How Can Any Believing Catholic Accept Apostates As Catholics?, part one

Many readers have asked me over the years why more Catholics in the 1970s and 1980s accepted the counterfeit church of conciliarism as the Catholic Church despite all of the signs that were front of their eyes. As one who did accept the conciliar church as the Catholic Church until 2006, although I had become a “practical sedevacantist” about ten years before, I want to provide a little bit of perspective as a preface to this commentary, which I hope will be mercifully brief as I have “had it” with the daily barrage of bilge that passes for “news” from within the nooks and crannies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Information, Including Archived Copies of the Speeches of the Conciliar “Popes,” Was Not Instantaneously Available Until The Last Decade

As has been noted on this site in the past, those who come of age when the internet became filled with all manner of readily accessible information in the late-1990s have the tendency to universalize from their own particular experiences, forgetting that there was once a time when human beings did not have ready access to every statement made by a putative “pope” and his “bishops.” 

Yes, diocesan newspapers carried excerpts of “papal” addresses throughout that period of time. So did national newspapers such as The Wanderer and the National Catholic Register (back during the days when it was owned by the Frawley family in Los Angeles, California). The “information” was there, at least in part, for those who wanted to see it for what it represented. The vast amount of instantaneous information that is available and “cached” on the internet today, however, was not available.

Moreover, most Catholics decades ago were busy with their lives. Sure, they accepted the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Only a handful of courageous Catholics cooperated with the graces that Our Lady, who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, sent to them to reject the conciliar liturgical abomination soon after it was became effective on Sunday, November 30, 1969, the First Sunday of Advent.

Many of us slackers simply went along out of “obedience,” gritting our teeth as we did so, although I have to admit that a well-meaning presbyter, installed in 1970 at the age of fifty, in Troy, New York, roped me into serving as a lector in the Spring of 1974 when I was studying for my doctorate at the State University of New York at Albany. (Those were the days when the readings were contained on five by eight sized photocopies and placed into a punch-hole binder for reading.) The man I thought to be a priest asked me to “participate.” Not really knowing any better at the time as I had been so focused on my academic work, I did as the “priest,” who died ten years later at the age of sixty, had asked me to do. Many other Catholics did the same thing.

Indeed, the presbyter, who belonged to the Carmelite Fathers and was very devoted to Our Lady’s Fatima Message and to Padre Pio, told me that what he said was “the new Mass” was simply an “English translation” of the “old Mass.” This was precisely what the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber stated in The Reform of the Roman Liturgy:

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the “Tridentime Mass” impossible–because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology–for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey.

The pastoral benefits that so many idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring about did not materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or because of it?), and the faithful continue to fall away from the Church in droves.

Although our young people have been literally seduced in to supporting the new forms of liturgical worship, they have, in fact, become more and more alienated from the faith. They are drawn to religious sects–Christian and non-Christian ones–because fewer and fewer priests teach them the riches of our Catholic faith and the tenets of Christian morality. As for older people, the radical changes made to the traditional liturgy have taken from them the sense of security in their religious home.

Today, many among us wonder: Is this Spring people had hoped would emerge from the Second Vatican Council? Instead of a genuine renewal in our Church, we have seen only novelties. Instead of our religious life entering a period of new invigoration, as happened in the past, what we see now is a form of Christianity that has turned towards the world.

We are now involved in a liturgy in which God is no longer the center of our attention. Today, the eyes of our faithful are no longer focused on God’s Son having become Man hanging on the cross, or on the pictures of His saints, but on the human community assembled for a commemorative meal. The assembly of people is sitting there, face to face with the “presider,” expecting from him, in accordance with the “modern” spirit of the Church, not so much a transfer of God’s grace, but primarily some good ideas and advice on how to deal with daily life and its challenges.

There are few people who speak of the Holy Mass as the Sacrifice of the New Covenant which we offer to God the Father through Jesus Christ, or of the sacramental union with Christ that we experience when we receive Holy Communion. Today, we are dealing with the “Eucharistic feat,” and with the “holy bread,” to be shared as a sign among as a sign of our brotherhood with Jesus.

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, pp. 100-102.)

All manner of rationalizations were used to convince priests/presbyters and the lay faithful that “new Mass” wasn’t bad. Except, of course, that it was, and that which is bad is bound to manifest the perfection of its inherent degeneracy over the course of time. With all that has happened in the past forty years and all of the documentation that been amassed about it, including now the daily flow of information that is available for everyone to see, only the willfully blind can claim that the conciliar church is the Catholic Church.

The dogmatic proof of this has been provided over and over again, not only on this site but on so many others.

Jorge’s Continued Blasphemy Against God the Holy Ghost

Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows that there are some Catholics, no matter how few in number who see through his transparent efforts to claim, quite blasphemously, of course, that he, Bergoglio, is following the “Holy Spirit,” which is why he must always denounce those who are steeped in “intellectualism” and thus have no “heart” and are “closed” to the “movements” of the “spirit.” Bergoglio is forever trying to assert that there is a dichotomy between adherence to Catholic doctrine and being “people of the heart,” “people of mercy.”

This is what he said at the Casa Santa Marta on Tuesday, May 13, 2014, the Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine and the ninety-seventh anniversary of Our Lady’s first apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal:

 (Vatican Radio) We cannot understand the things of God only with our heads, we need to open our hearts to the Holy Spirit too. This was Pope Francis’ message at morning Mass Tuesday at Casa Santa Marta. The Pope also said that faith is a gift of God which we cannot receive if we live our lives “detached” from His people, the Church.

As usual, the Pope reflected on the readings offered by the liturgy of the day, which show us “two groups of people”. In the First Reading, “there are those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose” following Stephen’s martyrdom. “They were dispersed with the seed of the Gospel – the Pope said – and they carried it everywhere”. At first, they only spoke to the Jews. Then , “almost naturally, some of them” who had come to Antioch, “began to speak to the Greeks”. And so, slowly, “they opened the doors to the Greeks, to the pagans”. Once the news arrived in Jerusalem, Barnabas was sent to Antioch “to carry out an inspection”. He noticed that everyone “was happy” because ” a large number of people was added to the Lord”.

Pope Francis noted that these people did not say “let’s go to the Jews first, then the Greeks, then pagans, then everyone. No! They allowed themselves to be carried by the Holy Spirit! They were docile to the Holy Spirit”. And then, he said, “one thing leads to another” and “they end up opening the doors to everyone: to the pagans, who were considered unclean in the mentality of the time”, “they opened the doors to everyone.” This, he stressed , “is the first group of people, those who are docile to the Holy Spirit“. “Sometimes – he added – the Holy Spirit prompts us to do bold things: like how he drove Philip to go and baptize” the Minister of Ethiopia , “like how he pushed Peter to go and baptize Cornelius”.

Other times, the Holy Spirit leads us gently and the virtue is in allowing ourselves to be carried by the Holy Spirit, in not resisting the Holy Spirit, in being docile to the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit works in the Church today, is acting in our lives today. Some of you may say: ‘ I have never seen him!’. ‘But, pay attention to what is happening, to what comes to your mind, to what comes in your heart. Good things? It is the Spirit that invites you to take that path. It takes docility! Docility to the Holy Spirit”.

The second group presented to us in the readings of the day is the “intellectuals, who came to Jesus in the temple: they are the doctors of the law.” Jesus, the Pope noted, has always had problems with them, “because they never arrived at understanding: they always came back to the same point, because they believed that religion was a thing of the mind, of laws”. They saw it as a question of “fulfilling the commandments and nothing more. They cannot even imagine the existence of the Holy Spirit”. The questioned Jesus , “they wanted to argue. Everything was about the mind, the intellect”. “These people had no heart – he added -there is no love or beauty, there is no harmony” these people “only want explanations“:

And you give them their explanations and, not convinced, they return with more questions . This is their way: they spin round and round … As they spun Jesus around throughout his life, until the time that they were able to take him and kill him! These people do not open their hearts to the Holy Spirit! They believe that the things of God can be understood only with the head, with ideas, with their own ideas. They are proud. They think they know everything. And what does not fit into their intelligence is not true. You can raise a dead man in front of them , but they do not believe”

Jesus “goes further” and says “something very strong”: “You do not believe because you are not part of my sheep! You do not believe because you are not of the people of Israel. You have left the people. You are in intellectual aristocracy”. This attitude, he warned, “closes the heart. They have denied their own people”.

These people had become detached from the people of God and therefore could not believe. Faith is a gift from God! But faith comes if you are in His people . If you are – right now – in the Church, if you are helped by the sacraments, brothers and sisters, by the assembly. If you believe that this Church is the People of God. These people had distanced themselves, they did not believe in the people of God, they only believed in their own things, and thus built a whole system of commandments that chased the people away: they chased people away and would not let them come into the Church, the people. They could not believe! This is the sin of resisting the Holy Spirit”

Pope Francis concluded: “Two groups of people”, those who are “gentle, sweet people, humble, open to the Holy Spirit”, and the others “proud, self-sufficient, detached from the people, intellectual aristocrats, who closed their doors and resist the Holy Spirit”. “This is not just stubbornness”, he said, “it is much more: it is having a hard heart! And this is more dangerous”. “Let us ask the Lord for the grace of docility to the Holy Spirit to move forward in life, to be creative, to be joyful, because the other people were not joyful”. When “there is a lot of seriousness – he said – the Spirit of God is lacking”. We ask, therefore, “for the grace of obedience and that the Holy Spirit will help us to defend ourselves from this other evil spirit of self-sufficiency, pride, arrogance, closure of the heart to the Holy Spirit“.  (The danger of a hardened heart.)

This obsessed demon of an apostate has spoken in this manner many times before during his daily sessions of the Ding Dong School Of Apostasy. Bergoglio believes that those who adhere to Catholic doctrine have no “heart” as he forever likens himself to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This hideous Argentine Apostate is nothing other than A Prophet In His Own Mind.

The first time that Jorge Mario Bergolgio used his lectern at the Casa Santa Marta referred to believing Catholics as suffering from “stubbornness of the heart” as they seek to “tame the Holy Spirit” was on Tuesday, April 16, 2013. Here is a trip down Apostate Memory Lane:

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – Vatican II “was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit,” and yet, 50 years later, there is no “Church continuity”. There are “stubborn” members who even want to turn back and “tame the Holy Spirit.” Pope Francis took the opportunity to speak about the Council 50 years since it opened, inspired by the passage in the Acts of the Apostles that tells the story of Stephen who, before he was stoned, described as “stubborn” those who oppose the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Father spoke during the Mass he celebrated this morning in the chapel of Santa Marta (pictured), dedicated to Benedict XVI, who turns 86 today, so that “the Lord may be with him, comfort him and give him much consolation.” Francis personally extended his good wishes to Benedict XVI with whom he spoke by phone.

Vatican Radio reported that, during the homily, when he commented Stephen’s words and remembered Jesus’ rebuke to the disciples of Emmaus, “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!”, the Pope said that “always, even among us, there is resistance to the Holy Spirit.”

“To put it plainly, the Holy Spirit gives us trouble. Because it moves us, makes us walk, impels the Church to go forward. And we are like Peter at the Transfiguration, ‘Ah, how nice to be this way, all together!’ . . . As long as it does not bother us. We want the Holy Spirit to doze off . . . we want to tame the Holy Spirit. That is wrong. Because He is God and He is the wind that comes and goes and one does not know from where. It is God’s power; it is what gives us consolation and strength to go on. But, going ahead! This bothers us. Comfort is better.”

“Today,” the pope went on to say, “it seems that we are all happy” for the presence of the Holy Spirit, but that “is not true. Such temptation is still topical. Case in point, let us think about the Council.”

The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit. Consider Pope John. He looked like a good parish priest; he was obedient to the Holy Spirit and he did it. But after 50 years, have we have done everything the Holy Spirit told us in the Council? In the continuity of growth of the Church that was the Council? No. We celebrate this anniversary, we make a monument, as long as it does not bother us. We do not want to change. What is more, some people want to go back. This is stubbornness, this is what we call, trying to tame the Holy Spirit, this is what we call becoming foolish and slow of heart.

“The same thing happens even in our personal lives, “the pope added. In fact, “the Spirit moves us to take a more evangelical way,” but we resist. The final exhortation is “Do not resist the Holy Spirit. The Spirit sets us free, with Jesus’ freedom, with the freedom of God’s children.”

“Do not resist the Holy Spirit. This is the grace I wish we would all ask for from the Lord: to be docile towards the Holy Spirit, that Spirit that comes from us and makes us go forward on the path of holiness, the beautiful holiness of the Church, the grace of docility towards the Holy Spirit.” (“Stubborn” are those who would turn back from Vatican II, Senor Bergoglio says.)

In other words, you see, Bergoglio preached in the exact same manner on the exact same set of readings in the conciliar version of the Paschaltide liturgy. To quote the sage who hails from The Hill section of St. Louis, Missouri, Lawrence Peter Berra, “It’s deja vu all over again.” There is little new in Bergoglio’s apostate mind, which is why many of my own commentaries have repeated what has been included in other articles.

Yes, there will be no “turning back” from the “Second” Vatican Council.

There will be no “turning back” from the new ecclesiology.

There will be no “turning back” from episcopal collegiality.

There will be no “turning back” from the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, not even from “clown liturgies” in which “Archbishop” Bergoglio presided over personally.

There will be no “turning back” from the egalitarianism represented by having women in the sanctuary during the Protestant Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and as represented by members of the laity “reading” from a lectern while the presider is siting and as represented by the laity being able to distribute what purports to be Holy Communion.

There will be no “turning back” from what purports to be Holy Communion in the hand or under both kinds.

There will be no “turning back” from the Cranmer table or from the removal of altar rails.

There will be no “turning back” from the promotion of religious liberty and separation of Church and State and false ecumenism.

There will be no “turning back” from letting the “spirit” move the conciliar revolutionaries into greater “innovation in continuity.”

“Stubborn,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

No, it’s called fidelity to the unchanging, immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Permit me, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to introduce you to the followings that prove you to be the one who is stubbornly proud in your infidelity and apostasy:

  • For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  • Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: ‘These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.‘ On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ”Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason’; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ”The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.’ Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: ‘Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.’ (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . . Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

As has been noted so many times on this site, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “spirit” is false spirit. It is an evil spirit. It is a spirit from Hell.

The Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity is immutable. He does not “blow this way and that way.” He does lead Holy Mother Church infallibly without any hint of change for over nineteen centuries before undoing all that He had led her to teach in the Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. To believe that this is possible is to show oneself to be nothing other than a pagan who wants to project his ideas onto the Divine Godhead and to make of the Holy Faith nothing other than a mass of unrelated “feelings” that are said to manifest the “goodness of God.” To believe this is to make oneself out to be a blaspheming apostate.

Correlative Proofs of the Total Loss of the Sensus Catholicus

The “spirit” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that gave birth to its “official reconciliation” with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity is plain for anyone who has the honesty to see it. As was noted six days ago in The Rubicon Was Crossed Fifty Years Ago, part four, the whole ethos of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is designed to enshrine heresy, thus destroying the sensus Catholicus of most Catholics in order to accustom them to “change” and “innovation” and “novelty.” Rather than being refuge from the rot of the world, the “reformed liturgy” provides Catholics with a celebration of every manner of perverse evil imaginable.

There has been such a complete and total loss of Faith in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that men who believe themselves to be, albeit falsely, princes of the Catholic Church can applaud a bearded transvestite who takes a stage name to mock the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary for his “performance” of a hideous “rock” song on Austria television.

Yes, Christoph Schonborn (see Almost Always At Odds With Themselves, Schonborn receives B’nai B’rith award, Negotiating To Become An Apostate, They Continue to Caricature Themselves, Meltdown, Any Day Now, Apostasy Is His Field, Unbent and Unaware, Wild Card or Mirror Image?Thumbs Up” From a Communist for an Apostate, Touchy Touchy, Phoning It In, Without a Clue or a Care, Nothing About Which to be Shocked, Ratzinger’s Revolution Unravels, part one, Mole Men Who Cannot See Truth and Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure Update), an apostate who has endorsed the false apparitions in Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and has endorsed “blessings” for “homosexual couples” on the Feast of Saint Valentine (which is not even on the universal calendar of the purported “Roman Rite” of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical sect, having been supplanted by the Feast of Saints Cyril and Methodius, whose feast is celebrated on July 7 by the Catholic Church) and is a complete Modernist from beginning to end, a friend of all things Judeo-Masonic, actually praised a bearded transvestite who “performed” under a blasphemous stage name on Austrian television.

Here a report, which was translated by those responsible for Novus Ordo Watch Wire, whose commentary on this travesty is excellent:

(KAP) “In God’s multicolored garden” there are also people who feel as members of the opposite sex, “and of course such people deserve our complete respect, our esteem as human beings”: Thus spoke Cardinal Christoph Schonborn while visiting Vienna’s votive church, where an exhibit on “Corporeality and Sexuality” is currently causing a stir. He said he is delighted that Tom Neuwirth has been able to achieve such great success as Conchita Wurst, “and I can only wish for him that he will handle this success well, because that is not easy”, as Schonborn related to “Kathpress” [the Austrian Novus Ordo press agency]. And he added: “I pray for him for blessings for his life.”

The topic of tolerance, under which Conchita Wurst placed her [sic] performance, is “a real, a big topic,” according to the cardinal. People like him [i.e. like Neuwirth/Wurst], the cardinal continued, have to endure a lot of derisiveness, meanness, and intolerance. Tolerance, however, ultimately means “to respect the other even if one does not share his convictions — and in this sense, we all need tolerance.” ..

With regard to various forms of sexuality, Cardinal Schonborn again pointed out: “As we all know, however, there exists a multicolored diversity in God’s garden. Not all who were born as a male also feel like a man, and the same goes for females. As human beings they deserve that respect to which all of us have a right.” (“Schönborn zu Conchita: ‘Habe mich gefreut und bete für ihn’”, Katholische Presseagentur Österreich, May 16, 2014) (As found at Novus Ordo Watch Wire)

I remember going to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey Circus at the old Madison Square Garden on Eighth Avenue and Fiftieth Street in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, in 1958. One of the “exhibits” in the walkway beneath the stands was a “bearded lady.” Another was the “tattooed lady.” These “exhibits” are now on display throughout the course  of what passes for “popular culture.” You can see the “tattooed lady” now anywhere. All of this is accepted as normal and natural, and it is even celebrated by the likes of men who are believed to “cardinals” of the Catholic Church.

Christoph Schonborn is an open and unapologetic supporter of the agenda of the Homosexual Collective:

A leading cardinal has said that same-sex relationships should be respected and recognised in law amid signs of a change in church thinking on the subject.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, made the remarks in a lecture at the National Gallery evening titled “Christianity: Alien Presence or Foundation of the West?” on Monday. “There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection. Yes, but please keep it away from the notion of marriage. Because the definition of marriage is the stable union between a man and a woman open to life,” Cardinal Schönborn said. “We should be clear about terms and respect the needs of people living in a partnership together. They deserve respect,” he added. Two other cardinals, Colombian Ruben Salazar and Theodore McCarrick have recently suggested the Church should not oppose same-sex civil unions. (Three Cardinals open to civil partnerships.)

Christoph Schonborn, a direct disciple of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is the Austrian version of Timothy Michael Dolan, the slap-happy buffoon of a Modernist who masquerades as the “archbishop” of New York. These men hath not the Catholic Faith. They are apostates.

Remember, Dolan recently gave what is called in today’s street language as a “shout out” to a football player named Michael Sam after the latter proclaimed himself to be a practitioner of the sin of Sodom, which has been endorsed institutionally by the National Football League (isn’t it time to give up watching or following professional sports?):

CARDINAL DOLAN: Good for him. I would have no– no sense of judgment on him. God bless ya. I don’t think– look, the same– the same bible that tells us that– that– teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and– and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, “Bravo.” (MEET THE PRESS TRANSCRIPT: March 9, 2014. Please note that “Cardinal” Dolan commented on Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s latest interview without having read it. I have read it. See Not Another Interview. Also see my commentary on Dolan’s remarks, Vulgar-Tongued Man in Scarlet.)

The outrageous, the indecent, the scandalous, the immodest and the impure in the popular culture are celebrated by members of the conciliar “hierarchy” and its presbyterate. The outrageous, the indecent, the scandalous, the immodest and the impure are also celebrated directly by these same men in their liturgies and in their schools, religious education programs, universities, colleges, seminaries and chancery offices.

No “conservative” “bishop” in the conciliar structures can oppose this celebration as each permits the corruption of the innocence and the purity of the young by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Furthermore, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it impossible for a “conservative” “bishop” to say anything about Thomas Neuwrith (aka “Conchita Wurst”) as he is first and foremost in celebrating a culture that is part and parcel of conciliarism’s own ethos. A “pope” who is profane and visceral and who says nothing to stop the scandalously outrageous “performances” of the likes of “Suor Cristina” will brook no “conservative” “bishop” criticizing one of his own beloved acolytes such as Christoph Schonborn, who is merely demonstrating “openness” to the “multicolored diversity in God’s garden.”

Much like his “Petrine Minister” from Argentina, Christoph Schonborn does not believe in the true God of Divine Revelation, Who does not countenance that which is unnatural, perverse and grotesque. Contrary to what Mr. Schonborn believes, that which is unnatural, perverse and grotesque is ugly and repulsive in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity, a distortion of the wonder of the beauty He has ordained from all eternity to reflect His own beauty in the creation that He ordered for His greater glory and our own enjoyment and use.

The Patron of Moral Theology, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, has provided us with a few very choice words on “The Vice of Speaking Immodestly,” which applies to the “singers” being celebrated in Italy and Austria and elsewhere by conciliar officials:

4. The misfortune is, that the mouths of hell that frequently utter immodest words, regard them, as trifles, and are careless about confessing them: and when rebuked for them they answer: ”I say these words in jest, and without malice.” In jest! Unhappy man, these jests make the devil laugh, and shall make you weep for eternity in hell. In the first place, it is useless to say that you utter such words without malice; for, when you use such expressions, it is very difficult for you to abstain from acts against purity. According to St. Jerome, ”He that delights in words is not far from the act. ” Besides, immodest words spoken before persons of a different sex, are always accompanied with sinful complacency. And is not the scandal you give to others criminal? Utter a single obscene word, and you shall bring into sin all who listen to you. Such is the doctrine of St. Bernard. ”One speaks, and he utters only one word; but he kills the souls of a multitude of hearers.” (Serm. xxiv., in Cant.) A greater sin than if, by one discharge of a blunderbuss, you murdered many persons; because you would then only kill their bodies: but, by speaking obscenely, you have killed their souls.

5. In a word, obscene tongues are the ruin of the world. One of them does more mischief than a hundred devils; because it is the cause of the perdition of many souls. This is not my language; it is the language of the Holy Ghost. ”A slippery mouth worketh ruin.” (Prov. xxvi. 28.) And when is it that this havoc of souls is effected, and that such grievous insults are offered to God? It is in the summer, at the time when God bestows upon you the greatest temporal blessings. It is then that he supplies you for the entire year with corn, wine, oil, and other fruits of the earth. It is then that there are as many sins committed by obscene words, as there are grains of corn or bunches of grapes. O ingratitude! How does God bear with us? And who is the cause of these sins? They who speak immodestly are the cause of them. Hence they must render an account to God, and shall be punished for all the sins committed by those who hear them. “But I will require his blood at thy hand.” (Ezec. iii. 11.) But let us pass to the second point.

Second Point. He who speaks immodestly does great injury to himself.

6. Some young men say: ”I speak without malice.” In answer to this excuse, I have already said, in the first point, that it is very difficult to use immodest language without taking delight in it; and that speaking obscenely before young females, married or unmarried, is always accompanied with a secret complacency in what is said. Besides, by using immodest language, you expose yourself to the proximate danger of falling into unchaste actions: for, according to St. Jerome, as we have already said, ”he who delights in words is not far from the act.” All men are inclined to evil. “The imagination and thought of man’s heart are prone to evil.” (Gen. viii. 21.) But, above all, men are prone to the sin of impurity, to which nature itself inclines them. Hence St. Augustine has said, that in struggling against that vice”the victory is rare,” at least for those who do not use great caution. ”Communis pugna et rara victoria.” Now, the impure objects of which they speak are always presented to the mind of those who freely utter obscene words. These objects excite pleasure, and bring them into sinful desires and morose delectations, and afterwards into criminal acts. Behold the consequence of the immodest words which young men say they speak without malice.

7. “Be not taken in thy tongue,” says the Holy Ghost. (Eccl. v. 16.) Beware lest by your tongue you forge a chain which will drag you to hell. ”The tongue,” says St. James, ”defileth the whole body, and inflameth the wheel of our nativity.” (St. James iii. 6.) The tongue is one of the members of the body, but when it utters bad words it infects the whole body, and “inflames the wheels of our nativity ;” it inflames and corrupts our entire life from our birth to old age. Hence we see that men who indulge in obscenity, cannot, even in old age, abstain from immodest language. In the life of St. Valerius, Surius relates that the saint, in travelling, went one day into a house to warm himself. He heard the master of the house and a judge of the district, though both were advanced in years, speaking on obscene subjects. The saint reproved them severely; but they paid no attention to his rebuke. However, God punished both of them: one became blind, and a sore broke out on the other, which produced deadly spasms. Henry Gragerman relates (in Magn. Spec., dist. 9, ex. 58), that one of those obscene talkers died suddenly and without repentance, and that he was afterwards seen in hell tearing his tongue in pieces; and when it was restored he began again to lacerate it.

8. But how can God have mercy on him who has no pity on the souls of his neighbours?”Judgment without mercy to him that hath not done mercy.” (St. James ii. 13.) Oh! what a pity to see one of those obscene wretches pouring out his filthy expressions before girls and young married females! The greater the number of such persons present, the more abominable is his language. It often happens that little boys and girls are present, and he has no horror of scandalizing these innocent souls! Cantipratano relates that the son of a certain nobleman in Burgundy was sent to be educated by the monks of Cluni. He was an angel of purity; but the unhappy boy having one day entered into a carpenter’s shop, heard some obscene words spoken by the carpenter’s wile, fell into sin, and lost the divine grace. Father Sabitano, in his work entitled”Evangelical Light,” relates that another boy, fifteen years old, having heard an immodest word, began to think of it the following night, consented to a bad thought, and died suddenly the same night. His confessor having heard of his death, intended to say Mass for him. But the soul of the unfortunate boy appeared to him, and told the confessor not to celebrate Mass for him that, by means of the word he had heard, he was damned and that the celebration of Mass would add to his pains. O God! how great, were it in their power to weep, would be the wailing of the angel-guardians of these poor children that are scandalized and brought to hell by the language of obscene tongues! With what earnestness shall the angels demand vengeance from God against the author of such scandals! That the angels shall cry for vengeance against them, appears from the words of Jesus Christ: ”See that you despise not one of these little ones; for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father.” (Matt, xviii. 10.)

9. Be attentive, then, my brethren, and guard your selves against speaking immodestly, more than you would against death. Listen to the advice of the Holy Ghost: ”Make a balance for thy words, and a just bridle for thy mouth; and take heed lest thou slip with thy tongue and thy fall be incurable unto death.” (Eccl. xxvhi. 29, 30.)”Make a balance” you must weigh your words before you utter them and”a bridle for thy mouth” when immodest words come to the tongue, you must suppress them; otherwise, by uttering them, you shall inflict on your own soul, and on the souls of others, a mortal and incurable wound. God has given you the tongue, not to offend him, but to praise and bless him. ”But, ” says St. Paul, “fornication and all uncleanness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints.” (Ephes. v. 3.) Mark the words”all uncleanness. ” We must not only abstain from obscene language and from every word of double meaning spoken in jest, but also from every improper word unbecoming a saint that is, a Christian. It is necessary to remark, that words of double meaning sometimes do greater evil than open obscenity, because the art with which they are spoken makes a deeper impression on, the mind.

10. Reflect, says St. Augustine, that your mouths are the mouths of Christians, which Jesus Christ has so often entered in the holy communion. Hence, you ought to have a horror of uttering all unchaste words, which are a diabolical poison. ”See, brethren, if it be just that, from the mouths of Christians, which the body of Christ enters, an immodest song, like diabolical poison, should proceed.” (Serm. xv., de Temp.) St. Paul says, that the language of a Christian should be always seasoned with salt. ”Let your speech be always in grace, seasoned with salt. ”(Col. iv. 6.) Our conversation should be seasoned with words calculated to excite others not to offend, but to love God. ”Happy the tongue,” says St. Bernard, ”that knows only how to speak of holy things!” Happy the tongue that knows only how to speak of God! brethren, be careful not only to abstain from all obscene language, but to avoid, as you would a plague, those who speak immodestly. When you hear any one begin to utter obscene words, follow the advice of the Holy Ghost: ”Hedge in thy ears with thorns: hear not a wicked tongue.” (Eccl. xxviii. 28.) “Hedge in thy ears with thorns” that is, reprove with zeal the man who speaks obscenely; at least turn away your face, and show that you hate such language. Let us not be ashamed to appear to be followers of Jesus Christ, unless we wish Jesus Christ to be ashamed to bring us with him into Paradise. (Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Sermons for Sunday, pp. 169-172; the audio recording of this sermon can be accessed at: Eleventh Sunday After Pentecost: On The Vice Of Speaking Immodestly, 17 Minutes.)

This is all foreign to the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Christoph Schonborn and Timothy Michael Dolan, et al.

The impure, the obscene, the profane, the ugly, the indecent and the perverse come all too naturally to men who are devoid of the Catholic Faith, men who countenance every kind of apostasy, heresy, sacrilege, blasphemy and outrage imaginable. After, the conciliar revolutionaries defy the First and Second Commandments by inviting representatives of false religions into formerly Catholic cathedrals and churches to be used for the worship of their own particular devils.

Sacrilege in the Cathedral of Santigo de Compostela, Spain

Examine what happened at the Cathedral of Santiago (Saint James the Greater) de Compostela on Tuesday, May 13, 2014, the Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine and the ninety-seventh anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady to Jacinta and Lucia Marto and Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, as the rites of the false Shinto and Buddhist religions desecrated this great pilgrimage site even more than it is desecrated on a daily basis by means of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service:

(Madrid) The famous cathedral of Santiago de Compostela was desecrated by Buddhist and Shinto rites  The Catholic Church prohibits in their churches every act of worship of another religion. Through the implementation of a strange rite a Catholic church is profaned, and requires a special rite to fix this desecration.
Nevertheless, it came as part of an event organized by the local tourist association  “Japanese Week in Santiago”, the  desecration of the world famous place of pilgrimage cathedral by Buddhist monks and Shinto priests, who presented ritual songs and dances.
From the 9th to the 13th of  May, Japan was presented in Santiago with a variety of events all year.  It featured  Japanese art, music and cuisine. On May 13th, the last day of the theme week, the event took place in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela called “The Spirit of Japan”. The program announced the event as “Songs and Dances of Buddhist monks and Shinto priests of the prefecture of Wakayama.”
But how is it possible that the cathedral of  the Archbishop  could permit the  Tourist Office to make it available, ​​moreover even for ritual acts of foreign religions? This is what Catholics are currently asking. For the tourist office  Santiago de Compostela all religions are equal,  so for that reason  religious programs can take place in a religious context, specifically Buddhist and Shinto rites in a Catholic church.
While Holy Mass was celebrated in the Blessed Sacrament Chapel of the Cathedral,  the main nave of the church in front of the main altar  was opened to Buddhist monks and Shinto priests for their rites.
The event was not mentioned on the website of the cathedral church, but without the consent of those responsible,  the event could not have taken place. There is also no indication that the procedure required by the Church after a profanation, that is a  purification rite, will be  performed with a new consecration.
Are really all religions equal and a church  is only a syncretic container dedicated  to fit  in   all religions? What does Archbishop Julián Barrio of Santiago de Compostela mean by this? (Sacrilege in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela.)
The well-meaning individual who wrote this report on The Eponymous Flower website has a remarkably short memory as these kinds of sacrileges have occurred regularly in formerly Catholic churches now in conciliar captivity.
After all, who can blame “Archbishop” Julian Barrio for permitting the ancestor and state worship that is Shintoism (about which I taught whenever it was that I instructed courses in Asian Government and Politics in general or Japanese Government and Politics in particular) and the worship-of-emptiness religion that is Buddhism when “Saint Paul II” permitted representatives of each, together with those of most of the other false religions on the face of this earth, to pray to their devils during Assisi I in Assisi, Italy, on October 27, 1986, and Assisi II in Assisi, Italy, on January 24, 2002?

I greet you all with great joy and I extend a cordial welcome to all present. Thank you for accepting my invitation to take part in this gathering of prayer for peace in Assisi. It brings to mind the meeting here in 1986, and is in a sense an important continuation of that event. It shares the same goal: to pray for peace, which is above all a gift to be implored from God with fervent and trusting insistence. In times of greater anxiety about the fate of the world, we sense more clearly than ever the duty to commit ourselves personally to the defence and promotion of the fundamental good which is peace.

2. I extend a special greeting to the Ecumenical Patriarch, His Holiness Bartholomeos I, and those who have accompanied him; to the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East, His Beatitude Ignatius IV; to the Catholicos Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV; to the Archbishop of Tirana, Durres and All Albania, His Beatitude Anastas; to the Delegates of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Moscow, Serbia, Rumania; of the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Cyprus and Poland; to the Delegates of the Ancient Churches of the East: the Syro-Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Orthodox Church of Ethiopia, the Syro-Malankar Orthodox Church. I greet the Representative of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop George Carey, the many Representatives of the Churches and Ecclesial Communities, Christian Federations and Alliances of the West; the Secretary General of the Ecumenical Council of Churches; the distinguished Representatives of world Judaism who have joined us for this special day of prayer for peace.

3. I also wish to greet most cordially the followers of the various religions: the Representatives of Islam who have come from Albania, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Egypt, Jerusalem, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Senegal, the United States of America, Sudan and Turkey; the Buddhist Representatives, from Taiwan and Great Britain; the Hindu Representatives from India; the Representatives of African Traditional Religion who have come from Ghana and Benin; and also the Japanese Delegates representing various religions and movements; the Sikh Representatives from India, Singapore and Great Britain; and the Confucian, Zoroastrian and Jain Delegates. I cannot mention everyone by name, but I do wish my welcome to include all of you, dearly cherished Guests, whom I thank once again for having agreed to take part in this important Day.

4. I am grateful too to the Cardinals and Bishops here present; in particular to Cardinal Edward Egan, Archbishop of New York, the city so terribly affected by the tragic events of September 11. I greet the Representatives of the Episcopate of those countries where the need for peace is especially felt. A special thought goes to Cardinal Lorenzo Antonetti, Pontifical Delegate for the Patriarchal Basilica of Saint Francis in Assisi, and to the beloved Conventual Franciscans who, as always, are offering a generous welcome and warm hospitality.

With deference I greet the Prime Minister of Italy, the Honourable Silvio Berlusconi, the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, and the other public Authorities who honour us with their presence. I greet the Police forces and all those who are doing everything possible to ensure the success of this day.

Finally, my greeting goes to you, dear Brothers and Sisters here present, and especially to you, dear young people who have kept vigil through the night. God grant that today’s gathering may produce those fruits of peace for the whole world which we all so ardently desire. (Polish Apostate Welcomes and greets the Representatives of the world religions.)

The “spirit” of Assisi I and Assisi II was summarized very well in The Great Facade:

No doubt the height of the fever engendered by the virus of dialogue was the World Day of Peace at Assisi in October 1986. In the plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi, the “representatives of the world’s great religions” stepped forward one by one to offer their prayers for peace. These “prayers” included the chanting of American Indian shamans. The Pope was photographed standing in a line of “religious leaders,” including rabbis, muftis, Buddhist monks, and assorted Protestant ministers, all of them holding potted olive plants. The official Vatican publication on the World Day of Prayer for Peace at Assisi, entitled “World Day of Pray for Peace,” pays tribute to the “world’s great religions by setting forth their prayers, including an Animist prayer to the Great Thumb. The world’s great religions” are honored by the Vatican in alphabetical order: the Buddhist prayer for peace; the Hindu prayer for peace; the Jainist prayer for peace; the Muslim prayer for peace; the Shinto prayer for peace; the Sikh prayer for peace; the Traditionalist African prayer for peace (to “The Great Thumb”); the Traditionalist Amerindian prayer for peace; the Zoroastrian prayer for peace. In a glaring symptom of the end result of ecumenism. and dialogue in the Church, the only prayer not included in the official book is a Catholic prayer for peace. There is only a Christian prayer for peace, which appears after the prayers of the “world’s great religions”–and after the Jewish prayer. Catholicism has been subsumed into a generic Christianity.

At the beginning of the list of prayers of the world’s religions, there is an amazing statement by Cardinal Roger Etchergary, president of the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue. According to Etchergary, “Each of the religions we profess has inner peace, and peace among individuals and nations, as one of its aims. Each one pursues this aim in its own distinctive and irreplaceable way.” The notion that there is anything “irreplaceable” about the false religions of the world seems difficult to square with the de fide Catholic teaching that God’s revelation to His Church is complete and all-sufficient for the spiritual needs of men. Our Lord came among us–so Catholics were always taught–precisely to replace false religions with His religion, with even the Old Covenant undergoing this divinely appointed substitution. Yet the members of all “the world’s great religions” were invited to Assisi and asked for their “irreplaceable” prayers for world peace–the “irreplaceable” prayers of false shepherds who preach abortion, contraception, divorce, polygamy, the treatment of women like dogs, the reincarnation of human beings as animals, a holy war against infidel Christians and countless other lies, superstitions and abominations in the sight of God. . . .

[Italian journalist Vittorio] Messori was merely observing the obvious when he stated that the Assisi 2002 implied that the doctrine of every religion is acceptable to God. For example, the invited representative of Voodoo (spelled Vodou by its native practitioners), Chief Amadou Gasseto from Benin, was allowed to sermonize on world peace from a wooden pulpit suitable for a cathedral set up in the lower plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis. The Chief declared to the Vicar of Christ and the assembled cardinals and Catholic guests: “The invocation to take prayer in the Prayer for Peace at Assisi is a great honour for me, and it is an honour for all the followers of Avelekete Vodou whose high priest I am.” The high priest of Avelekete Vodou then give the Pope and all the Catholic faithful the Vodou prescription for world peace, which included, “asking forgiveness of the protecting spirits of regions affected by violence” and “carrying out sacrifices of reparation and purification, and thus restoring peace.” This would involve slitting the throats of goats, chickens, doves, and pigeons and draining their blood from the carotid arteries according to a precise ritual prescription. In other words, the Pope invited a witch doctor to give a sermon to Catholics on world peace. [Thomas A. Droleskey interjection to Bishop Fellay: This was better than Assisi I?]

Among other “representatives of the various religions” who came to the pulpit was one Didi Talwakar, the representative of Hinduism. Talwakar declared that the “divinization of human beings gives us a sense of the worth of life. Not only am I divine in essence, but also everyone else is equally divine in essence….” Talwakar went on to exclaim: “My divine brothers and sisters, from whom much above the station of life where I am, I dare to appeal to humanity, from this august forum, in the blessed presence of His Holiness the Pope….” While Talwakar acknowledges that the Pope is a holy man, he is only one of many such holy men who lead the various religions. Didi prefers to follow another holy man: the Reverend Pandung Shastri Athawale, who heads something called the Swadyaya parivari, which teaches “the idea of acceptance of all religious traditions” and the need to “free the idea of religion from dogmatism, insularity and injunctions,” Just the thing Catholics of the postconciliar period need to hear.

The spectacle of Assisi 2002 staggers the Catholic mind, and human language fails in its attempt to adequately describe the unparalleled ecclesial situation in which we now find ourselves–a situation even the Arian heretics of the fourth century would find incredible. Yet, true to form, the neo-Catholic press organs reported the event as if it were a triumph for the Catholic faith–while carefully avoiding any of the shocking images and words that would give scandal to any Catholic who has not been spiritually lobotomized by the postconciliar changes in the Church. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 83-85; 213-215).

The author of the post on The Eponymous Flower website also seems to have forgotten that it was just ten years ago, that is, on May 5, 2004,  that the then rector of the Shrine of the Most Blessed Trinity in Fatima, Portugal, Monsignor Luciano Guerra, permitted Hindu “priests” to worship their devils in the Chapel of the Apparitions. Although Guerra was relieved of his duties in 2005, his actions in 2004 were but the result of the “spirit of Assisi” that is one of the “living legacies,” if you will, of “Saint John Paul II.” Moreover, it was during Guerra’s tenure as rector of the Shrine of the Most Holy Trinity that the hideous “banjo church” was constructed to provide an “ecumenical orientation” to Our Lady’s Fatima Message, thus blaspheming the Mother of God, who seeks the uncondiional conversion of men and their nations to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Here is a reminder of what happened on May 5, 2004:

All the invocations of the pagans are hateful to God because all their gods are devils.”

Saint Francis Xavier wrote these words to Saint Ignatius about the pagan religion of Hinduism. Francis Xavier, writing from India at the time, merely restates the truth from the infallible Sacred Scriptures: “The gods of the Gentiles are devils”. (Psalm 95:5)

Yet on May 5, 2004 — the Feast of Pope Saint Pius V — the Little Chapel of the Apparitions at Fatima was allowed to be used for a pagan Hindu ceremony. This Little Chapel (also called the Capelinha) is built on the site where Our Blessed Mother appeared to the 3 children of Fatima in 1917.

News of the Hindu worship service at Fatima was broadcast on May 5 on SIC, a national television station in Portugal. CFN spoke with two people in Portugal, independent from one another, who saw the televised newscast. The May 22 Portugal News also reported on the event.

According to the broadcast, a busload of Hindus were allowed to commandeer the sanctuary inside the Fatima Capelinha and to use the Catholic altar for their rituals. The SIC newscaster said, “This is an unprecedented unique moment in the history of the shrine. The Hindu priest, or Sha Tri, prays on the altar the Shaniti Pa, the prayer for peace.”

The outrage occurred with the blessing of Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra. No one may use the Capelinha without Rector Guerra’s permission.

The Hindus wore traditional garb, a Hindu “priest” in traditional Hindu vestments led the ceremony that consisted in the offering of flowers and food. This would seem to indicate that the Hindus performed their pagan puja, a ritual in which the offering of flowers and food is central.

After the Hindu worship service at the Catholic altar, the Hindus were escorted by Fatima authorities to see a model of the huge, round-shaped modernistic shrine at Fatima now under construction, a fifty million dollar eyesore that will blot the landscape of Our Lady’s apparitions.

One of the Hindus is reported to have said that they go to Fatima because there are many gods, and the gods have wives and companions who will bring good luck. This is a blasphemy against the Queen of Heaven as it places Our Blessed Mother on the same level as some sort of “wife” of a false god.

Thus, the Hindus did not even come to Fatima to learn of, or take part in, Catholic prayer. Rather, they folded the holy event of Fatima into their own superstitions and pagan myths.

These Hindus are said to be from Lisbon, where they have a Hindu temple and a community of a couple hundred. The SIC broadcast showed the Hindus’ house of worship that contained the many statues of their gods and goddesses.

It is reported that pilgrims who witnessed the event at Fatima were scandalized, but Shrine Rector Guerra defended the use of the Marian Shrine for pagan worship.

Appearing on Portuguese television, Guerra regurgitated the long-discredited, ecumenical slogan that different religions should concentrate on what we have in common and not on what separates us. He also said that all religions are good because they all lead us to God. As reported in previous issues of Catholic Family News, the principle that “all religions lead to God” is nothing more than one of Freemasonry’s fundamental tenets. The French Freemason, Yves Marsaudon wrote, “One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry”. (John Vennari, Catholic Family News. See also: Shrine Rector Attempts to Justify Hindu Prayer Service at Fatima )

The effort on the part of the conciliar revolutionaries to deconstruct Our Lady’s Fatima Message is, sadly, part of a larger effort to deconstruct the Catholic Church’s Marian doctrine to make it conform to the dictates of a new theology for a new and, of course, false (pseudo) religion, conciliarism, that dates back to the proximate origins of this false religion (that was, after all, several centuries in the making) at the “Second” Vatican Council.

A reader who desired to remain anonymous a few years ago kindly transcribed the following passage from a book written by a sedeplenist priest about the extent to which the “Second” Vatican Council altered the Catholic Church’s teaching on Our Lady, making not one reference at all to her Most Holy Rosary:

The views and ecumenical plans of Our Lord for our century, clearly revealed at Fatima, do not agree at all with the ecumenism of Vatican II.  The revelations at Fatima teach us that God wants first to save and convert Orthodox Russia through the double mediation of His Most Holy Mother and of the hierarchy of His unique and true Church.  When the Pope and bishops accomplish the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the church will demonstrate her communion in faith with the orthodox, since in the East the dogma of the Mediation of the Queen of Heaven is very much rooted in tradition.

Now, according to the promises of Heaven, it is through that act of faith in Mary, the Mediatrix, it is through that appeal or the Catholic hierarchy to the all-powerful Mediation of the Immaculate Virgin which will have obtained the grace of conversion of the Russian Orthodox people, that is their return en masse to the unique cradle of Christ, an event truly unheard of, incomparable miracle which will provoke the wonder of all the schismatics and heretics of the whole world and soon their conversion.

At the Council, while extolling Congarian ecumenism, the Church has undertaken another road. Vatican II has neither hoped for nor even conceived of the return of the lost souls to the bosom of the unique Church of Christ, but it has recommended seeking Christian unity in an egalitarian reconciliation with the schismatic and heretical sects. To make peace with the opponent, to lead a dialogue filled with esteem at first with the leaders of heretical and Protestant communities, renouncing everything which could create obstacles and mutual understanding, was supposed to lead the Council Fathers to joyfully sacrifice the Catholic faith. Did not Paul VI him self say: “We do not wish to make our faith a reason for controversy with our separated brothers”? (Speech, Sept. 29, 1963)

The dogmatic surrender of the Council and its outrages to the Immaculate Mediatrix were the fruits of that fatal ecumenism. It is then not surprising that the only Bishop, as far as we know, who demanded the Consecration of Russia in the Council aula, Bishop Mingo of Monreale in Sicily, alto fought for the definition of the dogma of Mary Mediatrix, and against Congarian ecumenism. (see Acts of Vatican II)


Several Bishops wee alarmed at seeing the Council totally neglect devotion ot Our Lady. “We know from an authorized source, Father Luis Cerdeira, O.P., writes that during the drafting of the paragraph number 67 of Lumen Gentium, some experts and some Council Fathers insisted that they invoke “ex professo” devotion to the Rosary by one of these expressions or their equivalent: ‘Utpote Rosarium,’ ‘verbi Gratia Rosarium.’”

In fact, in the course of the second session, Bishop Rendeiro expressed “the desire that the Holy Council condescend to clarify the intelligence of the Church, exalting and recommending to priests and the faithful that form of devotion which is expressed by the Marian Rosary”. For “we hear in the choir of theologians and liturgists, he noted in his written observation, some discordant voices. There are to be found one or the other who, giving in to the excess of a kind of ‘hyperliturgyism’, affirm that it is necessary to put aside public prayer, especially the recitation of the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that truly liturgical devotion suffices.”

During the third session, in the name of 113 Bishops, Cardinal Cerejeira requested in writing the following amendment: “That to the words ‘practices and exercises of piety’ (from paragraph number 67 of Lumen Gentium) be added: ‘among which the Rosary is conspicuous’, in such a way that it should read: ‘practices and exercises of piety, among which the Rosary is conspicuous’.” 

In support of his request, Cardinal Cerejeira advanced five reasons at the same time theological and pastoral. It is noteworthy, nevertheless, and how much to be regretted(!) that neither Bishop Rendeiro, the Portuguese Bishop of Faro, nor the Patriarch of Lisbon referred to the Revelations of Fatima to justify their petition. Finally the commission which prepared the chapter on the Blessed Virgin Mary judged that “the Council should not designate any devotion in particular”. The result is that in the Acts of Vatican II the Rosary is not mentioned.

As far as we know, in the course of the sessions of Vatican II, not a Bishop, not even a Portuguese prelate, rose once in the Council aula to entreat the Fathers to embrace and recommend the reparatory devotion to the Immaculate Heart, in conformity with the Divine Wishes. It is bewildering to declare that no prelate dared to break the apparent and deadly unanimity of Vatican II. All the Bishops finally adhered to its minimized doctrine on the Most Blessed Virgin. When on November 18, 1964, the definitive text concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary allegedly revised in the light of the votes juxta modum, was submitted to the vote, only twenty-three Fathers voted against it.

And none oft hose opponents created a stir. Yet, according to the message of Fatima, there is hardly a more unpardonable crime for our Savior than to scorn His Holy Mother and to outrage Her Immaculate Heart, which is the sanctuary of the Holy Ghost. In her interview with Father Fuentes, Sister Lucy herself presented that sin as “blasphemy against the Holy Ghost which will never be forgiven, neither in this world nor in the next.”(Mt. 12:31-32). That cowardice of all the hierarchy of the Church should not be without a bearing on the chastisement announced in the third part of the Secret.

The liturgical reform which followed the Council lessened the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The motu proprio of February 19, 1969, suppressed from the Roman Missal numerous feasts such as the Holy Name of Mary, Our Lady of Mercy, and the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Visitation has been put on May 31, in place of the Queenship of Mary, while the Feast of “Mary Mediatrix of All Graces”, celebrated previously that same day, has disappeared definitely from the Roman Missal.

Pius XII had partially answered the request of Sister Lucy in extending the feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the whole world, under the rite of second class. The New Ordo only makes a simple commemoration which is optional the Saturday after the second Sunday after Pentecost. This feast is then without a proper Mass and Office, and it passes after the ferial, after ordinary feasts of the Saints and obligatory commemorations. That optional commemoration will therefore be omitted as soon as there is another commemoration in concurrence. Father Alonso writes, “Sister Lucy has undoubtedly suffered a great deal intimately from the new liturgy reform. They have not respected a venerable tradition which had established itself gradually throughout the centuries around the specific liturgical significance of the feast of the Heart of Mary. Neither have they respected nor followed an inspiration from Heaven which manifested itself with all the guarantees of the Church, in knowing that devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is a necessity for the Church of our time. That Heart presents itself with all its value of eschatological hope, and at least in the new liturgy reform, that hope has been hidden.” (Frère François de Marie des Anges Fatima: Intimate Joy, World Event, Tragedy and Triumph, Book Four, Immaculate Heart Publications, 1994, English translation edition, pp. 107-111.)

Obviously, Father Francois de Marie des Anges did not understand that the Catholic Church cannot be responsible for denigrating the Blessed Virgin Mary in any way. He did, however, provide a very good account of the extent to which true bishops refused to defend the honor of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary and the devotion to her Immaculate Heart, which she herself said that her Divine Son wanted to be promoted as one of the two last remedies to save souls from the fires of Hell in these last days. Every bishop who knew that what was happening at the “Second” Vatican Council was offensive to God and His Most Blessed Mother but who refused to speak out in their defense is guilty, objectively speaking, of helping to bring about  the following that has devastated souls and helped to contribute to the worsening of the state of the world-at-large as a result:

  1. New Theology
  2. New Mass
  3. New Rosary
  4. New Catechism
  5. New Raccolta
  6. New Code of Canon Law
  7. New Roman Missal
  8. New G.I.R.M.
  9. New Ecclesiology
  10. New Sacraments
  11. New Canonization Process
  12. New Scriptural Interpretations
  13. New One World Church
  14. New Religion
  15. New World Order
  16. New Pastoral Practices
  17. New “Openness” to the World
  18. Ever newer ways to offend God and harm souls.

How can any believing Catholic accept men whose doctrines, liturgies, words and deed show them to be enemies of Christ the King and thus of the souls He redeemed by shedding every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His fearful Passion and Death of the Holy Cross as anything other than apostates who are outside of the pale of the Catholic Church?

Well, I suppose that it is far easier to believe that “things will get better” when the plain truth is that “things” must get worse and worse over time as that which is false of its nature must always manifest the perfection of its inherent degeneracy more and more over the course of time.

We must beg Our Lady to persevere as part of the underground Church during this time of apostasy and betrayal. It is easy to give up, whether for fear of losing human respect or for fear of losing creature comforts and privileges. Each of us, I am sure, knows people, perhaps even some of our own relatives and former friends, who have made their “peace” with the falsehoods of conciliarism and/or with the world itself, seeing no problem with immodesty, indecency, impurity, blasphemy and the aberrant while at the same time seeing no moral necessity to condemn the conciliar church’s embrace of all that is aberrant in the name of “diversity” and “openness.” We must beg Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to remain steadfast in the underground no matter what others may think of us and no matter what we may have to suffer for doing so.

Mind you, as I have noted so frequently, persevering in the underground Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal makes us not one whit better than any other person. Those who do see the true state of the Church Militant in this time apostasy and betrayal do, however, have the obligation to pray for those who continuing to permit themselves to be deceived even at this late time and even in the face of all of the proofs that are now readily available to be seen for what they are: incontrovertible evidence of apostates masquerading as Catholics in a counterfeit religious sect of their own making.

Part two tomorrow.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Alleluia! He is Risen!

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 Peter Celestine, pray for us.

Saint Pudentiana, pray for us.




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