Los Angeles merchants, backed by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, petition the Ninth Circuit to intervene in a lawsuit challenging a historic cross and Nativity scene at El Pueblo de Los Angeles, arguing the displays are secular “cultural heritage” and economic assets rather than supernatural testimonies to the Social Kingship of Christ. The cited article relates the capitulation of the conciliar church’s legal strategy to the naturalistic framework of the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause, reducing the *Crux* and the *Incarnation* to mere “attractions” for a “growing volume of visitors.”
The Legal Strategy of Apostasy: Libertas Ecclesiae Sold for Res Culturae
The Becket Fund — the premier legal arm of the conciliar sect’s “religious liberty” industry — advances an argument that would have horrified Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII. The merchants’ filing asserts a “significant and legally protected interest in preserving the historic and cultural heritage of El Pueblo” and “concrete economic interests in preserving the cross and nativity as important attractions that draw visitors to the area.” Here the Cross of Redemption is explicitly commodified: it is an “attraction,” a driver of foot traffic, a prop for “authentic and uninterrupted links to its historic past.” This is not the defense of the *libertas Ecclesiae* (freedom of the Church); it is the prostitution of the sacred to the profane god of Mammon and the secular state.
Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), thundered: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed… the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation.” The merchants’ brief does not invoke the rights of Christ the King over nations; it invokes the “existing court precedent” of the Masonic United States Constitution. It begs the secular magistrate to permit the Cross to stand — not because Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat, but because the display has a “longstanding and historic nature” that makes it insufficiently “established” to violate the Establishment Clause. They argue the Cross is too old to be unconstitutional, not that it is too true to be removed.
The Syllabus of Errors Enacted: The State as Source of Rights
The entire juridical theater presupposes the condemned errors of the Syllabus (1864). Error 39: “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.” Error 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” Error 77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”
The Becket Fund and its merchant clients operate entirely within this condemned framework. They do not challenge the plaintiff’s standing to sue God’s honor; they do not deny the jurisdiction of a secular court over the King of Kings. They accept the premise that the U.S. Constitution — a document silent on Christ, founded on Enlightenment naturalism — is the supreme law governing the public display of the Cross. By arguing the displays are “historical” and “cultural,” they implicitly concede the Modernist heresy condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (Prop. 58): “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him.” The Cross becomes a mutable cultural artifact, not the immutable Signum Salvationis.
The “Catholic” Merchant: Heritage without Faith, Culture without Grace
Edward Flores, a cafe owner, states his “heritage includes a Mexican Catholic background,” but immediately dilutes it: “Chinese and Italian heritage groups are also present in the neighborhood.” He concludes: “Preserving our distinct cultures and educating others about our roles in the founding and growth of Los Angeles ennobles Americans across all ethnicities, faiths, cultures, and generations…” This is the religion of the Civitas Terrena, not the Civitas Dei. “Heritage” replaces Traditio; “culture” replaces Cultus; “ennobling Americans” replaces the salvation of souls.
The article notes the plaza hosts an annual “Blessing of the Animals” during Lent “at which a cardinal or bishop provides benedictions to local pets.” This grotesque spectacle — a “cardinal” or “bishop” of the conciliar sect blessing beasts while the Cross is defended as a tourist draw — perfectly encapsulates the abominatio desolationis. The sacred hierarchy is reduced to chaplains of a petting zoo, the Lenten penance transformed into a civic festival. St. Pius X condemned the Modernist reduction of the sacraments to mere “reminders of the benevolent Creator” (Lamentabili, Prop. 41); here the sacramental blessing becomes a photo-op for the “cultural heritage” narrative.
The Becket Fund: Architects of the Novus Ordo Legalism
The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is the juridical expression of the conciliar church’s surrender to Dignitatis Humanae. They do not fight for the Regnum Christi; they fight for “religious liberty” — the Masonic principle that error has rights equal to truth. Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832) called this “that most pestilential error… libertas conscientiae.” The Becket Fund’s strategy is to make the Cross “safe” for the secular order by stripping it of its dogmatic claim. They seek a modus vivendi with the Antichrist, not a victoria Christi.
The filing’s reference to “existing court precedent” reveals the positivist trap. The merchants ask the Ninth Circuit — a tribunal of the Masonic state — to apply its own precedents (likely American Legion v. American Humanist Association, 2019, the “Bladensburg Cross” case) to allow the displays. They cite the “longstanding and historic nature” test invented by the Supreme Court to secularize religious symbols. They have accepted the devil’s bargain: the Cross may stand, provided it means nothing.
Silence on the Supernatural: The Gravest Accusation
Nowhere in the article — nor, we can be certain, in the legal filing — is there mention of:
– The Cross as the Tropheum of Christ’s victory over sin and death.
– The Nativity as the Mysterium Incarnationis, the foundation of the Social Kingship.
– The duty of the State to publicly profess the Catholic Faith (Leo XIII, Immortale Dei).
– The salvation of Jack Gerritsen’s soul, or the scandal given to the faithful by the Cross’s judicial endangerment.
– The invalidity of the “cardinal” or “bishop” who blesses animals while the Faith is dismantled.
This silence is the crimen laesae majestatis Divinae. The conciliar sect’s merchants and lawyers have interiorized the Modernist dictum: dogma divides, culture unites. They have made the Cross a “cultural heritage site” like the Pyramids or the Parthenon — a corpse of faith preserved by the embalming fluid of legal precedent.
The Sedevacantist Verdict: No King but Caesar
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith — the faith of the Chair of Peter vacant since 1958 — this lawsuit is a farce played by usurpers on a stage built by Freemasons. The “Archdiocese of Los Angeles” (keyword in the article) is a fiction; its “cardinal” and “bishops” are laymen in vestments, ordained in the invalid Novus Ordo rite, deriving “mission” from the antipope in Rome. The merchants’ “Mexican Catholic background” is a memory of a Faith they no longer profess in its integrity, having accepted the conciliar apostasy.
The only true defense of the Cross is the proclamation: Christus Regnat. The only true argument in a court of law is: Non est potestas nisi a Deo (Rom 13:1) — and the U.S. Constitution, deriving authority from “We the People,” is a rebellion against that truth. The merchants should not ask the Ninth Circuit for permission to keep the Cross; they should tell the court: “We have no king but Christ. Remove the Cross, and you remove the only foundation of your own authority.”
But they will not. They prefer the “growing volume of visitors” to the vox sanguinis Christi. They have chosen Barabbas — the secular state and its “cultural heritage” — over the King of Kings. Let the Cross be torn down by the Masonic judge; it will be a truer witness lying in the dust than standing as a neon sign for a cafe. Ecce lignum Crucis, in quo salus mundi pependit. Venite, adoremus. But let no one adore it as a “historic attraction.”
Source:
Los Angeles Merchants Seek to Save 10-Foot Cross, Nativity Scene in City’s Historic Center (ncregister.com)
Date: 26.08.2026