Complicit Clergy begin new series to expose infiltrators: Diocese of Richmond, VA, USA

Editor’s Note: This program contains mountains of hard evidence, facts, names, which anyone who wants to know what is really going on in the Church, will want to know. I highly recommend it, therefore.

Take-Aways: Fr. Altman says that Bergoglio should be laicized for his pardon of McCarrick. But while they call him Bergoglio, they recognize him as the Pope.

CRITIQUE: Neumayr opens with a ridiculous critique saying that a priest who was involved in a perverse sodomitic tryst in a public place in a parked car, should be condemned because it was near children! He further promotes the utter absurdity that homosexuality is a compulsion, and thus not a free will decision, which is the common canonical claim of those who are defending perps! I will assume he does not realize what he is doing. He beings the program in medias re, and fails to provide historical context at the beginning, so if you do not know what he has been up to recently it maybe difficult to follow at the start.

The laymen here are not aware of the simple facts of the ecclesiastical mafia, as I have detailed here.

However, the participants here are all known “Francis is the pope” men, so I will go out on a limb an predict that they will attempt to deflect criticism from Bergoglio, who is the Rothschild puppet in control of the Vatican. Thus I believe this series is a moderate limited hangout operation, that is, attempting to recover control of Catholics who have lost trust in the Church and corral them back into fealty to the NWO through a controlled opposition group. — Neumayr explicitly names Church Militant, Matt Gaspers as his “friends”. The producer, Jame Maughan, an ex-Wall Street Trader, has too many connections to all the bad actors in NYC and DC to be credible. The WEF bought our Church, now they want to clean it up a bit to make it a better instrument of control. I think that is the game, here. And I hope and pray that I am wrong.

But I do recommend watching the series, nevertheless, so long as one keeps a critical mind about it, and constantly seeks to recognize patterns of narrative presentation, to discern what they are willing to say and not say, do and not do, as that will give insight about what facts they do talk about and which ones they do not.

With Globalist Censorship growing daily, No one will ever know about the above article, if you do not share it.

8 thoughts on “Complicit Clergy begin new series to expose infiltrators: Diocese of Richmond, VA, USA”

  1. They so want to cover up Bergoglio, who promoted to bishops and cardinals all sodomites or pachamamans and to which the SSPX bowed their butts off, literally and figuratively.

    I also warned my priest who is doing a traditional Mass regarding this, and he showed a very grim weird face. The face is a mark that I realized what I saw what he is worshipping, even after preaching Transubstantiation over and over in talks.

  2. These three probably read these books, so it might have influenced their thinking into “Pope” Bergoglio. I must advise these books have strong impressions, and 90% Vatican II:

    Jeffrey Morrow and Scott Hahn’s ( note: CONVERT ) books like “MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM as a tool of statecraft”

    Edited by John R.T. Lamont and Claudio Pierantoni. Foreword by Archbishop Vigano: “Defending the Faith Against Present Heresies. Letters and statements addressed to Pope Francis, the cardinals, and the bishops with a collection of related articles and interviews”

    Michael Treharne Davies books of Vatican II:
    Cranmer’s Godly Order
    Pope John’s Council
    Pope Paul’s New Mass

  3. If they think JMB is legit I have nothing more to hear from them. They talk about ‘charlatans’ but that is what they are. No good fruits, no listening.

  4. I would like to point out this article is a stunningly annoying in its presumptions. First, am I to understand the author thinks we think Bergolio is the Pope? (I thought Fr Altman made it quite clear he excommunicated himself? Indeed, any reasonable person would conclude Bergolio’s Pachamama actions at least point to him as a material heretic. ) Being unfamiliar with your publication, my assessment from the comments and a glance at the content, you definitely have a strong opinion on Bergolio and his illegitimacy as Pope. Yup, Got it.

    Now on to the podcast:

    George Neumayr:
    Mr. Neumayr feels strongly, (and I agree with him) that we must pick our spots to attack in relation to effectiveness. Then, we educate people, and most importantly, institute a call to specific action resulting in measurable change. This incident regarding Bishop Knestout is one such an example. Knestout has a horrendous track record. Mr. Neumayr focused on this one example. The one instance of Fr. Ball is enough to disqualify Knestout from any position in the USCCB. PARTICULARY a position responsible for protecting children and vulnerable adults from the horrendous liars and charlatans in the systematically criminal hierarchy. When he achieves this goal with hopefully stopping Bishop Knestout , he will begin with the next. Then the next. Sadly, there is no shortage of work to do here.

    Now, the article:
    Your comment on the use of the word “compulsion” with respect to homosexuality.
    This criticism is patently unfair. It was a live broadcast put together in a short amount of time. He was not disregarding in any manner or form accountability, or the individuals free will.
    Secondly, you opine:

    “ Neumayr opens with a ridiculous critique saying that a priest who was involved in a perverse sodomitic tryst in a public place in a parked car, should be condemned because it was near children!”
    Again, on a live broadcast, there is no script, etc. etc. Further, apparently you disagree or mock this statement. I certainly do not think he was wrong in ANY context. I think he was right on the money. In fact, that fact alone should result in Fr Balls immediate laicization from the priesthood.

    During a live podcast, he use the word “compulsion.”
    Your inference that he disregarded the choice in this matter is not only missing the point, it is a stunningly pedantic criticism while simultaneously absurd. George Neumayr does not have any tolerance for this type of behavior. Nor does he believe that this is anything but a perverse exercise of a sexual disordered INDIVIDUAL EXERCISE OF FREE WILL.
    How could you miss that?

    As far as Father Altman.
    Forgive me, but, the author or commenters writing this article (and me for that matter) are not fit to carry carry his luggage. Father Altman and other cancelled priests like Fr Kalchik are orthodox priests. They have been tortured. Their crime is being actual good priests. That torture was approved by Bergolio. (Fr Frank Pavone? Same.) Fr. Altman calls the current guy occupying the Chair of Peter as “Bergoglio.” Further, Fr. Altman has made it crystal clear during this podcast episode, as well as publicly, in many other documented public statements that Bergolio excommunicated himself.
    I have no advanced degrees in theology or canon law, but no one can disagree with that point. Bergoglio, venerated an idle in the Vatican. One does not need to obtain these advance degrees to state the obvious. Father Altman has done just that correctly, publicly and consistently.

    As far as your assertion that all three of us are known
    “Francis is the Pope men.”
    Is this the essence of your animas? Is this what this is about? As I stated earlier, I have no earthly idea who Brother Bugnolo is. I cannot speak for George Neumayr and certainly I do not speak for Fr. Altman but, if your assertion is that Bergoglio is not a legitimate pope? I am certainly not educated or qualified to comment on any of that. I can, however comment on the fact that Bergoglio has excommunicated himself. That is obvious.

    Now about ME:
    “The producer, Jame Maughan, an ex-Wall Street Trader, has too many connections to all the bad actors in NYC and DC to be credible.”
    Care to elaborate?
    That really is news to me? This comment is laughable .
    You then write the “WEF bought our church …..etc. etc. etc..”
    Were you listening to what I said? I am in complete agreement with you. I MADE THAT EXACT POINT DURING THE PODCAST? I am 100% in AGREEMENT.
    I said it clearly.

    So, in my opinion anyone reading your article after viewing the podcast would have serious reservations about your credibility or ability to process information. I strongly urge you to tighten up your game. This article was a ridiculous analysis.

    1. Thank for stopping by and engaging my criticism. Unlike yourself, I think that a discussion about problems in the Church should attend to precision of expression, otherwise it is very easy to mislead others about what you mean. I will grant that as a securities and financial expert, you are not familiar with the terms of moral theology, canon law or theology, and thus find my critique to be “a ridiculous analysis”, but I believe that your reaction is further confirmation that as a layman you are way out of your depth on this one. Good will is not enough. If a friend needed an operation, no matter how much good will you might have, you are not fit to perform it if you are not a surgeon. The same is true analogously in matters of the Mystical Body of Christ. I think if you want your series to be taken seriously, you need to do a vast amount of reading beforehand. And if you know nothing about why or how Pope Benedict XVI remains the pope, never abdicated and was sidelined in a coup d’etat in 2013, then you won’t begin to understand what the St. Gallen Mafia is upto, who their allies are, and what they are capable of. If you want to go head to head with the Ecclesiastical Mafia, I strong suggest you up your game, as they say, because otherwise you are going to be steam rolled and end up proposing silly, deleterious or just useless solutions to the problem. Which is just the kind of solutions the WEF would love you to propose to show that you are ridiculous and worthy to be sidelined.

  5. I will take what you said here and give this serious consideration.
    I am however quite well versed in the Davos WEF crowd. I was shocked at your analysis because (unless I missed something) I am in COMPLETE agreement with you. I said as such.

    However, your observation of my inadequacy in the subjects of theology, canon law and moral theology is certainly a reasonable and accurate one. So, this element of your fraternal correction must be considered more fully on my part. Thank you.

    I am beginning to understand your criticism. I realize we can not go back and forth on this forever. But, the purpose of our podcast was obvious. ONE INCIDENT regarding one corrupt bishop of many (sadly) can be addressed effectively by a tangible call to action. My observation to you is the fact the current members of the Church literally know….. well……? Nothing. Certainly not canon law etc.

    I fail to see how we were not qualified to call attention to one corrupt bishop needing to be exposed and stopped. After all, the authority summoned as evidence by these evil men is precisely rationalized by such claims as their office and level of education in such subjects.

    My point?
    There is room for the laymen to state whats obvious . Its common sense that promoting a known homosexual purveyor of male prostitutes and the Bishops that protects such behavior is not suitable for ANY office in the administration of Church Christ founded. That ones easy. Thats what we were doing.

    That was our point. I honestly fail to see how any additional advanced degrees is required?
    As Fulton Sheen rightly predicted and admonished , it is the common sense and personal sanctity of the laity that responsibility of saving the Church will ultimately lay.

    Thank you for taking the time for your thoughtful response. What is said on these podcasts come with enormous responsibility NOT to mislead the faithful. Of THAT OBSERVATION, I must again thank you for your reminder. This is extremely serious work with equally serious consequences.

    But to remain silent in the face of what is stunningly obvious? Nope. If I start commenting on the legitimacy of Bergolios papacy after Benedict? Of that you have a point. Which is why I would never opine on such matters. But, your constructive criticism reminds me this is indeed my responsibility to educate myself. So, thank you.

    In the meantime, priests picking up prostitutes in the park does NOT require a great deal of thought. Just as the podcast presented .

Comments are closed.