Silence! Don’t Hurt the Blaspheming Heretic’s Feelings

But in this same matter, touching Christian faith, there are other duties whose exact and religious observance, necessary at all times in the interests of eternal salvation, become more especially so in these our days. Amid such reckless and widespread folly of opinion, it is, as We have said, the office of the Church to undertake the defense of truth and uproot errors from the mind, and this charge has to be at all times sacredly observed by her, seeing that the honor of God and the salvation of men are confided to her keeping. But, when necessity compels, not those only who are invested with power of rule are bound to safeguard the integrity of faith, but, as St. Thomas maintains: “Each one is under obligation to show forth his faith, either to instruct and encourage others of the faithful, or to repel the attacks of unbelievers.” To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: “Have confidence; I have overcome the world.” Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.

Yes, I meant to extract those two sentences from the indented quotation from Pope Leo XIII’s Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890, in order to emphasize their importance.

Silence is what so many self-appointed “gatekeepers” of what is said to be “mainstream traditionalism” have kept as the conciliar “pontiffs” have blasphemed the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity for all the world to see. These “gatekeepers” act as though their silence will somehow clothe the “papal” emperor with a “bullet proof” shield even though anyone with access to the internet can find out exactly what the conciliar “popes” have said and done on any given day.

It is almost as though blaspheming God while promoting multiple heresies is “no big deal.” Indeed the silence kept by so many of these self-appointed “gatekeepers” of what is said to be “mainstream traditionalism” is premised on the belief that Catholics must be “protected” from the words and actions of “ignorant” “popes” who act the part of Vatican court jesters to amuse the crowds whose ears are tickled by “papal” words and actions. This means that a Catholic should expect that a “pope” is so unreliable a teacher of the Catholic Faith that it is necessary to keep a “prudent silence” about his apostasies.

Numerous examples have been provided on this site of how the Antipope Emeritus, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, offended the honor and glory and majesty of God. A significant number of these were summarized in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now. It boggled my well-worn pea-brain how supposedly “traditional” Catholics who used to froth at the mouth and rend their garments at the words and actions of the soon-to-be-“canonized” Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II said and wrote nothing whenever the “restorer of Tradition” who had issued Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, offended the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity. The duplicity and the hypocrisy were astounding to behold.

Lost on these self-appointed “gatekeepers,” however is that there was  nothing “traditional” about denying the nature of dogmatic truth and entering synagogues and mosques, calling them “holy” or “sacred” places, and esteeming the symbols and “values” of one false religion after another, including what the hardly “new” (nearly five years now) false “pontiff” did in Washington, District of Columbia, itself, on Thursday, April 17, 2008, as he personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions (see April 17, 2008 – 6:15 p.m. – Interreligious Gathering) something that millions upon millions of Catholic martyrs submitted themselves to unspeakable acts of torture and death rather than to give even the appearance of consenting to of their own free wills.

Pope Pius XII made this abundantly clear in Ci Riesce, an allocution given to Italian lawyers on December 6, 1953:

Her deportment has not changed in the course of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953.)

The more one accustoms oneself to keeping silent in the face of blasphemies, apostasies, heresies and scandalous liturgies is to condition one to keep silent in face of numerous and bolder attacks against the Holy Faith on the part of a particular conciliar “pope” and his “bishops.” In other words, silence in in the face of blasphemies, apostasies, heresies and scandalous liturgies is the most powerful “inoculation” known to man to avoid the problems that come from courageously denouncing blaspheming heretics and to resolve to have nothing to do with them or their false church and its false doctrines and false, sacramentally invalid liturgical rites.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has only increased the pace of the blasphemies, sacrileges, apostasies and heresies that have flowed forth from the lords of conciliarism in the past fifty-six years. Bergoglio is merely showing us the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of conciliarism’s false doctrines and its invalid liturgical rites. He is a serial blasphemer against the honor and glory and majesty of God (see Fundamental Heretics for a brief summary). And yet it is that many of the self-appointed “gatekeepers” of what is considered to be “mainstream traditionalism” believe that is best to keep silent about the “pope’s” defections from the Catholic Faith in order to “emphasize the positive.”

In order to do this, however, it is necessary to believe in the absurdity that a man who can blaspheme Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother on a regular basis can be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Given the deluge unleashed by Bergoglio’s “election” on Wednesday, March 13 2013, it is hardly possible to keep up with each of the Argentine Apostate’s speeches and actions. Indeed, even I missed the following set of remarks, which were delivered on Saturday, June 15, 2013, at the Casa Santa Marta and contain a direct blasphemy against Our Lord Himself:

Vatican Radio) Christian life is not a spa therapy “to be at peace until Heaven,” but it calls us to go out into the world to proclaim that Jesus “became the sinner” to reconcile men with the Father. These were Pope Francis’ words during his homily at Mass Saturday at the Casa Santa Martha.

The Christian life is not staying in a corner to carve a road which takes you into heaven, but it’s a dynamic that encourages one to stay “on the road” to proclaim that Christ has reconciled us to God, by becoming sin for us. In his usual profound and direct way, Pope Francis focuses on a passage from the Letter to the Corinthians, from today’s liturgy, in which St. Paul very insistent, almost “in a hurry”, uses the term “reconciliation”five times.

“What is reconciliation? Taking one from this side, taking another one for that side and uniting them: no, that’s part of it but it’s not it … True reconciliation means that God in Christ took on our sins and He became the sinner for us. When we go to confession, for example, it isn’t that we say our sin and God forgives us. No, not that! We look for Jesus Christ and say: ‘This is your sin, and I will sin again’. And Jesus likes that, because it was his mission: to become the sinner for us, to liberate us.

It is the beauty and the “scandal” of the redemption brought by Jesus and it is also the “mystery, says Pope Francis, from which Paul draws” zeal “that spurs him to” move forward ” telling everyone” something so wonderful “the love of a God” who gave up his Son to death for me. ” Yet, explains Pope Francis, there is a risk of “never arriving at this truth” in the moment when “we ‘devalue a little the Christian life”, reducing it to a list of things to observe and thus losing the ardor, the force of the ‘”love that is inside” of it:

“But philosophers say that peace is a certain ordered tranquility: everything is tidy and quiet … That is not the Christian peace! Christian peace is an uneasy peace, not a quiet peace: it is an uneasy peace, which goes on to carry this message of reconciliation. The Christian Peace pushes us to move forward. This is the beginning, the root of apostolic zeal. Apostolic zeal is not to go forward to persuade and make statistics: this year Christians in this country have grown, in this movement … Statistics are good, they help, but that is not what God wants from us ,is to persuade… What the Lord wants from us is to announce this reconciliation, which is his own core message . “

Concluding his homily the Pope recalls the inner anxiety of Paul. Pope Francis underlines that which defines the “pillar” of Christian life, namely, that “Christ became sin for me! And my sins are there in his body, in his soul! This – says the Pope – it’s crazy, but it’s beautiful, it’s true! This is the scandal of the Cross! “

“We ask the Lord to give us this concern to proclaim Jesus, to give us a bit of ‘that Christian wisdom that was born from His pierced side of love. Just a little to convince us that the Christian life is not a spa therapy: to be at peace until Heaven … No, the Christian life is the road in life with this concern of Paul. The love of Christ urges us on, it pushes us on, with this emotion that one feels when one sees that God loves us. We ask this grace. ” (Jorge Blasphemes the Divine Redeemer.)

Before turning attention to the sickening blasphemy contained in this “homily” of eight and one-half months ago now, anyone who blessed with a modicum of the sensus Catholicus can see that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has no sense of the horror of personal sin. Indeed, this terrible, disgusting little heretic believes that “love” is the only thing that matters, not a “list of rules to observe.” So much for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Second, one who is blessed with a modicum of the sensus Catholicus can see that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not care about winning converts to what he thinks is the Catholic Faith. He is concerned only about “proclaiming” the “love” of Our Lord according to the apostasies of conciliarism. This is called “the new evangelization.”

Third, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is bereft of any understanding that sin is a morally bad act that is committed in violation of the Divine Positive Law. Sin is a turning away from the Immutable God to  a mutable “good,” that is, something that is forbidden that is found by the sinner to be a “good” that is “attractive. Thus it is that sin of its very nature is a turning away from God in favor of a created “good.”

Fourth, Bergoglio was implying fairly strongly on June 15, 2013, that he believes in the moral theological heresy known as the “fundamental option,” which contends that one is never guilty of any kind of truly serious, no less mortal, sin unless his “option” is said to be against God. A sinner is just “fine” with God as long as he not opt to turn away from Him. It is no accident that this heresy was propagated in the 1970s by a Jesuit “theologian” by the name of Father Richard McCormack, who died in 2000, and it certainly does not matter to Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis that the “theology of the fundamental option” was condemned even by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith in Persona Humana on December 29, 1975 (see Persona Humana) or condemned, albeit in the conciliarspeak of his personalist philosophy, by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in an “apostolic exhortation, Reconciiatio et Paenitentia, December 2 1984, in the following terms:

Likewise, care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of ” fundamental option”-as is commonly said today-against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation; the person turns away from God and loses charity. Thus the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by individual acts. Clearly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the “fundamental option” precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin. (Karol Wotyla/John Paul II, Reconciliatia et Paenitentia, December 2, 1984.)

This is one of the reasons that I held out hope, false hope as I learned later, that Wojtyla/John Paul II was going to “correct” things. Wrong.  A little bit of Catholicism now and again does not make one a Catholic when he defects from even one article contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

It is though, nevertheless the case that the heresy of the “theology of the fundamental option” was started by a Jesuit and it is being propagated anew by a Jesuit, albeit a layman who believes that he is a priest and a bishop when he is neither.

Fifth, one must have true contrition for one’s sins and make a firm purpose of amendment at the time of one’s confession to be absolved from them. Although Our Lord knows all things as He is God, He does want us to sin again, and He expects us to use the free will that He has given us to choose the good and reject the evil. Bergoglio’s blithe belief that Our Lord is “all right” with our sinning again is beneath contempt and utterly sickening.

Insofar as the blasphemy against Our Divine Redeemer is concerned, it is important to be direct and to the point.

The Theandric Person, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, has no sin on His soul. He is God.

Our Lord took upon Himself the guilt of our sins. He is not a sinner. It is both blasphemous and heretical to say that Our Lord, the God-Man, is a sinner and that sin is on His soul.

Our Lord is the propitiatory offering for human sins. It is by the shedding of the merits of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday that we are redeemed. It is the merits of that same Most Precious Blood

It is through the ministration of a true priest that the merits of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus are applied to our souls in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance, thereby obliterating them. While we must perform the penance assigned to us a by a priest as a condition of his Absolution and must resolve to live more penitentially to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, sins absolved in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance no longer exist after they are absolved by  true priest. It is as though they never existed. They are nothing, and they do not dwell in the soul of the Divine Redeemer.

What, then, is the meaning of Chapter Five, Verse 21 of Saint Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthinans?

Saint Thomas Aquinas provides the answer:

201. – Where we get the faculty to reconcile to God is indicated by the fact that he gave us the power to live justly and abstain from sins. By doing this we are reconciled to God. Hence he says, for our sake, he made him to be sin who knew no sin. As if to say: you can be reconciled to God, because he, namely, Christ, who knew no sin: “He committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips” (1 Pet. 2:22); “Which of you convicts me of sin?” (Jn. 8:46). For our sake, he made him to be sin. This can be explained in three ways. In one way because it was the custom of the Old Law to call a sacrifice for sin “sin”: “They feed on the sin of my people” (Hos. 4:8), i.e., the offerings for sin. Then the sense is: he made him to be sin, i.e., the victim of sacrifice for sin. In another way, because sin is sometimes taken for the likeness of sin, or the punishment of sin: “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom. 8:3). Then the sense is: he made him to be sin, i.e., made him assume mortal and suffering flesh. In a third way, because one thing is said to be this or that, not because it is so, but because man considers it such. Then the sense is: he made him to be sin, i.e., made him regarded a sinner: “He was numbered with the transgressors” (Is. 53:12).

202. – He did this, so that in him we might become the righteousness [justice] of God, i.e., justified by God. Or justice, because he not only justified us, but also willed that others be justified by us. The justice, I say, of God, not ours. And in Christ, i.e., through Christ. Or another way, that Christ himself be called justice. Then the sense is this: that we might become the righteousness [justice], i.e., cling to Christ by love and faith, because Christ is justice itself. But he says, of God, to exclude man’s justice, by which a man trusts in his own merits: “For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness” (Rom. 10:3). In him, namely, in Christ, i.e., by Christ, because he was made justice for us (1 Cor. 1:30). (5-5: 2 Cor. 5:18-21.)

The same truths were taught by the Flemish Jesuit Cornelius a Lapide in the early Seventeenth Century:

2Co 5:21  Him, who knew no sin, he hath made sin for us: that we might be made the justice of God in him. Sin for us… That is, to be a sin offering, a victim for sin.

Him, who knew no sin. Experimentally, says S. Thomas, Christ knew no sin, though by simple knowledge He did, for He did no sin.

He  hath made sin for us. For us, says Illyricus, who were sin; because, he says, sin is the substance and form of our soul. But to say this of ourselves is folly, of Christ blasphemy. (1.) The meaning is that God made Christ to be the victim offered for our sin, to prevent us from atoning for our sins by eternal death and fire. The Apostle plays on the word sin, for when he says, “Him who knew no sin,” he means sin strictly speaking; but when he says, “He made Him to be sin for us,” he employs a metonymy. So Ambrose, Theophylact, and Anselm. In Psa_40:12, Christ calls our sins His. (2.) Sin here denotes, says S. Thomas, the likeness of sinful flesh which He took, that He might be passible, just as sinners who are descended from Adam are liable to suffering. (3.) Sin, in the sense of being regarded by men as a noteworthy sinner, and being crucified as a malefactor. So the Greek Fathers.

That we might be made the justice of God in him. (1.) That we might be made righteous before God, with the righteousness infused by God through the merits of Christ. So Chrysostom. He says righteousness and not righteous, says Theophylact, to signify the excellency of the grace, which effects that in the righteous there is no deformity, no stain of sin, but that there is complete grace and righteousness throughout. (2.) The righteousness of God was Christ made, in order that its effects, or the likeness of the uncreated righteousness of God, might be communicated to us by His created and infused righteousness. So Cyril (Thesaur. lib. xii. c. 3).  (3.) Christ is so called because God owes not to us, but to Christ and His merits, the infusion of righteousness and the remission of our sins. Cf. Augustine (Enchirid. c. 41). Cf. also 1 Cor 1:3030. Heretics raise the objection that Christ was made for us sin, in the sense that our sin was imputed to Him and was punished in Him; therefore we are made the righteousness of God, because it is imputed to us. I answer that the two things are not parallel; for Christ could not really be a sinner as we can really be righteous, nor does the Apostle press the analogy. He only says that Christ bore our sins, that we through Him might be justified. Moreover, Christ actually was made sin, i.e., a victim for sin (this is the meaning of “sin” here), and therefore we truly become the righteousness of God. So easily and completely can we turn the tables on these Protestant objectors. (Cornelius a Lapide’s Commentary on 2 Corinthians 5:17-21.)

It must be understood that the conciliar revolutionaries do not believe that what they believe to be Holy Mass in their new order of things is an unbloody re-presentation of perpetuation of Our Lord’s bloody Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. And it thus that they do not believe that the the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service is a propitiatory offering for sin.

This is why Jorge Mario Bergoglio treats sin so easily with a dismissive “who am I to judge?” and how he can twist the true meaning of Saint Paul’s words in Chapter Five, Verse 21 of his Second Epistle to the Corinthians to imply to the undiscerning listener that our sins are part of His own soul. They are not. As noted in the passage from Cornelius a Lapide just above, the true sense by which Our Lord calls our sins His refers to His taking what appeared to be sinful flesh in order to be considered a sinner, a criminal, a malefactor when He was the spotless Victim, the innocent Lamb who taketh away the sins of the the world. There is none of this in the slap-happy, hipster talk of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is content to make it appear that sin exists on the soul of the Divine Redeemer.

Those who have paid any attention to Bergoglio’s sermon from eight and one-months ago have tried to acquit him even though he has told us in his own words that he does not believe that God expects to keep the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, which he dismisses as a “list of things to observe.” We observe the law God because we love Him. Do good. Avoid evil. It is really very simple.

Most in what is called the traditional world have ignored Bergoglio’s sermon from eight months ago. Most in what is called the traditional world have ignore Bergoglio’s blasphemies against the Mother of God, including his having speculated that Our Lady was tempted to cry out “Lies!” to God the Father as she stood so valiantly at the wood of the Cross. To remain silent about such blasphemies, no less to believe that they can come from the lips of a true Successor of Saint Peter, is to demonstrate that one cares for human respect above all, not about laying down one’s life and precious reputation and/or marketability in order to defend Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother when they re profaned and blasphemed by wolves in shepherds’ clothing.

The “strategic silence” of the self-appointed gatekeepers of traditionalism continues to permit believing Catholics to think that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter can believe, speak and act in ways that are contrary to the honor and majesty and glory of God and thus to the eternal and the temporal good of the souls for which Christ the King shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem. This “strategic silence” accustoms Catholics to accept even greater increments of “papal error” with perfect interior peace of soul in the belief that this will just all somehow go away entirely on its our own.

Error just does not go away. It must be fought. Exhortations must be made to pray and to do penance. More Rosaries must be prayed on a daily basis. And we must separate ourselves from the conciliar robber barons once and for all lest we permit ourselves to accept cowardice as a good when courage is needed to defend the Holy Catholic Faith in all of Its inviolable integrity.

Well, the hour is later than I would have liked it to be.

Suffice it for the moment to remember that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict did not resign from the papacy on February 11, 2013, the Feast of the Apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes, as he never held it in the first place, and that his successor in the conciliar “petrine ministry,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio shares with him and each of the four other conciliar “popes” the distinction of being blaspheming heretics.

We must take heart from this account of the life of Saint Servatus:

Servatus held the bishopric of Tongres (Belgium) at a time when the whole of Christendom had Arian tendencies. The all-powerful emperor, Constantius, was a heretic and supported the heresy; many bishops no longer believed in the divinity of Our Lord; St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, great champions of orthodoxy, were in exile.

The story of the Jewish origins of St. Servatus and his kinship with St. Anne appears legendary. It is not known when he became bishop of Tongres, but by 336, when St. Athanasius spent his exile at Trier, he had already occupied the see. The declaration which he made before the Council of Cologne in 346 informs us both of his meeting with the celebrated Alexandrian doctor and of his own orthodoxy. This is what he says in reference to the bishop of Cologne, deposed on that occasion: “It is not from hearsay that I know what he has been teaching, but from having myself heard it. Our churches are adjacent; many times I have had occasion to contradict him, when he has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. It has happened in the presence of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. .. . I judge that he can no longer be bishop of Christians; and those do not deserve to be considered Christians who remain in communion with him.”

After failing in his efforts to reconcile the usurper, Magnetius, with the Emperor Constantius, Servatus made a pilgrimage to Rome. He returned convinced that Tongres would soon fall to the Huns. Hastily he carried the relics of the church to Maestricht, and there, shortly afterwards, he died. The towns of Tongres remained thereafter for nearly a century without a bishop. (Omer Engelbert, The Lives of the Saints, Barnes and Noble, p. 186. For an online version, see The Lives of the Saints, page 186.)

We must remember that this is all a chastisement for our sins and those of the whole world. Things are only going to get worse, which is why we must remain steadfast in prayer to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the King of all men and of all nations, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary while we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and remember these words that Our Crucified and Risen King spoke to saint Margaret Mary Alacoque:

I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me.” (Quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our death.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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 Gabriel of the Sorrows of Our Lady, pray for us.

This entry was posted in The Bergoglio Files, Uncategorized 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, 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.