With Prevost’s (Pope) last meeting on the 1st of September with the notorious dissident & deviant James Martin SJ, it is clearer to many ‘wait and watch’ Trads what one can expect from this papacy. But this is not clear to all Trads, some of whom somehow want to hide behind the ‘normalcy’ of previous pontificates of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and the Vatican in general, which took time to undertake ‘changes’.
In my last few blogs I highlighted the problems with some of the esteemed Trad Inc thinkers – at least I think I did – which included the more notable ones. While this isn’t meant to berate the individual, it was necessary in the case of the last couple of blog posts made, to call out them by names because of their sheer stature & therefore, their intellectual experience and awareness, which I consider to be better than the average trad, and certainly better than a 2023 born blogger such as myself.
However, it is time to visit some of the less known voices, who I will dub ‘Chad’ for now. I happened to chance upon the below quote by Chad, an Anglican convert to Catholicism, who I follow on X (Twitter) who had this to say:
Chad says,
“in the real world, things don’t usually change on the first day”, and that “change comes slow, after a long period of evaluation, usually lasting six months to one year”.
He goes on to cite the example of the papacies of Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI, etc. He further goes on to cite that this is his rationale why he is not ‘black-pilling’ on this papacy yet & why he is willing to ‘wait and see’ how things are until May 2026 or so.
To just quickly address Chad, though not the point of this blog, firstly no one is expecting changes on the first day.
Secondly, Trads are not raising flags solely on the ‘lack of changes’ undertaken by the papacy but on the steps taken by this papacy which indicate ‘continuity’ with the previous pontificate. This is a big concern – and those willing to take a vacation until May 2026, after which they will conduct a health-check on the state of the papacy to pronounce a verdict, are perhaps living in la-la land. Perhaps they also hope to virtue-signal to their base that they have taken the moral high ground in not “black-pilling” on this papacy yet – so that later when the heat has been turned to boil, they can make their voices heard to their followers again, with the disclaimer that due-diligence was done, common courtesy & respect due to the pontiff has been paid.
But Chad, like others in Trad Inc. in their of view of the assessment time needed are mistaken for several reasons that most of which is the continuation of the legacy of the Bergoglian papacy. This has been expressed in words and in actions by Prevost (Pope) time and again.
Also, what happens in May 2026, if until then there are still no more significant changes or developments than that which we currently have presumably seen? What does Chad do at that point? Does he move the goal post to May 2027 in his assessment? Or does he switch off and go back to his holiday, concluding that all is now well with Catholicism? And what is seemingly distorted in all of this is the impression or semblance of ‘change’. What may constitute a ‘change’, in the mind of Chad, would be if for example the catechism on marriage or homosexuality would be drastically revised through an ex-cathedra pronouncement or an encyclical. However, from what we have seen so far, the modernist machination seldom works this way. What is attacked is always praxis, as that is tangibly visible to the common everyday Catholic more so than dogmas and doctrines. Changes in praxis, and an increased push in deviants of every stripe to be imbibed in key positions of power, are where the emphasis in the last 100+ days of the American ‘Pope’ has been directed.
To humour Chad, let’s play along. Let’s assume that Prevost was the Pope that the Holy Spirit Himself ordained (and not Bergoglio ‘the illegitimate’). Let’s rephrase the question this way: What would we expect to see if the Pope was actually Catholic? While this may seem like a leading/loaded question, let’s just pretend that this is a casual thought-exercise and see where this leads.
What would we expect to see if the Pope was actually Catholic?
For brevity, I would posit three litmus tests for a Papacy. These are negative and not positive tests. Meaning, these are things or aspects that a Pope should avoid (as far as possible) to signal that he is actually Catholic.
- Homosexuality and the Lavender Mafia.
At the top of my list would have to be that he would certainly stay away from anything to do with the Lavender Mafia & sexual immorality of any kind. This would include
- Not meeting deviants & LGBTQ activists like James Martin, Sister Caram, Georg Bätzing, etc. A Pope who intended Catholic teaching to be emphasized would stay away from such perps. Even if the occasion demanded meeting them, it would perhaps be behind close doors & not in the full face of the media to avoid sending them the incorrect ‘message’. And meeting them would be through their superiors to instruct them, rebuke them, and to focus on actually being Catholic.
- Toning down participation of the LGBTQ, in events such as the Jubilee Year, with emphasis on Catholic teaching on morality and sexuality.
- Regulate liturgical celebrations to avoid flags and crosses that cater to the LGBTQ. In fact, regulate the sanctity of the Vatican by avoiding (as far as possible) the glorification of the LGBTQ through flags and other propaganda merchandise which is not reflective of Catholic teaching.
- Liturgical reverence
- Instruct ‘trigger-happy’ Bishops to withhold actions intended as part of Traditionis Custodes until such time that a fair and transparent study of the issue is again conducted.
- Avoid & censure any creative Mass in the Novus Ordo that fall short of the laid down rubrics.
- Avoid biases in the form of how communion should be received until such time that a fair and transparent study of the issue is again conducted.
- Avoid discouraging the TLM.
- Personnel
- The personnel selection to high-ranking positions in the Vatican curia would be reflective of the visions in points 1 & 2 above.
- This would mean that there would at least be an immediate notice served to prelates & priests who are clearly not serving the Catholic faith but their own personal interests (example: Tucho Fernandez) that they will be in service until the next six months, following which, they will be replaced by new incumbents.
There are other tests as well, such as women’s ordination, doctrinal complexities, climate change, the US policy, etc. which are all important in some way or the other, but in my opinion, the above three are key in a new Pope who was in the very least, interested in restoring Catholic law and order (so to speak). If the evidence indicates a failure of these basic tests by the incumbent pontiff, it is safe to say that we are well and truly under the hammer of Francis 2.0 – a continuation of the ‘destroyer’ from Argentina- and that the incumbent is therefore a likely prodigy whose only charge is to spend time smiling to the camera sometimes with cute hats – all while behind the scenes, deviants are being quietly moved to key positions.
If one honestly goes to examine the above three prescriptive tests, it is plain to see that Prevost has flunked all of them. These moves may not constitute ‘changes’, but are simply a expression of basic Catholic expectations. If Prevost can not live up to the basic standards of Catholicism, how can a person who calls themself Catholic expect to remain silent? That too, knowing fully well that Prevost has urged those around him to continue in the legacy of Bergoglio, and knowing fully well that they didn’t agree with the Bergoglian revolution in the first place?
All in all, what I am interested in understanding is: just how many pieces of silver have been paid to Trad Inc for their silence?
Ave Maria
