlled by Cupich, without whom he would still be back in his small Peruvian diocese.

 

 

Prevost wears the Bernardin cross too: 'weak, docile and controllable' 

 

It was no surprise that Cupich got himself appointed to the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State which oversees the city-state’s government, security, and museums. Such a position can help cover up the fact that Cupich is the real Don of the Lavender Mafia controlling the Church.

 

While serving on the Dicastery for Bishops, Cupich has promoted several homosexual friends like New York Archbishop Ron Hicks, and he will now be promoting even more homosexuals, especially in Africa and Asia where many older straight cardinals and bishops opposed efforts to get Catholics to accept homosexual behavior with the promulgation of documents like Fiducia Supplicans.

 

As Pope Leo himself said in a September 2025 interview with Crux, the Catholic Church must “change attitudes before we ever change doctrine,” specifically regarding LGBTQ+ issues.

 

Slim chance of reversing decline

 

 Based on Leo’s episcopal appointments and the positions he has taken on gays, lesbians, and transgenders; illegal immigration, the environment, and his failure to discipline over 160 bishops credibly accused of abusing children and vulnerable adults as documented by Bishop Accountability.org, one cannot expect him to deal with clerical sexual predation and homosexual misconduct or to support pro-family/pro-life Traditional Latin Mass families like Pope John Paul I might have cleaned up the Vatican’s financial corruption had he not suffered a premature death.

 

As long as homosexual popes like Leo and cardinals like Cupich continue making more homosexual cardinal electors and bishops, the chances are slim to none that a straight pope like St. Pius V may be elected, thereby reversing the ongoing decline in priestly and religious vocations and in church membership outside of Africa. 

Gene Thomas Gomulka from Gene Thomas Gomulka of John 18:37 <johneighteenthirtyseven@substack.com>

.

Gene Thomas Gomulka is a sexual abuse victims’ advocate, investigative reporter, and screenwriter. A former Navy (O6) Captain/Chaplain, seminary instructor, and diocesan Respect Life Director, Gomulka was ordained a priest for the Altoona-Johnstown diocese and later made a Prelate of Honor (Monsignor) by St. John Paul II. Email him at msgr.investigations@gmail.com.

 

BRASH WAS RIGHT: NZ NOW REWARDS MAORI GRIEVANCE

                              To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

 

 Did New Zealand learn nothing from Dr Don Brash's famous 'Orewa Speech', delivered 20 years ago today? He won National an unprecedented 17-point jump in the polls but badly upset Labour's Maori activist MP Willie Jackson (which is not hard to do). 

Jackson complained then that "Maori are 380% more likely to be convicted of a crime and 200% more likely to die from heart disease and suicide. He accused Brash of 'manufacturing gross falsehoods' about Maori who, Jackson said, are paid 18% less and 34% leave school without a qualification, die earlier and suffer more."

As if non-Maori were, or are, to blame for that. But the 20 years since Orewa prove that Brash was absolutely on point. National had a sudden rush of blood to the head then, but  soon forgot their founding principles of self-reliance and anti-communism, and elected  Christopher Luxon who appears to have no principle but panders to Labour and Te Partly Maori's expectations of financial reward for self-pity. Outcomes in life have nothing to do with race but a lot to do with reliance on God.

As the old Maori proverb puts it, "I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed on my past". But if the past is as bad as Willie Jackson asserts, that's a recipe for the train wreck Brash warned us was coming, the train which has gathered speed and come very close. And New Zealand is right in its way. 

Today is the last Tuesday of January. It is a date that should matter more in New Zealand’s political memory than it does.

 

On the last Tuesday of January in 2005, Dr Don Brash stood at the Orewa Rotary Club and delivered what remains one of the most important political speeches given in this country in modern times. It was calm, forensic, unapologetic and, most importantly, correct.

 

More than two decades on, the speech reads less like a product of its time and more like a warning that New Zealand chose to ignore.

 

Brash opened by setting out five priorities that would be familiar to anyone paying attention today. Declining relative incomes compared with Australia. An education system failing the least privileged. Welfare dependency eroding personal responsibility.

 

A justice system more concerned with offenders than victims. And finally, the issue he focused on that night, the dangerous drift toward racial separatism and the entrenchment of what he rightly called the treaty grievance industry.

 

That phrase alone was enough to end his political career. Not because it was wrong, but because it was accurate.

 

Brash was explicit about the fork in the road New Zealand was approaching. One path led toward a modern democratic society with one rule for all and equal citizenship in a single nation state.

 

Mauao belongs not to Iwi but to all New Zealanders

The other led toward a racially divided country with separate standards, separate rights and separate political structures. He argued, correctly, that the Labour government of the time was steadily moving New Zealand down the latter path.

 

The central truth of the speech was simple and deeply unfashionable. We are one country with many peoples. Not two peoples locked in a permanent power struggle where one group holds a birthright to political leverage over the other. That idea, Brash warned, was corrosive. It undermined social cohesion, democratic legitimacy and ultimately the sense of shared nationhood that had served New Zealand remarkably well by global standards.

 

He grounded his argument in history rather than mythology. He rejected the sanitised, utopian retelling of pre European New Zealand and replaced it with something far more honest. Life before colonisation was not a pastoral idyll. It was often brutal, violent and short.

 

At the same time, he refused to indulge in settler self congratulation. Greed and self interest existed on both sides. Land was taken unjustly. Injustices occurred and deserved acknowledgement.

 

But acknowledgement is not the same as perpetual grievance.

 

One of the most uncomfortable sections of the speech, and one that has aged particularly well, dealt with income and outcomes. Brash cited research showing that Māori income distribution was not fundamentally different from Pākehā income distribution. Ethnicity, he argued, explains very little about how well someone does in life.

 

The real divide was not race, but class. The bottom quarter struggled, regardless of ethnicity, and welfare dependency was the common thread.

 

That observation alone dismantles the moral foundation of race-based policy. If need is the problem, then need should be the criterion. Once race becomes the deciding factor, the system stops being about justice and starts being about politics.

 

Brash also warned about the creeping insertion of racial distinctions into law and governance. Health boards structured on ethnic lines. Education funding influenced not only by deprivation but by ancestry. Local government being reshaped to embed race as a political category. At the time, these trends were dismissed as paranoia. Today, they are openly defended as progress.

 

 

Perhaps the most profound part of the speech was Brash’s refusal to indulge in intergenerational guilt. None of us was present at the New Zealand Wars. None of us ordered land confiscations. There is a limit to how much any generation can apologise for the actions of its great-grandparents.

 

That does not deny historical wrongs. It simply recognises that a nation cannot function if its present citizens are permanently held morally liable for a past they did not create.

 

He also addressed head-on the more radical claims that sovereignty never passed to the Crown. He called them what they were. A negotiating position. Not history. Not law. Not reality.

 

What Brash feared most was not the treaty itself, but what had been built around it. A political economy of grievance that incentivised looking backwards rather than forwards. Leaders encouraged to remain in grievance mode because governments rewarded it. A country still trapped in 19th-century arguments well into the 21st century.

 

 

Doolally Greens, stuck in a time warp: Maori seats were meant to go west in 1986  

 

And yet, for all the controversy, the speech was not pessimistic. It celebrated Māori adaptability, resilience and entrepreneurial success. It acknowledged the Māori renaissance in business, culture and sport. It reminded New Zealanders that by international standards, our race relations were once genuinely good, not because of separatism, but because of shared citizenship.

 

That is what made the speech so threatening. It offered unity without denying history. Equality without erasure. Progress without grievance.

 

As someone who has voted National plenty of times in the past, I cannot help but look back at that last Tuesday of January in 2004 and feel a sense of loss. National once had a leader willing to say uncomfortable truths clearly and calmly, without slogans or spin. A leader not terrified of being called names. A leader who understood that political courage sometimes means standing alone.

 

I wish National still had a leader like Dr Brash. Someone not scared to talk the truth.

---

Now 85 years old, Don Brash is still working as hard as ever. Far from retreating into quiet retirement, he remains deeply involved with Hobson’s Pledge, continuing the fight he has waged for decades against racial separatism in New Zealand.

Matua Kahurangi <matua@substack.com>

 

Chiesa di Santa Maria Assunta Pala Trinità e Sant Angela Merici (Augusto Ugolini Manerba del Garda)



St Angela Merici, pray for us

SEND YOUR BISHOP A POSTCARD. ASK IF HE'S A CATHOLIC

 To comment please open your gmail account or use my email address, FB Messenger or X.

'Pope Francis' worships the pagan goddess Pachamama in the Vatican, 2020

It sounds ridiculous - it is ridiculous - but it's a fact: Rome is now ruled by pagans. By its appointments last week the See of Peter revealed itself as a den of devotees of Pachamama. Of outright pagan idolatry. As Mel Gibson, director of The Passion of Christ puts it, "that's number one on the Mosaic hit list".

https://

"Great shall be the number of priests and religious who shall separate themselves from the true religion."As foretold by Our Lady of La Salette in 1846, ancient paganism has returned to Rome, which has a new religion now: the 'Synodal Church'. It's not the Catholic Church.

One of Leo's 19 new consultors to the Dicastery for Interreligious Dialogue is Catherine Cornille, who's argued that Christian life can be aided by Buddhist meditation and Hindu yoga. Another, Sofía Nicolasa Chipana Quispe, has described humans as part of Pachamama, and belonging to Pachamama. Leo's new man for the Archbishopric of Morelia, +Carlos Merlos, is reported as being “purified” in a Mazatec ritual. His new Secretary for the Dicastery for Clergy is Archbishop Carlo Redaelli, who refused to condemn the sodomitic “marriage” of a Catholic scout leader, instead promoting Francis' line of “welcome, discernment and integration”.

Rome has lost the faith, and in this crisis of mass apostasy lay Catholics often don't know where their bishop or priest stands. A wolf blends. He disguises himself as a sheep - or worse, a shepherd - until he's got so close he's caught you. 

Find out whether your bishop or priest is a shepherd or a wolf. Ask him to affirm the faith. All you need is a postcard and pen, and a response from him of a single 'yes' or 'no'. Because he, like you, must adhere to every one of the articles of faith listed below to be truly a member of Christ's Body, the Church.

  

A well-informed and faithful Catholic, a reader of this blog, writes thusly:

Dubia to the Bishops, Priests and Deacons of the Holy Catholic Church

 

It has become apparent that there is an apostasy occurring within the Church. This apostasy, starting at the top, has spread to such an extent that Rome appears to be returning to her pagan roots.

 

Our Lord, Jesus Christ commanded His sheep to know the voice of their shepherds and to follow them - but to flee from the wolves disguised as shepherds. So we are required to know what our shepherds affirm to be true in matters regarding the Faith.

 

The apostasy from the top has made it necessary for the laity to request, respectfully, that our Priests and Bishops confirm publicly that they still believe, and affirm, the Faith.

That they remain in Christ's Church. 

"Quis ut Deus?" Just as St Michael had to cry his challenge in heaven to the Angels, we the laity now need to question our shepherds to see who are still in the Catholic Church, in order that we may know who still serve Christ as His good shepherds.

  

This dubia is a formal request, to our bishops and priests, for a yes or no answer to the questions listed below.

Do you believe and affirm the truths expressed in the statements below? If you do not affirm them, you will be understood to be too lukewarm in your faith to answer, or that you disagree with one or more of the following statements:

 

Do you affirm that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?

 

Do you affirm that Jesus Christ is the Head of His Church, and the Body of His Church are the Faithful who belong to Him?

 

Do you affirm that there is no salvation outside the Church?

 

Do you affirm that the Church has four marks; none of the four marks can change; all four must always be present.:

 

That the Church is One, because God is One.

 

That the Church is Holy because the Church is established in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is God.

 

That the Church is Catholic. As stated by St. Ignatius of Antioch, She is the universal Body of Christ. As such she always contains all Truth, whole and entire, is inerrant, and does not change.

 

That the Church is Apostolic; The Catholic Church is apostolic because it was founded by Christ on the apostles and, according to His divine will, has always been governed by their lawful successors, the Pope and the Bishops. 

 

Do you affirm that only men can be ordained to Holy Orders?

 

Do you affirm that Modernism is a condemned heresy? As condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) ?

 

Do you affirm that Indifferentism is a condemned heresy? As condemned by:

Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)

Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus (1884)

Pope Pius XI (1922-1939), Mortalium Animos (1928)

To end any doubts you may have about your bishop or priest's faith in Christ, all you need is a postcard and pen, and a response from him of a single 'yes' or 'no'. Because he - like you yourself - must adhere to every one of the articles of faith listed below to identify as a member of Christ's Body, the Church.