"No civilisation likes its orthodoxy  questioned"  | 
        
      
      By: Graham Moorhouse
      The Principle (A film due to be released in the Spring of  2014) is the one movie you must see this year.  I would go further and  suggest that it could be the most important movie you will see in your  lifetime!
      Who would have believed that we would live to see some of  the most eminent cosmologists on the planet beginning to question the  Copernicus model?  Note: all the scientists interviewed in this film (a  majority of whom are atheists by the way) have signed release forms.  To be  fair the film does not take a position on the issue, it merely interviews some  of the leading cosmologists on the planet and leaves the viewer to draw his own  conclusions.  However, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion (in my  view) that the Copernicus theory is in deep trouble and the geocentric view is  firmly back on the table after 400 years. 
      It is important to understand what we mean here by geocentric.  I  have always been a geocentrist in the metaphysical sense that the earth is the  planet on which God became man and founded His one true Church, but that is not  the sense in which it is used here.  Neither is geocentric used in the  rather simplistic sense of being at the physical centre of the cosmos; the  physical centre can only be determined if you have a precise knowledge of the  perimeter of the universe, or the distribution of mass throughout the universe  - both of which are beyond, I suspect, existing science to determine.  No,  geocentric here means something far more profound, it means that the earth is  at a very special and totally unique place in the cosmos. 
      Sufficient to say that the Copernicus theory - the belief  that the world is nothing special, just another piece of rock hurtling through  space alongside billions of similar bits of rock, which just happens by blind  chance to have evolved in a particular way - is the foundational article of  faith of the modern world.  Darwin's  theory of evolution, would have been impossible without the Copernicus world  view. 
      It is fun to speculate what the world might look like  had these two theories not been given credence.  Without Darwin, no Nazis party, no Communism and no  secular liberals. The list goes on.  This is absolutely huge; without  the credibility given to the enemies of Christ's Church by the triumph of the  Copernicus theory, it would be difficult to imagine Protestant revolution and  the successes of the Masonic sect.  No Masonic successes, no French  Revolution.  No French Revolution, no murder of the French king, and France  would still have a Catholic monarchy and America would not have a Masonic  constitution.  No Masons in the new world, no American slave  trade.  The ramifications are endless. Benedict XVI in February 2013  said something to the effect that Vatican II was necessary to counter the  damage done to the Church by the Galileo controversy.  Galileo was merely a  disciple of Copernicus; if Galileo was wrong and the Church right all along,  just imagine how vibrant Catholicism would be without the ball of Vatican II  chained to its leg? 
      Is it too fanciful to suggest that we may be seeing another  piece of the jigsaw falling into place that Our Lady was referring to when she  said to the children at Fatima, "My  Immaculate Heart will eventually triumph "? I mentioned in an earlier  version of Le Tocsin that Russia, a country that clearly holds a special place  in God's plans (why else would Our Lady ask for the Pope and bishops to  consecrate it to her Immaculate Heart?) has already made changes that may foreshadow  its conversion. The Copernicus theory has underpinned the atheistic world  view for over four hundred years; if it implodes we are in uncharted waters and  almost anything is possible, including a diabolical persecution of the Church,  for the godless will not take it lying down.
      I will explain no more as I do not want to spoil the film  for you. But if you cannot understand that we may be on the edge of a shattering  game changer, you need a brain transplant, for you and I may be on the crest of  living through the most significant scientific moment in the history of planet  earth. What an exciting and unbelievable privilege!
      Click here to view a short trailer. But much better  still, click on the picture below to view a fascinating hour long interview  with Rick DeLano the producer. I'll try and keep readers updated on this  in future issues of Le Tocsin.
      
      
        
          The following had me grinning like a Cheshire cat for forty-eight hours.   | 
        
      
      In an age when one merely has to publicly announce that one  is addicted to unnatural vice to become an overnight celebrity with media's  lefties all over you excited as kittens on a ball of wool, life in the secular  asylum is inherently depressing. 
      However, every once in a while God tosses us a wonderful  little cheer up moment, to remind us just how beautiful life can be. Click  on the following picture for one such moment. Say a Rosary for this little  lass, that her guardian angel keeps her safe, for the prince of this world will  already be plotting her exploitation and corruption, for innocence and beauty  are like salt on an open wound to the godless.
      
      
        
          A Call to All Traddies to Support the Ordinariate  | 
        
      
      Pope Francis recently waxed lyrical about ecumenism, while  heaping praise on John XXII and JP2's ecumenical efforts.  Oddly, nobody  ever defines what they mean by ecumenism, but that's another story.  Francis  omitted to mention Benedict XVI - a bizarre omission given that Benedict  only  lives a couple of doors down the block, and is the only post-Conciliar pope to  have actually achieved anything tangible for Christian unity with the  establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate, which facilitated the return to the  true Church of thousands of Anglicans.
      That said, the Ordinariate is a slightly odd shaped  animal. The Ordinariate in Australia  and America  is solidly traditional. "Traditional" here needs a little  unpacking. The Ordinariate rite is basically the old Sarum rite,  embellished with Crammer's beautiful English, but with none of his heresies  (unlike the Novus Ordo, which has all his heresies and none of his beautiful  English).
      Sadly, the majority of the English Anglican clergy who have  returned home have been absorbed into the Magic Circle's Novus Ordo la-la  land. However, there are four to my knowledge that have not been so  absorbed. But here's the kicker: three of that four are the only Ordinariate  priests to have their own congregations. Mgn. Newton, the head (bishop) of  the Ordinariate celebrates the Ordinariate rite in Warwick Street at the church previously  infamous for being the meeting place of Vinney's favourite predatory sodomite club. 
      This Sunday, 2nd February, Mgn. Newton will be celebrating  Mass at noon at Holy Family Catholic Church, 115 Limpsfield Road, South Croydon,   CR2 9LF (where the  Ordinariate has been made most welcome by the very kind parish priest, Father  Augustine Kinnane).  He will then celebrate again at 4:30pm at St Mary’s  Catholic Church (Our Lady of Reparation), 70 Wellesley Road, Croydon,   CR0 2AR.  I  believe the noon Mass will be a low Mass and the 4:30pm Mass will be a sung  Mass. 
      I urge all traddies within commuting distance to support one  or other of these Masses this coming Sunday.
      
        
          Has A&E awakened a sleeping giant? | 
        
      
      A&E, is an American cable and satellite television  channel that serves as the flagship television property of A+E Networks, a  joint venture between the Hearst Corporation and Disney – ABC Television  Group. Duck Dynasty is an American reality television series  on A&E that portrays the lives of the Robertson family. The show  has broken several ratings records and the fourth season premiere drew 11.8  million viewers; the most-watched nonfiction cable series in history.
      On December 18, 2013, A&E announced the indefinite  suspension of Phil Robertson, the family patriarch, from the show over remarks  he made in an interview, which it is fair to say failed to endorse the  militant sodomite collective's agenda.
      The backlash and outrage was so enormous and instant from  advertisers, viewer, Christians and fair minded Americans alike, that A&E  was forced to backtrack and reinstated Phil nine days later, not of course  before having issued some mealy mouthed "justification" for their  climb down.
      The following article was inspired by an piece by ROBERT  ARVAY at the American Thinker but has been abridged and adapted by : Don McGovern 
      The Japanese Admiral, Isoroku Yamamoto, shortly after  the bombing of Pearl   Harbour, famously  remarked, "We have awakened a sleeping giant." He was  right. A mere six months later, at the Battle of Midway,  the United States Navy inflicted devastating damage on the Japanese  fleet. It has been called, "the most stunning and decisive blow in  the history of naval warfare." 3,057 Japanese seamen lost their lives,  against 307 Americans. This battle marked the turning point against a foe who  had up to then seemed invincible. Sixteen months later, the Americans assassinated  Yamamoto, having cracked the Japanese military codes, they shot his plane out  the sky. 
      For years now, the gay lobby has steamrolled over the  beliefs of Christians, defeating and humiliating us in one battle after  another. Then came the battle of "Duck Dynasty," and the gay Gestapo  suffered its first major defeat. Dare we ask, "Could this be our  Midway?"
      The script had become only too familiar: someone speaks up  in favour of traditional marriage and values, and instantly the gay rights  Gestapo are making threats, filing lawsuits, and mobilizing protests. Then, instead  of Christians putting up a brave resistance, there follows apathy, retreat,  apology and defeat. 
      This time it was different. This time, millions of  Christians, and indeed other Americans, including even some free-thinking gays,  said, enough is enough. We've had it with your bullying. We're as mad as hell,  and we're not going to take it anymore. The left was stunned, reeling backward  in defeat. For the first time in over a decade, they are not reloading, they  are retreating.
      The efforts of the gay Gestapo and others on the left to  intimidate and silence Americans may not be the only thing that has infuriated  Christians. A whole host of other attacks upon First Amendment rights have  gradually built up steam.  A long list of violations of rights by the most left  wing president in history has surely played its part in the anger Americans are  now feeling. If not the "Duck Dynasty" controversy, then some other  event was sure sooner or later to have ignited the powder keg.
      "Duck Dynasty" was not, one should note, an  entirely accidental target of the social left. Its enormous popularity was  rightly perceived by liberals as a very real threat to their hegemony -- that  is a threat to their almost total dominance of Hollywood, the entertainment industry and the  media. But small-budget, Christian-oriented movies are making strong  inroads into the areas that the left has long assumed was its  exclusive territory.  Hollywood  is the base from which humanists and secularists broadcast their relentless  propaganda.  In the entrails of such darkness, not even a few candles of truth  can be allowed to flicker because in pitch darkness even one small candle may  be seen for miles.
      Against the small, intrepid flotilla of truth, the mighty  battle-fleet of leftist dogma sailed forth, expecting yet one more victory on  its way to total domination of society, a society in which (they hope) even the  merest mention of traditional values will be quickly snuffed out. They expected  that smashing the ducksters would be done without breaking sweat. A simple  complaint, an implied threat, should do the job.  Against the gay juggernaut,  the Christian majority was expected to cower in fear as per usual.  We now  know that matters turned out rather differently.
      We won; and the forces of would-be tyranny have suffered a  major setback - but we cannot afford to gloat. The left are sore losers;  they still haven't forgiven Franco for giving them a bloody nose over seventy  years ago. There is much more work to be done, and none of it will be easy.
      This war is not ours, it's God's, and He will win it for us,  in His time, not ours. No doubt many epic and bloody battles remain to be  fought.  Nevertheless, let us enjoy the thought for now of these frustrated  would-be tyrants skulking in their sinister caverns, licking their wounds and  smarting from their first defeat, while they brood over the grim possibility -  that they too may have awakened a sleeping giant.
      ---oOo---
      If you believe my reference to "gay Gestapo" is  extreme, check out this link. Robert Lopez recounts how they  ruined his life and destroyed his career. What makes this story  particularly poignant is that Robert Lopez is himself  gay!
      
        
          The best argument I can think of for re-instituting lay cardinals  | 
        
      
      Archbishop Vincent (Never-Answer-a -Straight-Question)  Nichols, a man so stuffed full of pious banalities and sanctimonious trite it's  a miracle it hasn't given him acute constipation, is to be elevated to the  Cardinalate next month ... weren't there any suitably qualified and experienced  Catholics available?
      Vincent is a priest who is happy to offer homage to false Hindu  gods, notwithstanding the fact that 10,000s of our ancestors in faith have  embraced cruel martyrdoms rather than offer one grain of incense to such false  gods.  One can only wonder what happened  to the commandment: I am the Lord your  God, you shall not have strange gods before me.  
      He  is also seemingly open to the blasphemy of the Church  blessing the unions of two men united by nothing more holy than a mutual  addiction to the depravity of same sex anal copulating - a fact he made clear  on prime time television.
      
   
        St. Michael the Archangel, be our defender in the day of battle!
      
        
          "Only four percent  of those who attend ‘Catholic’ Primary and Secondary schools in the UK  remain in the Church in adulthood"  | 
        
      
      Editor's Note: the Catholic Certificate in Religious Studies (CCRS) is  managed and awarded by the Board of Religious Studies on behalf of the Bishops'  Conference.   It has been skilfully designed by the  anti-Catholics who have usurped most English sees to ensure that Catholic  schools do not pass on the Catholic faith.  In this objective it has been extraordinary  successful, with no more than 4% of the children passing through Catholic  schools continuing to practise the faith into adulthood.
      Imagine if a Jewish rabbi was to have accidentally stumbled into  the gay bar in Munich  where many of the earliest meetings of the Nazi Party took place.  Conjure   in your  mind's eye how the atmosphere would have immediately turned icy and palpably changed to one of aggression,  intimidation and hostility.   Then  ask yourself why the atmosphere at a CCRS meeting, an official organ of the Catholic  bishops conference, turns immediately sour and unwelcoming when  an orthodox Catholic is discovered in their midst?   Are we  not witnessing here something literally diabolical?  Then further ask yourself: why  your bishop is routinely appointing such hard-line  anti-Catholics to key diocesan posts?  This has been going on now for some fifty years in most of our dioceses, so wake up and smell the coffee, and for God sake stop kidding  yourself that this is an accident.  The  very least you should be doing is refusing to fund these Catholic  hating  bishops, and removing your children, if you value their faith, from their deeply  corrupt schools - GEM 
      By:  Patrick Lawler
      
        “But he that shall scandalize one of these  little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should  be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the  sea.” Matthew 18:06
      
       Welcome to yet another  of the “Tales of CCRS”.  One of the  teaching days on the Westminster CCRS course I attended was specifically for  teachers in ‘Catholic’ (you’ll see why I place it in parentheses as we go  along) diocesan schools, mostly primary schools as it turned out, but with a  few from secondary. The theme of the day was “What makes a successful Catholic    School?”
              One of the first things I noticed was that, in line with the  feminisation of education in general and the primary sector in particular, all the teachers were women.  That would be the same these days anywhere in  the country at a gathering of primary teachers.
              The day  was led by a logic, reason and historical knowledge challenged Deputy Head (soon to  become a Headmistress, Lord help us!).  However, I want to focus on the  other course participants and the jaw-dropping ignorance of the Faith,  promotion of heresy, error and apostasy and the self-serving cowardice they collectively  displayed.
              Let’s get a few things straight first of all:
      
        - You do not have to be a Catholic to teach in a ‘Catholic’  school.
 
        - If you are a Catholic, you do not have to uphold the Faith,  live the Faith or have even a modicum of knowledge and understanding of the  Faith.
 
        - Families do not have to be Catholic to send their children to  ‘Catholic’ schools.
 
        - In many, especially, but not only, inner city ‘Catholic’  schools, children from Catholic families are in a minority; non-Catholic and  especially Muslim pupils make up the majority in an ever increasing number of  them.
 
        - Many of the 'Catholic families’ that send their children to  ‘Catholic’ schools do not attend Mass and indeed have no faith life whatsoever.  Many are single-parents, unmarried or divorced and "remarried".  Most are using contraception and are pro-aborts. 
 
      
      Are you depressed yet?   Well, hold on, it gets much worse!  While there are so many things I could say about the teachers  I met that day, it is important to bear in mind that they are an absolutely  representative sample of the people running our diocesan schools and the three  most basic and crucial things I can point out that should utterly convince you  to Home School at all costs are:
      
        - These people have no commitment to the Faith, nor indeed knowledge  or understanding of it.  Put simply, they  are unbelievers.
 
        - They are, quite literally, incapable of grasping objective  truth and, in fact, reject it out of hand.
 
        - As if 1 and 2 above were not bad enough, they are actively  and hysterically aggressive, antagonistic and insulting to anyone who points  out the truths of the Faith and their logical ramifications.
 
      
      I will not give chapter and verse of the many exchanges I had  throughout the day, it would be tiresome and long-winded in the extreme.  The notable thing was that, as soon as it  became clear by my comments and suggestions that I am an orthodox, traditional  Catholic, it was obvious I made most (if not all) of the other course  participants and the course leader uncomfortable and many of them made their  dislike of me and my Catholic attitudes clear.
      The state of ‘Catholic’ schools (Primary and Secondary) can  be illustrated by the following points, all of which are real responses, views  and official policies I read and heard on the day - I am not making any of this  up:
      
        - It may not be said or taught at any time and in any context  that the Roman Catholic Church is the One True Faith.
 
        - All religions and faiths are equally valid and worthy of  respect.
 
        - Sodomite ‘marriage’ is to be celebrated and approved of.
 
        - Children are “sexual beings” from an early age and sexual  experimentation and questioning are to be encouraged and accepted.
 
        - There is no such thing as “normal” in terms of sexuality,  marriage or family structure; these things are fluid, changeable and not subject  to any fixed morality.
 
        - There is no such thing as absolute Truth; truth is relative.
 
        - There is no such thing as objective morality; morals are  relative.
 
        - One’s own conscience is the ultimate guide, not a fixed  system of rules “imposed upon us by a patriarchal Church”.
 
        - As long as one has love and good intention, one need not  attend Mass.
 
        - The Eucharist is symbolic.
 
        - The Koran is a holy book.
 
        - Islam is a religion of peace.
 
        - Hell does not exist.
 
        - Satan does not exist.
 
        - All people are saved.
 
        - There is no such thing as sin (apart from being  “judgemental”, of course!).
 
        - The Labour Party is the champion of the “Poor and Oppressed”.
 
        - The European Union is an unalloyed good.
 
        - The United Nations is an even bigger unalloyed good.
 
        - Abortion is a woman’s choice; no patriarchal “Church run by  celibate old men” can have anything of value to say on the matter.
 
        - Contraception is a really, really good thing (no patriarchal  “Church run by celibate old men” has anything of value to say on the matter).
 
      
      I will mention just one specific interaction I had with two  of the course participants, because it goes to the very root of the rot and  corruption we see in ‘Catholic’ schools; the inability or refusal to grasp the  meaning of objective truth.
              I was in a discussion with two of the Primary school teachers  and I was trying to explain to them that their just expressed belief that “There is no such thing as absolute truth, truth is  relative” was:
      
        - Inherently self-contradictory and nonsensical because the  statement, “There is no such thing as  Absolute Truth…” purports to be an absolute truth statement.
 
        - Inherently pointless and self-defeating because, even if one  ignores the above, and accepts the statement at face-value, the statement has  no meaning or purchase on reality because, by the statement’s own terms,  it has no right to be accepted as truth.
 
        - By definition, an abandonment of morality, an open door to  every vice and perversion fallen human nature can conjure and an acceptance of  “Might makes Right”.
 
        - A denial of God; since God is the Absolute Truth and all  Truth descends from him.
 
      
      I spent a significant amount of time clearly and logically  expressing these points and giving examples and similes to illustrate them  beyond any ambiguity.  It was perfectly  plain that neither of them had any counter to any of the points I made (because  they are logically and irrefutably true) so the way they chose to end the  interaction was to say (in their best  talking-to-child-with-learning-difficulties-voice), “Well, that’s your opinion"  ... I was, quite literally, speechless.
              While I strongly urge as many people as can to home school, I  do realise that it’s just not possible for everyone. The next best thing is to  find a secular, non-Catholic school, and take care of your children’s faith  formation yourself (it is your responsibility anyway).  Your children will have  a much better chance of learning and loving the Faith that way and staying  faithful into adulthood, whereas, if they go to ‘Catholic’ Primary and Secondary  schools, they will have their faith destroyed by the faithless, stupid,  ignorant and cowardly teachers therein.
              Only four percent of those who attend ‘Catholic’ Primary and  Secondary schools in the UK  remain in the Church into adulthood, a 96% failure rate.  Perhaps you will now have a better  understanding of why that is so
      
        
          "I feel like I'm listening to earthworms claiming to have solved a quadruple equation"             | 
        
      
      
      I have an embarrassing confession: until a few years ago I  believed in evolution. To be more exact, it was never an article of faith  for me, there just seems no reason not to accept it. I hadn't thought  about it that much. It just seemed the only show in town. And I could not  see why an almighty God could not create that way if He chose to. Indeed,  those who riled against it seemed to me to be trying to put limits on God. .  
      Richard Dawkins cured me of my belief in evolution. One  of my sons gave me a copy of the Blind Watchmaker and the scales fell from my  eyes. The more I read the more it seemed like a put-up job. I began  to see it for what it is, in the words of Anne Coulter, the secularists'  creation myth.
      
      There are so many reasons to dismiss it as no more than a  put-up job by secularists to prop up their blind faith in materialism that it  is difficult to know where to start. But one has to start somewhere: so  lets start with the "humble" feather. Now the materialists claim  that dinosaurs evolved into birds - well at least that's their latest theory;  they have of course embraced umpteen other theories equally enthusiastically at  some point in the recent past. 
      The problem with this latest theory is that the feather is  highly complex, as a glance at the illustrations above will prove. The  evolution of a reptilian scale into a feather would necessitate tens of  thousands, perhaps millions of intermediate small changes (99.9% of which  incidentally would provide the individual with no evolutionary  advantage). So one would logically expect to find in the fossil record  evidence of thousands of these intermediate, lets call them,  scale-feathers. How many have been found so far? - zilch, not one, not  even a maybe perhaps!
      Dawkins was challenged on this absence of intermediate  species and produced a video (it can probably still be found on YouTube) in  which he claimed, in his inimitable graceless style, these intermediate species  are abundant in the fossil record (which I suspect came as something of a shock  even to his fellow believers). To "prove" his assertion, he  shows a slide of a large fish shaped mammal that reputedly lived at the water's  edge - something like a large, fat, elongated sea lion, with tiny legs - which  he confidently claimed was the ancestor of the whale.
      There are to my mind three holes in his evidence  (so-called). Firstly, his statement that it is the ancestor of a whale was  mere assumption; he hasn't a shred of evidence to substantiate it - at the very  best it was no more than an intelligent guess.  Secondly, the creature on  the slide was a myth, much like the unicorn.  No one had ever seen it, it  was the fruit of artistic imagination based on the discovery of a few  bones.  Thirdly, even if his mythical creature actually existed and the  illustration was half accurate, it still didn't demonstrate  macro-evolution. What we were being presented with was a whale shaped  mammal that lived substantially in water becoming a whale shaped mammal that  lived exclusively in water. That is micro-evolution, maybe an extreme  example of micro-evolution, akin to the difference between a St Bernard and a Chihuahua (both  nonetheless dogs), but still nevertheless micro-evolution.
      To see any connection between that and a scale becoming a  feather requires the sort of furtive imagination that would leave Lewis Carroll  looking decidedly pedestrian.
      Do I believe the world was created in six twenty-four hour  days? No - or rather I'm a don't know. I can see nothing wrong in  being a don't know. "Being", the fact that I am instead of I am  not is the greatest of all mysteries. And those who claim to have it all  wrapped up and nailed down, be they theists or atheists, leave me  gobsmacked; I feel like I'm listening to earthworms claiming to be able to  solve quadratic equations.
      
        
          Pope Francis
            
          The best recruiting sergeant the sedevacantists could  have hoped for         | 
      
      Francis seems to be a man stuffed full of bizarre statements  just waiting to pop out.  There have been so many it is difficult to know  where to begin. One of the more daft was something to the effect that proselytizing  was nonsense, "preposterous" I believe was the word used.  One  can only assume that the ten of the twelve original Apostles who suffered cruel  martyrdoms for their proselytizing, threw their lives away preposterously! 
      A mystery that I had been struggling with was: how could essentially  the same body of men who elected Benedict XVI also elect Francis? 
      A friend of mine has, I believe, stumbled on the answer:  they elected Benedict XVI by mistake.  Benedict XVI as Fr Ratzinger was  one of the moving forces behind Vatican II and he was also John Paul ll's right  hand man. The cardinals thought they were voting for the same modernists  drift and rapprochement with the world that characterised JP2 disastrous  pontificate.
      They didn't see Summorum Pontificum  coming, nor the lifting of the (alleged) excommunication  of the four SSPX bishops, nor the attempted rapprochement with the SSPX.  They  were horrified by this unexpected turn of events and indeed were successful in  scuttling the last, the rapprochement with the SSPX. Their opposition was  probably a major factor in Benedict's resignation. In the next conclave  they made sure they didn't make the same mistake twice, and voilà Francis. 
      The liberals, inside and outside the Church, are delighted  of course, and see Francis as their great white hope. However, given the  pallid state of the Church in Argentina  in general, and Buenos Aires  in particular, not to mention the equally pallid state of the Jesuit order,  this is a hope clearly wandering abroad without any visible means of support.
      The left will of course become disillusioned, probably  sooner rather than later, because what they really want is changes in settled  Church teaching, and the Holy Spirit won't allow that to happen whatever the  personal inclinations of Francis. Just as the Holy Spirit prevented, I  believe, Paul VI changing the teaching of the Church vis-à-vis artificial  contraception. This will not unfortunately prevent this supposedly humble  man using (abusing) the primacy as a bully pulpit for his own  agenda. Where Pope Francis to attempt to alter the settled teaching of the  Church, he would, by definition, cease to be Pope, for a man who is not of the  household cannot be head of the household. And in that very unlikely event  the sedevacantists would have been proved right.
      However, I suspect we are in for a bumpy ride under Pope  Francis, and sadly any reversal of the Church's fortunes humanly speaking must  be postponed until after the Lord takes him to his reward. Unlike his namesake,  he is a man far too self-absorbed to understand the wisdom of sometimes keeping  one's mouth shut. Nevertheless, looking on the bright side, Francis could  be the last throw of the Conciliar dice from what is clearly a dying generation  of churchmen, for nearly all the younger generation of priests and seminarians  are orthodox and even, horror of horrors, have "crypto-lefebvrian"  inclinations.
      It would seem that in Francis' Church there is a mansion for  everyone in our Holy Father's house except traditionalists, those that is who  embrace the orthodoxy and orthopraxis of their forefathers, saints and  martyrs. These are to be treated like an uncouth and disgusting lodger;  someone who doesn't take his personal hygiene too seriously, and insists in  wandering into the living room when you have guests, picking his nose, breaking  wind, and raising embarrassing questions. You would love to be able to  evict him, but under current legislation that is not quite possible (although  they insist on talking as if they got away with it with the SSPX) so the best  Francis can do is insult the "lodger" and hope he will eventually get  the message and leave on his own accord. 
      I personally find the spectacle of elderly sixties-hippy  clerics, whether they be popes, curates or Catholic Time's columnists,  desperately trying to arrest the rising tide of fervent, orthodox,  "crypto-lefebvrian" young priests, highly entertaining. They  remind me of those elderly comrades with Zimmer frames and wheelchairs who turn  out in Red Square every May Day to wave their  silly red flags.  A good collective noun for them would be  "Canutists" - although the real king of that name was actually smart  enough to know he couldn't really hold back the tide.
      
      
The police found a young man laying outside a mosque.  He had clearly suffered a severe beating.  He had two black eyes, a cut lip, missing teeth and a broken nose, not to mention numerous cuts and abrasions.
      The police questioned him, anxious to learn how he had got into this state.  He explained that he had been attending an open day at the mosque, which  had been very interesting.  During a coffee break he had found himself in conversation with a young man who had informed him that he had the entire Koran on CD.  The badly beaten young man explained that he had always been interested in the Koran, and had exclaimed excitedly, "Would you burn  a copy for me?"
      "That was the point all hell broke loose," he informed the police.