Flexible Enough To Go To Hell

One of the oldest slogans in the ideological lexicon written by the conciliar revolutionaries is “flexibility,” which is said to be a “virtue” in order to combat what is said to “rigidity.”

“Rigidity” is how the conciliar revolutionaries have long sought to disparage anyone who holds fast to the perennial, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church and who believes that those who are persisting in personal sins and/or who adhere to false religions or the heretical precepts of Modernism are in need of converting in order to save their immortal souls.

None other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself has used the code word of “rigidity” to disparage his favorite Straw Men, namely, traditionally-minded Catholics, who, no matter where they reside along the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide in this time of apostasy and betrayal, constitute but a very tiny fraction of Catholics worldwide.

Here is what Jorge The Flexible said nearly seven months ago now:

There are people who “masquerade as Christians,” and sin by being excessively superficial or overly rigid, forgetting that a true Christian is a person of joy who rests their faith on the rock of Christ. Some think they can be Christian without Christ; others think being Christian means being in a perpetual state mourning. This was the focus of Pope Francis’ homily at morning Mass on Thursday.

Rigid and sad. Or happy but with no idea of ​​Christian joy. These are two – in a sense opposite – “houses”, in which two categories of believers live and which are both seriously flawed: they are grounded in a Christianity made of words and fail to rely on the “rock” of the Word of Christ. Pope Francis identified both groups in his comments on the Gospel of the day, the famous passage from Matthew of the houses built on sand and rock.

“In the history of the Church there have been two classes of Christians: Christians of words – those” Lord, Lord, Lord “- and Christians of action, in truth. There has always been the temptation to live our Christianity not on the rock that is Christ. The only one who gives us the freedom to say ‘Father’ to God is Christ, our rock. He is the only one who sustains us in difficult times, no? As Jesus said: the rain falls, rivers overflow, winds blow, but the rock is safe, words, the words take flight, they are not needed. But this is the temptation of these Christians of words, of a Christianity without Jesus, a Christianity without Christ. And this has happened and is happening today in the Church: being Christians without Christ. “

Pope Francis went on to analyze these “Christians of words,” revealing their specific characteristics. There is a first type – which he defined as “gnostic -“who instead of loving the rock, loves beautiful words “and therefore lives floating on the surface of the Christian life. And then there’s the other, who Pope Francis called “pelagian”, who leads a staid and starched lifestyle. Christians, the Pope ironically added, who “stare at their feet“:

“And this temptation exists today. Superficial Christians who believe, yes, God, yes Christ, but not ‘everywhere’: Jesus Christ is not the one who gives them their foundation. They are the modern gnostics. The temptation of gnosticism. A ‘liquid’ Christianity. On the other hand, there are those who believe that the Christian life should be taken so seriously that they end up confusing solidity, firmness, with rigidity. They are rigid! This think that being Christian means being in perpetual mourning..:

Pope Francis continued that the fact is that there “are so many” of these Christians. But, he argued, “they are not Christians, they disguise themselves as Christians.” “They do not know – he added – what the Lord is, they do not know what the rock is, do not have the freedom of Christians. To put it simply ‘they have no joy “:  (Francis the Flexible at Daily Liturgical Abomination and Ding Dong School: Resting our faith on the rock of Christ.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio fashions himself as being in neither one of the self-made, self-serving “extremes.” The man of “humility” and “service to the poor” is trying to sell himself as one who has the “true” spirit of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, one that is “flexible” enough to provide the “freedom” to “move” with joy as the “spirit” guides Christians where he will.

After all, why should we be in any kind of mourning for our own sins and those of a world gone mad as a result of its immersion in an ocean of sin and a cascade of ever-mutating errors?

Why should we seek to do reparation by bowing our heads as we pray before Our Divine King in His Real Presence by praying our Rosaries of reparation as requested by Our Lady in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal?

Why should we be theological and liturgical “bitter clingers,” so to speak, as we reject the apostasies, heresies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism?

Yes, according to Francis the Flexible, Catholics must have no kind of “nostalgia” for the past:

This Sunday’s Gospel (Lk 9:51-62) shows a very important step in the life of Christ: the moment in which, as St Luke writes, “[Jesus] steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem. (9:51 )” Jerusalem is the final destination, where Jesus, in his last Passover, must die and rise again, and so to fulfill His mission of salvation.

From that time, forth, after the steadfast decision, Jesus aims straight for the finish line, and even to the people he meets and who ask to [be allowed to] follow Him, He says clearly what are the conditions: not having a permanent abode; knowing how to detach oneself from familiar affections; not succumbing to nostalgia for the past.

Jesus also said to his disciples, charged with preceding Him on the way to Jerusalem to announce His coming, not to impose anything: if they do not find willing welcome, they are [simply] to proceed further, to move on. Jesus never imposes. Jesus is humble. Jesus extends invitations: “If you want, come.” The humility of Jesus is like this: He always invites us. He does not impose.

All this makes us think. It tells us, for example, the importance, even for Jesus, of conscience: listening in his heart to the Father’s voice, and following it. Jesus, in his earthly life, was not, so to speak, “remote-controlled”: He was the Word made flesh, the Son of God made man, and at one point he made a firm decision to go up to Jerusalem for the last time – a decision taken in His conscience, but not on His own: ​​with the Father, in full union with Him! He decided in obedience to the Father, in profound intimate attunement to the Father’s will. For this reason, then, was the decision was steadfast: because it was taken together with the Father. In the Father, then, Jesus found the strength and the light for His journey. Jesus was free. His decision was a free one. Jesus wants us Christians to be free as he is: with that liberty, which comes from this dialogue with the Father, this dialogue with God. Jesus wants neither selfish Christians, who follow their egos and do not speak with God, nor weak Christians, without will: “remote-controlled” Christians, incapable of creativity, who seek ever to connect with the will of another, and are not free. Jesus wants us free, and this freedom – where is it found? It is to be found in the inner dialogue with God in conscience. If a Christian does not know how to talk with God, does not know how to listen to God, in his own conscience, then he is not free – he is not free.(Francis the Flexible: Sunday Angelus Disinformation Program.)

There is a definite and quite specific purpose for Jorge the Flexible’s relentless campaign of demagoguery against those who have a “nostalgia” for the past.

As has been demonstrated by his refusal to live in the Apostolic Palace and to ask for “blessings” from members of the laity, including children, and his rejection of what he believes to have been the “Renaissance prince” trappings of our true popes, Jorge  the Flexible is preparing to jettison the doctrine of Papal Primacy, at least in a de facto manner, in order to bring the heresy of “episcopal collegiality” to its ultimate conclusion while at the same time seeking to accommodate the schismatic and heretical Orthodox, who have long desired the conciliar “popes” to proclaim the office of the papacy to be nothing other than that of a “first among equals.” (See, for example, No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part five.)

Thus it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s chief Commissar, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four), is urging another conciliar arch-heretic, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Destruction, Deformation and Deconstruction of the Faith, to be more “flexible” when it comes to “pastoral” matters such as admitting Catholics who are divorced and remarried without the benefit of the fig leaf provided by a conciliar decree of nullity to the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service:

In response to a specific question about the Prefect Müller (in reference to the article – written ahead of the meeting on the family – in which the newly-nominated cardinal completely rejected any possibility of opening up the sacraments to remarried divorcees), Maradiaga said: “I think I understand him. He is German, it has to be said. He is above all a German Theology professor and he only thinks in black-and-white terms. But “the world isn’t like that, my brother. You should be a bit flexible when you hear other voices, so you don’t just listen and say, ‘here is the wall’.” The Honduran prelate claims he is certain that Müller “will eventually come to understand other points of view as well,” even though for now “he only listens to his group of advisors.” (Oscar to Gerhard: Be Flexible, Understand Others Points of View.)

Other points of view?

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave us the only “point of view” that matters: God’s. A ratified and consummated marriage is indissoluable:

[18]Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery. (Luke 16:18.)

There is no “flexibility” here, something that Pope Pius XI made abundantly clear in Casti Connubii, December 31,1930:

87. Opposed to all these reckless opinions, Venerable Brethren, stands the unalterable law of God, fully confirmed by Christ, a law that can never be deprived of its force by the decrees of men, the ideas of a people or the will of any legislator: “What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”[64] And if any man, acting contrary to this law, shall have put asunder, his action is null and void, and the consequence remains, as Christ Himself has explicitly confirmed:Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.“[65] Moreover, these words refer to every kind of marriage, even that which is natural and legitimate only; for, as has already been observed, that indissolubility by which the loosening of the bond is once and for all removed from the whim of the parties and from every secular power, is a property of every true marriage.

88. Let that solemn pronouncement of the Council of Trent be recalled to mind in which, under the stigma of anathema, it condemned these errors: “If anyone should say that on account of heresy or the hardships of cohabitation or a deliberate abuse of one party by the other the marriage tie may be loosened, let him be anathema;”[66] and again: “If anyone should say that the Church errs in having taught or in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of marriage cannot be loosed because of the sin of adultery of either party; or that neither party, even though he be innocent, having given no cause for the sin of adultery, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and that he commits adultery who marries another after putting away his adulterous wife, and likewise that she commits adultery who puts away her husband and marries another: let him be anathemae.”

89. If therefore the Church has not erred and does not err in teaching this, and consequently it is certain that the bond of marriage cannot be loosed even on account of the sin of adultery, it is evident that all the other weaker excuses that can be, and are usually brought forward, are of no value whatsoever. And the objections brought against the firmness of the marriage bond are easily answered. For, in certain circumstances, imperfect separation of the parties is allowed, the bond not being severed. This separation, which the Church herself permits, and expressly mentions in her Canon Law in those canons which deal with the separation of the parties as to marital relationship and cohabitation, removes all the alleged inconveniences and dangers.[68] It will be for the sacred law and, to some extent, also the civil law, in so far as civil matters are affected, to lay down the grounds, the conditions, the method and precautions to be taken in a case of this kind in order to safeguard the education of the children and the well-being of the family, and to remove all those evils which threaten the married persons, the children and the State. Now all those arguments that are brought forward to prove the indissolubility of the marriage tie, arguments which have already been touched upon, can equally be applied to excluding not only the necessity of divorce, but even the power to grant it; while for all the advantages that can be put forward for the former, there can be adduced as many disadvantages and evils which are a formidable menace to the whole of human society.

90. To revert again to the expression of Our predecessor, it is hardly necessary to point out what an amount of good is involved in the absolute indissolubility of wedlock and what a train of evils follows upon divorce. Whenever the marriage bond remains intact, then we find marriages contracted with a sense of safety and security, while, when separations are considered and the dangers of divorce are present, the marriage contract itself becomes insecure, or at least gives ground for anxiety and surprises. On the one hand we see a wonderful strengthening of goodwill and cooperation in the daily life of husband and wife, while, on the other, both of these are miserably weakened by the presence of a facility for divorce. Here we have at a very opportune moment a source of help by which both parties are enabled to preserve their purity and loyalty; there we find harmful inducements to unfaithfulness. On this side we find the birth of children and their tuition and upbringing effectively promoted, many avenues of discord closed amongst families and relations, and the beginnings of rivalry and jealousy easily suppressed; on that, very great obstacles to the birth and rearing of children and their education, and many occasions of quarrels, and seeds of jealousy sown everywhere. Finally, but especially, the dignity and position of women in civil and domestic society is reinstated by the former; while by the latter it is shamefully lowered and the danger is incurred “of their being considered outcasts, slaves of the lust of men.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Thus stands demolished Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s and Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodrigue’s calls for “flexibility” on “pastoral” matters that will not, they contend, “change doctrine” when that is precisely what they are doing.

Moreover, the calls for “flexibility” on the issue of admitting invalidly married people to what purport to be the Sacraments of the Catholic Church makes a mockery of the martyrdom of Saint John the Baptist, who denounced the bigamous and adulterous marriage of Herod the Tetrarch to his brother Philip’s wife, Herodias, while Philip was still alive. Moreover, the “flexible” nature of Bergoglio and Maradiaga Rodriguez on “pastoral matters” such as divorce and remarriage make a mockery of the martyrdom of Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher and the other English Martyrs who refused to recognize the validity of King Henry Tudor’s bigamous and adulterous “marriage” to Anne Boleyn while his true wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon, was still alive.

Helene Magaret, writing in The Head on London Bridge, explained the “inflexibility” of Saint Thomas More on the matter of King Henry VIII’s desire to divorce Queen Catherine in favor of Anne Boleyn:

Thomas More knelt, kissed the King’s hand, and then rose to take the chair which Henry had placed beside his own.

Sitting with the Bible open before him, the King looked very solemn and worried, “I have called you, Sir Thomas, “because I am greatly troubled in my conscience. I fear I have committed a great mortal sin.”

“I pray God that you be mistaken,” said Thomas More. “What can that sin be?”

The king shook his head dolefully. “Alas! I have done wrong. I have married my brother’s widow. I find that such marriage is forbidden. Therefore, I am not really married at all.”

“Surely,” protested Thomas More, “you remember that the Church gave you a dispensation.”

“Yes, I remember. But the Church had no right to give it. Look here!” Leaning over the Bible, Henry pointed to an ancient Jewish law in the Old Testament book of Leviticus.

Although Thomas More knew the passage by heart, he reread the Latin. Many scholars had disputed the meaning of the passage. Henry might as well have been troubled in conscience at eating his pork roast, for did not the Jewish law forbid that also? Or he might have maintained a right to keep Catherine and marry Anne at the same time. The people of the Old Testament had many wives. Thomas More might have answered simple, “Is my King a Jew or a Christian?” However, he had no wish to argue. He was the King’s servant, not his confessor. Besides he recognized a trap. He knew that the King was pretending piety that he might be rid of his wife and marry Anne Boleyn.

Therefore, Thomas More said, “The matter of marriage, Your Majesty, is determined by the Church. I am a lawyer, not a priest.”

The King caressed his Bible. “Ah, but you forget, Sir Thomas, that the Bible came first.”

“Marry, my Lord, you speak like a Lutheran!” (Helene Magaret, The Head on London Bridge, The Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1956, pp. 88-89.)

Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher lost their heads in vain, according to the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez. To be “flexible” on this matter is to say that Martin Luther was correct and the Fathers of the Council of Trent, guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, were wrong. There is no middle ground.

Yes, the “flexibility” desired by the conciliar revolutionaries revolves around “openness” to the ratification of sinful relationships and of heretical propositions and apostate practices that are the stuff of Antichrist, not of Christ the King.

As I have recounted on other occasions, the secular Talmudic psychologist who screened candidates for the Diocese of Rockville Centre for many years, Dr. Leonard Krinsky, came to some interesting conclusions following about me in May of 1979 following a psychological evaluation of me. Dr. Krinsky, now deceased, wrote that my concept of the priesthood as the sacerdos was preconciliar and that my desire to live a priestly life of prayer, penance, self-denial and mortification were “possible signs of masochism. Dr. Krinsky’s report concluded by saying that while I was “free of any psychopathology” and was “intelligent, creative, and had the capacity for rich, interpersonal relationships,” I “lacked the sufficient flexibility needed to adapt to the changing circumstances of a postconciliar vocation.”’ Yes, yes, yes. One is supposed be “flexible” enough to adapt with ease to the changes wrought by the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutions of conciliarism. No sale.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own flexibility extends to Pentecostalist prayers (remember, he was “blessed” by Protestant Petencostalists in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1986) while condemning those of us who are “too rigid” in relying upon formulaic prayers, many of which have been enriched with indulgences found in Holy Mother’s Enchirdion Indulgentiarum. Bergoglio returned to this theme earlier today, Tuesday, January 28, 2014, the Feast of Saint Peter Nolasco and the Commemoration of the Second Feast of Saint Agnes:

Reflecting on the episode from the Second Book of Samuel, which was read at Mass, in which “David danced with all his might before the Lord,” Pope Francis recalled that the whole people of Israel were celebrating because the Ark of the Covenant was returning home. He went on to say that David’s prayer of praise, “led him to move beyond all composure,” adding, “this was precisely a prayer of praise.”
Explaining that the passage caused his thoughts to turn to Sarah, Abraham’s wife, who, after giving birth to her son, Isaac, said, “The Lord made ​​me dance with joy.” He said that it is easy to understand a prayer of petition – asking something of the Lord – and prayer of thanksgiving, as well. Even prayer of adoration, he said, “is not so difficult,” to understand. Prayer of praise, however, “We leave aside – it does not come to us so easily [It. Non ci viene così spontanea].”:
‘But, Father! This is for the Renewal in the Spirit folks, not for all Christians!’ No: prayer of praise is a Christian prayer, for all of us. In the Mass, every day, when we sing the Holy, Holy, Holy … This is a prayer of praise: we praise God for his greatness, because He is great. We say beautiful things to Him, because we happy for His greatness [It. perché ci piace che sia così]. ‘But, Father! I am not able…I have to…’ Well, you’re able to shout when your team scores a goal, and you are not able to sing praises to the Lord? To come out of your shell ever so slightly to sing [His praise]? Praising God is completely gratis. [In it] we do not ask [Him to give us anything]: we do not express gratitude for anything [He has given]; we praise [Him]!”
We need to pray “whole-heartedly,” he said. “It is also an act of justice, because He is great! He is our God.” David, Pope Franics went on to observe, “was so happy, because the ark was returning, the Lord was returning: his body, too, prayed with that dance.”:
“[Here is] a good question for us to pose to ourselves today: ‘But how am I doing vis à vis prayer of praise? Do I know how to praise the Lord? Do I know how to praise the Lord when I pray the Gloria or the Sanctus? Is my whole heart really in it, or do I merely mouth [the words]. What does David dancing here say to me, and Sarah, dancing for joy? When David enters the city there begins another thing: a party!
“The joy of praise,” said Pope Francis, “leads us to the joy of the feast – the feast of the family.” The Pope went on to recall how, when David returned to the palace, Michal, the daughter of King Saul, scolded him and asked him if he did not feel ashamed for having danced like that in front of everyone, he, who is the king. Michal “despised David”:
“I wonder sometimes how many times we despise good people in our hearts, good people who praise the Lord as it comes to them, so spontaneously, because they are not cultured, because they do not follow the formalities? [I mean really] despise [them]? The Bible says that, because of this, Michal remained sterile for the rest of her life. What does the Word of God mean, here? [It means] that joy, that the prayer of praise makes us fruitful! Sarah danced in the great moment of her fecundity – at the age of ninety! The fruitfulness that praise of the Lord gives us, the gratuity of praising the Lord: that man or that woman who praises the Lord, who prays praising the Lord, who, when praying the Gloria is filled with joy at doing so, and who, when singing the Sanctus in the Mass rejoices in singing it, is a fruitful person.”
On the other hand, warned Pope Francis, “Those, who are closed in the formality of a prayer that is cold, stingy [It. misurata], might end up as Michal, in the sterility of her formality.” The Pope asked, then, [that we] imagine David dancing, “with all his might before the Lord,” and that, “we think how beautiful it is to make the prayer of praise.” It will do us good, he said, to repeat the words of Psalm 23, which we prayed today: “Lift up your gates, O ye princes, and be ye lifted up, O eternal gates: and the King of Glory shall enter in. Who is this King of Glory? The Lord of hosts, He is the King of Glory.”  (Bergoglio at Ding Dong School of Apostasy, January 28, 2014.)

God is not given praise by means of formulaic prayer?

Liturgical dance, over which Bergoglio himself has presided, does give praise to the Most Blessed Trinity?

Once again, you see, Jorge the Flexible seeks to create yet another “straw man” by attempting to make the gratuitous claim that one cannot truly praise God by means of formulaic prayer, which only stultifies the soul and prevents a song be offered to to Him in one’s heart and soul. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a demagogue. He is a damnable demagogue, and he will be damned for all eternity if he does not repent of his efforts to make it appear that those who adhere to traditional Catholic piety and who practice penance and mortification are the ones who are on the path to eternal perdition as, according to him, they do not know the living God but only a “projection of Him.” We must not be “flexible” enough to go to Hell with him.

Yet it is that it is Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar revolutionaries, including Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez, who project onto God designs that have been condemned solemnly by the Catholic Church as occasion required her to do so.

Let us call to mind once again a prayer Pope Saint Pius X composed to warn us of those, such as Francis the Flexible, who dare to corrupt doctrine in the manner that the conciliar revolutionaries have done and will continue to do:

“Watch, O priests, that the doctrine of Christ, not your fault for losing the face of integrity. Always purity and integrity of the doctrine … Many do not understand the zealous care and caution should be used to preserve the purity of doctrine … When this doctrine can not be kept longer incorruptible and that the rule of truth is no longer possible in this world, then the Son of God appear a second time. But until that day we must keep intact the sacred tank and repeat the statement of the glorious Saint Hilary: ‘Better to die in this century than corrupt the chastity of the truth .’” (Pie X, Jérome Dal-Gal OM Conv. 1953, pp. 107-108).

We must not fear anything that can happen to us or what anyone will say about us for our refusal to accept the lords of conciliarism as anything other than spiritual robber barons who have no share in the Catholic Faith whatsoever and who hold no office within Holy Mother Church legitimately.

The saint whose feast we celebrate today, Saint Francis de Sales, reminds us to eschew human respect at all times no matter what the consequences:

7. When a simple soul is to act, it considers only what it is suitable to do or say and then immediately begins its action, without losing time in thinking what others will do or say about it. And after doing what seemed right, it dismisses the subject; or if, perhaps, any thought of what others may say or do should arise, it instantly cuts short such reflections, for it is has not other aim than to please God, and not creatures, except as the love of God requires it. Therefore, it cannot bear to be turned aside from its purpose of keeping close to god, and willing more and more of His love of itself. (Saint Francis de Sales, as quoted in A Year With the Saints: A Virtue for Every Month of the Year, published originally in 1891 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1983, p. 208.)

To Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernity and Modernism once and for all, which is why we must seek to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

May our own efforts to make reparation for our sins, many though they may be, to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary help to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics, clergy and laity alike, yet attached to the false structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will once and for all in order to receive true Sacraments from true bishops and true priests who make absolutely no concessions to conciliarism, men who are never afraid to speak the truth and act with complete integrity in its behalf, knowing that no true pope can do, say or act as the conciliar “pontiffs” and “bishops” have done, said and acted.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Peter Nolasco, pray for us.

Saint Agnes, pray for us.

Saint Francis de Sales, pray for us.







This entry was posted in The Ratzinger Files by Thomas Droleskey. Bookmark the permalink.

About Thomas Droleskey

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey is a Catholic writer and speaker . He is the publisher-editor of Christ or Chaos.com, a site that has featured over 900 articles since the beginning of 2006, many dealing with his embrace of sedevacantism. Hundreds of his articles appeared in The Wanderer, the oldest weekly national Catholic newspaper, between 1992 and 2000. He was a contributor to The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture between 2001 and 2003. Droleskey's articles have appeared in the American Life League's Celebrate Life magazine. He also contributed articles to The Remnant and for Catholic Family News. His articles also appeared for two years in The Four Marks. Dr. Droleskey was an adjunct professor of political science at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University between January of 1991 and July of 2003, reprising his association there for a winter intersession course, which was taught between December 28, 2006, and January 11, 2007. He had taught political science around the nation since January of 1974, receiving numerous awards for excellence in teaching. Many of his students have converted to the Catholic Faith. Formerly a pro-life activist, Droleskey was the candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986. He was the party's candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in 1997, and he challenged then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato for the party's senatorial nomination in 1998, receiving over 37% of the primary vote. Droleskey has campaigned for pro-life candidates around the country. He is now retired from all involvement in partisan politics, concentrating instead on the promotion of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. Dr. Droleskey has lectured extensively around the nation for the past twenty years, driving nearly 1,000,000 miles in the last twenty-five years of his lecturing around the nation. His thirty-six hour lecture program, Living in the Shadow of the Cross, has been given in twenty different venues across the United States. Another lecture program, "To be Catholic from the Womb to the Tomb," was given in eleven different places across the nation. His work is dedicated to the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Droleskey is devoted to the establishment of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the Queenship of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. His first book, Christ in the Voting Booth, was published by Hope of Saint Monica, Inc., 1998. His second book, There Is No Cure for this Condition, was published by Chartres Communications in 2001. G.I.R.M. Warfare (The Traditional Latin Mass versus the General Instruction to the Roman Missal) was published in 2004; Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations, Droleskey's compendium of fifty-three articles about the immutable doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, was published in June of 2005. Three e-books, There Is No Shortcut to Cure This Condition, Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contributed to the Rise of Conciliarism and Meeting the Mets: A Quirky History of a Quirky Team, have been published in the past four years. The latter book, for which this particular Word Press site was created initially in 2012, is also available in a paperback format. Droleskey served for some years on the Board of Advisers of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. He has served on the boards of the National Association of Private and Independent Catholic Schools and on the board of 100% Pro-Life Pac. He is listed in the 2001-2002 edition of the Marquis Who's Who in America. Droleskey, who was born on November 24, 1951, is married to the former Sharon Collins. Their first child, Lucy Mary Norma, was born in Sioux City, Iowa, on March 27, 2002. A native of Long Island, Droleskey and his family now live in the United States of America.