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.




They Crossed the Rubicon Fifty Years Ago, part four

The egalitarianism of the Marxism that is so near and dear to the heart of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and “liberation theology” compadres, including Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez, had its proximate antecedent roots with in the revolution that Father Martin Luther, O.S.A., wrought against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through the Catholic Church.

Just as Lucifer had deceived Adam and Eve that they could be the equals of God, knowing all things, if they disobeyed Him and ate of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from which He had forbidden them to eat, Martin Luther invented a false theology that advanced the lie of egalitarianism. Luther did not believe that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded a visible, hierarchical and perfect society, the Catholic Church, to teach infallibly in His Holy Name and to sanctify souls in their daily battle against the world, the flesh and the devil that Luther thought was impossible to win. He believed that all believers were equal in authority to each other, bringing to birth the essential diabolical lie of Protestantism that served as one of the essential building blocks of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity.

As our Pope Leo XIII pointed out in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and as Dr. George O’Brien amplified about forty years later (see The Rubicon Was Crossed Fifty Years Ago, part three), the individualism of Protestantism resulted in its inevitable splintering. The number of Protestant sects, each with its own different interpretation of what they think is Holy Writ, which they believe is the one and only source of Divine Revelation, is well over thirty-three thousand worldwide. If Our Lord did not endow Saint Peter and his legitimate successors with the power to govern and teach infallibly, then everyone is his own individual “pope” or “papessa.” The path to practical atheism is thus laid wide open, something that we see with particular clarity in our own world today and that was spelled out in no uncertain terms by Pope Leo XIII in the aforementioned Immortale Dei:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

It was to blunt the inroads that the Protestants had made upon the minds of Catholic priests in Europe, especially in Germany, as they sought to adapt the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition to the “innovations” and “novelties” of revolutions of Martin Luther and John Calvin that Pope Saint Pius V wanted to standardize the Breviary and the offering of Holy Mass without any regional variations so as to make it impossible for there to be any Protestant influences on the liturgy of the Catholic Church.

Robin Anderson’s book on the life of Pope Saint Pius V documents this very well:

Some of the popes before St. Pius V had been incapable of bringing about spiritual reform owing to overwhelmingly adverse circumstances, others has been unmindful of it; one or two had done something to fight corruption and heresy and put down the spurious reforms that sprang up, pretending to do good and misleading the faithful. The Council of Trent not only gathered up the hitherto dispersed forces of true reform, inspired and led by martyrs and saint, such as St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Cajetan, St. Angela Merici—it further provided that its clear-cut decrees be carries out by laying down correspondingly severe penalties for default.

The renewal achieved by Pius V, based on the Council of Trent, was completed by his publication of the Roman Catechism, or Catechism of Trent. This was followed by the revision of the Roman Breviary, and the Missal.

The new Protestant theologians and most of the German universities were actively working against the Church, falsifying Holy Scripture to suit their purposes and rewriting their doctrines so as to give them a semblance of tradition and truthfulness. These theologians were patronized by many of the lesser princes interested in supporting heresy which by creating diversions among the people, increased their own power. Protestantism also gave to each ruler control of religious matters within his own State, as of religious property. The Reformers identified their doctrines, in their turn, with the national interest, freedom of conscience and human progress; and the average Catholic was often deceived, having neither the time not the mental equipment to check thing for himself. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 72-73.)

It was none other than the soon to be “Blessed Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI,” aided and abetted by Father Annibale Bugnini, C.M., a Freemason, who sought specifically to incorporate the very errors of Protestantism into the context of a purported Catholic liturgy. Montini/Paul VI believed that such adaptations would result in making what he thought was the Catholic Church more acceptable to Protestants. Instead, of course, Montini’s “renewed liturgy” falsified Catholic worship, making of what is said to be the Holy Mass little more than a memorial of the Last Supper, removing references to Hell, damnation, the possible loss of one’s souls, heresies or error from its collects. The very rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination were destroyed, thereby helping to dry up the wellsprings of the superabundance of Sanctifying and Actual Graces in the world.

The conciliar revolutionaries were good enough to provide us with contemporary proof of their desire to placate Protestants, whose errors Pope Saint Pius V, whose feast we celebrated a week ago today, Monday, May 5, 2014, sought to foreclose from influencing the faithful by the means of the falsification of Catholic worship:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants.” (Annibale Bugnini, L’Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)

“[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy…. [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass” (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI. The quotation and citations are found in Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, The Remnant Publishing Company, 2002, p. 317.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, an associate of Annibale Bugnini on the Consilium, 1uoted and footnoted in the work of a John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been “truncated,” not destroyed. (Assault on the Roman Rite.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s pending “beatification” of Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini on October 19, 2014, is yet another effort to make this hideous man’s diabolical schemes against the Catholic Faith seem as the work of God. The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service gave what most people think is the Catholic Church’s imprimatur on its Protestantizing of Catholic worship, opening the path to a ceaseless succession of “changes” and adaptations. These changes and adaptations began to institutionalize the hideous practices and demonic rites of barbaric or pagan peoples whose ancestors in Europe and many parts of North Africa and the Near East had been converted to the Holy Faith in the First Millennium and the revival of the celebration of the Aztec and Mayan rites that Our Lady of Guadalupe came to eradicate.

It took only eight years from the time that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service’s “adaptations,” both those “approved” by conciliar authorities in Rome and those improvised by “bishops” and their priests/presbyters and their “liturgical committees” and translation commissions (such as the International Commission on English in the Liturgy–I.C.E.L.) to devolve to the point that Montini/Paul VI, whose “decree of heroic virtues” by none other than Joseph Ratinger/Benedict XVI (see “Blessed” Paul The Sick), had no “choice” but to give “papal” approval to the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Novus Ordo in 1977 when the American “bishops” said that the practice had become so widespread that such “approval” had to be given. Time and time again thereafter, of course, “permission” was given by conciliar authorities in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River for “innovations” that had been started in various dioceses around the world, which is precisely how “Saint John Paul II” was pressured into giving “permission” for girl altar boys twenty years ago last months after telling Mother Teresa of Calcutta just four months previously that he would never do so.

Many beautiful Catholic church buildings were wreckovated or torn down in order to build a “worship space” that was more “suited” to the egalitarianism of the conciliar liturgical ethos, which remains nothing other than Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry covered with a slight gloss of Catholic trappings.

Cranmer Tables were installed in the centers of sanctuaries, many of which have been redesigned to make it akin to “theater in the round.”

High Altars, including Privileged Altars, upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ called down from Heaven at the words of true priests who offered the Immemorial of Tradition upon them have been destroyed by sledgehammers and jackhammers.

Statues of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother and His foster-father, Saint Joseph and other saints have been thrown out whole into dumpsters or chopped up, something that would have delighted the Iconoclasts of the Seventh and Eighth Centuries, who were fought by Saint John Damascene, and John Calvin and his vicious destroyers of sacred images, including the heinous felon named Oliver Cromwell in England less than a century after Calvin.

Communion rails at which untold millions upon millions of Catholics knelt to receive Our Lord in His Real Presence in Holy Communion have been removed in order to fashion a “worship space” wherein the distinction between the “presider” and the “people” is eliminated, thereby further eclipsing any residual understand that a Catholic sanctuary is the preserve of the ordained priest, who represents Our Lord Himself, and those boys and men who serve as the extensions of his hands, and represents the distinction between eternity and time, between Heaven and earth.

A steady stream of the laity have flooded into the sanctuaries of formerly Catholic churches and the buildings specifically designed for the false worship of conciliarism, making the conciliar presbyter little more than a functionary whose sole task to “preside” over the assembly’s prayers as he sits during the readings and is assisted by the laity, both men and women, many of whom are immodestly attired, in the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion.

Standing is the norm for the reception of what is purported to be Holy Communion, which is distributed in the hand according to the revolutionary designs of the Protestant Martin Bucer in the Sixteenth Century:

As, therefore, every superstition of the Roman AntiChrist is to be detested, and the simplicity of Christ, and the Apostles, and the ancient Churches, is to be recalled, I should wish that pastors and teachers of the people should be commanded that each is faithfully to teach the people that it is superstitious and wicked to think that the hands of those who truly believe in Christ are less pure than their mouths; or that the hands of the ministers are holier than the hands of the laity; so that it would be wicked, or less fitting, as was formerly wrongly believed by the ordinary folk, for the laity to receive these sacraments in the hand: and therefore that the indications of this wicked belief be removed —– as that the ministers may handle the sacraments, but not allow the laity to do so, and instead put the sacraments into the mouth —– which is not only foreign to what was instituted by the Lord but offensive to human reason.

 In that way good men will be easily brought to the point of all receiving the sacred symbols in the hand, conformity in receiving will be kept, and there will be safeguards against all furtive abuse of the sacraments. For, although for a time concession can be made to those whose faith is weak, by giving them the Sacraments in the mouth when they so desire, if they are carefully taught they will soon conform themselves to the rest of the Church and take the Sacraments in the hand. (Martin Bucer, quoted by Michael Davies on Communion in the hand.)

The ethos of conciliarism has quite indeed led to the false belief that the people are “equal” to Our Lord in a consecrated host, which is why many in the conciliar church do not see the need to genuflect before a tabernacle, where He is presumed, albeit falsely, to be present. This egalitarianism has accomplish Bucer’s goal in the Sixteenth Century to eradicate belief in the hierarchical nature of the Holy Priesthood that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper.

The whole art, architecture, music and ambiance of many conciliar worship settings have been designed for the sake of “inclusiveness,” particularly as concerns those who persist without repentance in the commission of sins against nature in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Conciliarism’s celebration of the individualism of Protestantism has led to “folk liturgies,” “rock liturgies,” “clown liturgies,” “balloon liturgies,” “‘gay-friendly’ liturgies and liturgies celebrating feminism, environmentalism, Marxism and every other manner of false ideological current imaginable.

The individualism of Protestantism devolved over the course of time to the point of either rank unbelief or to a supposed “Christianity” that is based upon the idiosyncratic predilections of various pastors and their “programs,” including those of the “gospel of wealth” variety.

In like manner, the embrace of the errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry by the soon-to-be “Blessed Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI” to the celebration of heresy, error, apostasy, sacrilege, blasphemy, infidelity, idolatry and outright superstition. To “beatify” and “canonize” the likes of Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini and Karol Josef Wojtyla is tantamount to the beatification of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer and all other notable Protestant revolutionaries.

It was precisely to protect the Holy Faith from the errors of Protestantism that Pope Saint Pius V sought to reform the Breviary and to standardize the offering of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, and it was to instruct many poorly formed priests that he had a true Jesuit, Saint Peter Canisius start the work that led to the Catechism of the Council of Trent (The Roman Catechism):

Pope Pius therefore entrusted the Jesuit Peter Canisius, famed for his learning and gentleness, with the task of composing a particular work to refute the falsehoods and expose the tactics of the Protestant theologians who in actual fact were striking at the heart of the Catholic Faith, The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and the priesthood. After consulting St. Philip Neri, among others, in Rome, St. Peter Canisius produced his De Corruptelis Verbi Dei –Concerning Alterations of the Word of God– which proved at once most successful. It was followed by other more general works on a wider scale which, as Pius V who was not in the habit of mincing words said, served “to confound the lies of heretics.”

What was, however, still more necessary than these words brought out with papal approval for a specific purpose was one published in the Pope’s own name and for the entire Church. Trent had urged the drawing up of a compendium of Christian doctrine in clearest terms as the best means of safeguarding the Faith for Catholic peoples bewildered by so many new and contradictory doctrines. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 73-74.)

As bewildering as Protestantism was at its inception and remains yet today, conciliarism is the most bewildering false religion of them all as it has convinced even older Catholics who were educated before the “Second” Vatican Council and who worshiped exclusively at the Immemorial Mass of Tradition in its pristine beauty before the “reforms” that began to be implemented in the 1950s, changes that would lead the Jansenist “Saint John XXIII” to simply the Mass of all time even further and would presage “Blessed Paul the Sick’s” Ordo Missae of 1965, which was actually in effect in the counterfeit church of conciliarism longer than the Roncall missal of 1961/1962 prior to the imposition of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Sunday, November 30, 1969.

Pope Saint Pius V even fought and silenced a prophetic forerunner of the Modernists and and their ill-begotten offspring, the “New Theologians,” among whose ranks included Montini, Wojtyla and Joseph Alois Ratzinger, Michael Baius, who wanted to “return” to “original sources” without the “filter” provided by Scholasticism, something that is straight of the lectures, writings and allocutions of none other than “Pope Benedict XVI himself.”

Particularly confusing were the propositions of Michael Baius, professor of Sacred Scripture at Louvain University. He claimed not only to be leading theology back to the Bible and patristic sources from when it had strayed during the Middle Ages, but also thereby to be reconciling Catholicism with the new ideas that were flooding churches, schools and families through books, leaflets and popular songs, affecting people more that they were aware. A sort of semi-Lutheranism was the result, denying amongst other things that Sanctifying Grace was necessary for man to merit. A break with past tradition was implies by Baius’ theories, which he defended, against St. Robert Bellarmine, quoting the early Fathers, especially St. Augustine, out of context and detached from their historical background.

Pius V had already come to grips with Baianism as Inquisitor. By his Bull Ex omnibus afflictionibus, of 1567, more than twenty propositions were condemned, but without their author being named; Pius with fatherly goodness fearing to drive him into formal heresy. But he judged the errors of Baius so serious and dangerous that he gave the Bull’s decrees solemn approbation, instead of ordinary.

All the more insulting, therefor, was the “apology” Baius sent to Pope Pius complaining of being misunderstood and calling the Bull a calumny on account of which, and for failing to give due consideration to the teaching of the early Fathers, the Pope would suffer the consequences.

Pius V then followed the Bull up by a confirming Brief imposing perpetual silence of the Louvain professor and all defenders and propagators of his teachings. But not until a year later was Baius induced to sign an act of submission. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 74-75.)

This calls to mind the words of Pope Gregory IX that were quoted by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.”

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The revolutionaries who served on Annibale Bugnini’s Consiliium sought to make the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service into the chief instrument of destroying the sensus Catholicus as they “blotted out the old theology” in order to “introduce a new theology” which has indeed introduced profane novelties and supporter the aberrations of all manner of philosophers.

Yet it is that the man who supervised this work, Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, is being rewarded with “beatification” precisely because he believed and did what things that have been condemned by Holy Mother Church’s true general councils and by her true popes as occasions arose for such condemnations to be issued. Montini sought to destroy the work of Pope Saint Pius V, who wanted to use the liturgical reform that he supervised in the Sixteenth Century a bulwark against Protestantism and the world, not a celebration of them:

Revision of the Breviary was necessarily followed by that of the Missal. There was some variety of Mass rites in the West: apart from the ancient Milanese or Ambrosian, and the slightly differing usages of a few religious orders as the Carthusian and Dominican, Spain had the Mozarabic, France the Gallican and England the Sarum (the Bangor, Exeter and Hereford varieties were done away with by order of Henry VIII). None of these departed substantially from the old Roman rite, which had taken on definite and final form early in the 5th century, with the building of the first Christian churches, after the Mass had emerged from the catacombs and it became possible, thanks to the Emperor Constantine, to worship in public edifices. But divergences of relatively recent growth—from one nation to another, and even from diocese to diocese-had become an unsettling factor if not a threat to unity of faith, worship, doctrine and morals. The Protestant innovations, among others, substitution of liturgical Latin by the national idiom in the Mass and sacred rites, had at length seriously compromised unity; and Luther had said that when the Mass should be overthrown the papacy itself would be overcome.

As a counteractant and safeguard, Trent had ordered everywhere to be kept the ancient rites in the original languages—Latin in the West, Greek in the East, with a few other Eastern liturgies, admitted and approved by the Holy See, for centuries in the Communion of the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all churches.

But even the decrees of the Council of Trent, greatest in a thousand years since that of Nicea called to combat Arianism, could have ended in sterility. Such a danger had fortunately been forestalled; for it was during the long-drawn-out preparations for the great Coucil, in which the English Cardnal Pole had a part, that Pope Paul III had instituted the permanent Congregation of the Universal Inquisition (or Holy Office, now of the Doctrine of the Faith) as supreme guardian and judge for the entire Church in matters of faith and morals. Formerly Inquisitor General of this Congregation, Pius V gave more detailed definition to is work, to which he assigned first place. The disorders and disunity disfiguring the Church had allowed the disaster of heretical reforms to overtake Christendom, and by combatting and clearly condemning these false doctrines the Pope dealt a death-blow to the malady.

The opening words of the Bull Quo primum tempore, posted upon the portals of St. Peter’s on July 29, 1570, announced Pius V’s intentions in unequivocal terms, as far as the liturgy of the Mass was concerned: “. . .cum unum in Ecclesia Di psallendi modum, unum Missae ditum esse mixime deceat. . .”—as it is most fitting that the Church should have one way of praising God, and one rite for the celebration of Mass . . .” One Mass was laid down for all, to have universally binding force in perpetuity, with the exception—as with the Breviay—of rites continuously in use, approved by the Holy See, for at least two hundred years. These ancient rites were not merely allowed but encouraged to continue; but should conformity to the new ordinance of the revised Missal now promulgated be preferred, instead of the lawful exception, permission could be sought and obtained. The Ambrosian, Cathusian, Dominican and one or two other variants of the Latin rite thus peaceably continued, as of course, the ancient Easter liturgies—the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Antiochian, Armenian and Chaldean—in some respects still older than the Roman.

Unity and purity of faith, worship, doctrine and morals were thus safeguarded by the uniformity or rite and language in the West, as in the Est, with due exceptions in regard to sure tradition and antiquity. It was furthermore of the greatest benefit to the Universal Church that any alterations whatsoever in the liturgies were reserved to the Holy See, preventing future intrusions of irresponsible, self-authorized and incompetent reformers.

The Roman Missal of St. Pius V was, then, no new creation or departure from former practice, any more than his Breviary. Rather it was a re-establishing of the Church’s most ancient, approved tradition, a getting rid of accretions and innovations, whilst avoiding their replacement by other novelties. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 72-81.(Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 78-81.)

Can anyone say, at least with a modicum of honesty, that this is not a condemnation of everything represented by Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini’s instrument of propagating the conciliar Faith,  the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service?

There is not even “unity of faith and worship” within the confines of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, where it is not uncommon to go from a “Polka Mass” to a “Folk Mass” to a “Mass” with ‘praise dance’” to a Rock ‘Mass’” to an “African-American ‘Mass'” all the way up to a “papal” “Word Youth Day ‘Mass'” which was presided over by that great master of the “Puppet ‘Mass,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Consider the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul VI’s” own words, delivered just four days before the first staging of the the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, which was not even in its complete form at that time, something that took another four years thereafter to “evolve,” and it has been evolving ever since. Here is an excerpt from Montini’s General Audience on Wednesday, November 26, 1969. A few appropriate comments will be interjected here and there.

1. We ask you to turn your minds once more to the liturgical innovation of the new rite of the Mass. This new rite will be introduced into our celebration of the holy Sacrifice starting from Sunday next which is the first of Advent, November 30 [in Italy].

2. A new rite of the Mass: a change in a venerable tradition that has gone on for centuries. This is something that affects our hereditary religious patrimony, which seemed to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled. It seemed to bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead. (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969 )

Nice, Charitable Commentary Number One:

In other words, the Immemorial Mass of Tradition only seemed “to enjoy the privilege of being untouchable and settled.” Montini was saying here that no form of Catholic worship is meant to be “untouchable” or so stable as to serve an instrument in convincing Catholics that the doctrines of the Catholic Faith are “static” in the meaning.

Montini was also saying that the Mass of all ages only seemed “bring the prayer of our forefathers and our saints to our lips and to give us the comfort of feeling faithful to our spiritual past, which we kept alive to pass it on to the generations ahead.” In truth, Montini was saying this was only a false appearance, not the reality of things.

What is contained in the first two paragraphs quote above, however, was the devil’s clever way of admitting that that the Immemorial Mass of Tradition did protect the Faith and bring the prayers of the Saints to our lips, which is why it had to be changed so that he, the adversary,

Insofar as innovation is concerned, the Catholic Church has condemned innovation from time immemorial:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: “the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty” and the admonition of Pope Agatho: “nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning.” Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: “He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

Back to the Sick One:

3. It is at such a moment as this that we get a better understanding of the value of historical tradition and the communion of the saints. This change will affect the ceremonies of the Mass. We shall become aware, perhaps with some feeling of annoyance, that the ceremonies at the altar are no longer being carried out with the same words and gestures to which we were accustomed—perhaps so much accustomed that we no longer took any notice of them. This change also touches the faithful. It is intended to interest each one of those present, to draw them out of their customary personal devotions or their torpor. (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969 .)

Nice, Charitable Commentary Number Two:



What is the precedent for describing any legitimate rite of the Catholic Church in such as a manner?

Montini gave full license to his “under-revolutionaries,” if you will, to repeat the unwarranted claim that the faithful had no longer taken “any notice” of the ceremonies at Holy Mass and that they had become immersed in their personal devotions and torpor. Scandalous.

Returning Now to the Betrayer of Catholic Priests Behind the Iron Curtain:

4. We must prepare for this many-sided inconvenience. It is the kind of upset caused by every novelty that breaks in on our habits. We shall notice that pious persons are disturbed most, because they have their own respectable way of hearing Mass, and they will feel shaken out of their usual thoughts and obliged to follow those of others. Even priests may feel some annoyance in this respect. (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969. )

Nice, Charitable Commentary Number Three:

Yes, “pious persons” are the same ones who are attacked on a daily basis by Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Such people are not open to the alleged “promptings” of God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable. They are too “closed-in-on-themselves,” too “certain” of the truth, too “narrow-minded, “too rigid,” too “unconcerned” about those on the “margins.”

Even priests, Montini, noted, would feel “annoyance.” Some of these “annoyed” priests had the courage to break with the conciliar revolutions. Others would be broken by the harsh discipline meted out against them by the “kind,” “loving,” “merciful” and “charitable” preachers of “love,” the conciliar revolutionaries.

Yes, there is a lot contained in Montini’s November 26, 1969, General Audience. Its entire tenor, although stated in a paternalistic, condescending manner as opposed to the visceral style of Bergoglio, is a road map to the daily sceeds at the Casa Santa Marta at this time.

Returning to the man who felt compelled to have the Vatican deny accusations of his perversity:

5. So what is to be done on this special and historical occasion? First of all, we must prepare ourselves. This novelty is no small thing. We should not let ourselves be surprised by the nature, or even the nuisance, of its exterior forms. As intelligent persons and conscientious faithful we should find out as much as we can about this innovation. It will not be hard to do so, because of the many fine efforts being made by the Church and by publishers. As We said on another occasion, we shall do well to take into account the motives for this grave change. The first is obedience to the Council. That obedience now implies obedience to the Bishops, who interpret the Council’s prescription and put them into practice. (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969. )

Nice, Charitable Comment Number Four:

Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick commanded obedience to his imposition of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Those who accept him as a true “pope” had to obey him. Those who accept Jorge Mario Bergoglio as a true “pope” must venerate him once he, Montini, is “canonized” at some point after his “beatification.”

To the rest of the Saul Alinsky’s Admirer’s General Audience Address:

6. This first reason is not simply canonical—relating to an external precept. It is connected with the charism of the liturgical act. In other words, it is linked with the power and efficacy of the Church’s prayer, the most authoritative utterance of which comes from the Bishop. This is also true of priests, who help the Bishop in his ministry, and like him act in persona Christi (cf. St. Ign., ad Eph. I, V). It is Christ’s will, it is the breath of the Holy Spirit which calls the Church to make this change. A prophetic moment is occurring in the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. This moment is shaking the Church, arousing it, obliging it to renew the mysterious art of its prayer.

7. The other reason for the reform is this renewal of prayer. It is aimed at associating the assembly of the faithful more closely and more effectively with the official rite, that of the Word and that of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, that constitutes the Mass. For the faithful are also invested with the “royal priesthood”; that is, they are qualified to have supernatural conversation with God.

8. It is here that the greatest newness is going to be noticed, the newness of language. No longer Latin, but the spoken language will be the principal language of the Mass. The introduction of the vernacular will certainly be a great sacrifice for those who know the beauty, the power and the expressive sacrality of Latin. We are parting with the speech of the Christian centuries; we are becoming like profane intruders in the literary preserve of sacred utterance. We will lose a great part of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual thing, the Gregorian chant.

9. We have reason indeed for regret, reason almost for bewilderment. What can we put in the place of that language of the angels? We are giving up something of priceless worth. But why? What is more precious than these loftiest of our Church’s values?

10. The answer will seem banal, prosaic. Yet it is a good answer, because it is human, because it is apostolic.

11. Understanding of prayer is worth more than the silken garments in which it is royally dressed. Participation by the people is worth more—particularly participation by modern people, so fond of plain language which is easily understood and converted into everyday speech.

12. If the divine Latin language kept us apart from the children, from youth, from the world of labor and of affairs, if it were a dark screen, not a clear window, would it be right for us fishers of souls to maintain it as the exclusive language of prayer and religious intercourse? What did St. Paul have to say about that? Read chapter 14 of the first letter to the Corinthians: “In Church I would rather speak five words with my mind, in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (I Corinthians 14:19). (Paul the Sick, General Audience, November 26, 1969 )

Making the completely gratuitous claim the Latin language kept Holy Mother Church from the “youth” and the “labor of affairs” and prevented the full understanding of the people?

What has been the fruit of this “annoyance,” this “inconvenience,” this “novelty,” this “innovation”?

Loss of belief in the sacerdotal nature of the priesthood as a teaching of the Catholic Church.

Loss of belief in propitiatory nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the unbloody perpetuation or re-presentation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s bloody Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in atonement for our sins.

Loss of belief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as a teaching of the Catholic Church (not that Our Lord is truly present in the conciliar liturgy, that is).

Loss of any sense of the sacred as what passes for the “liturgy” has “sacralized” the profane and profaned the sacred.

Loss of any sense of modesty, decency, decorum and self-control in the context of the conciliar liturgies.

Loss of any true understanding of the Catholic Faith, especially as relates to the necessity of resisting the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil that have been welcomed into and celebrated as pat of the conciliar liturgy.

Indeed, it is quite ironic that the conciliar authorities in Commissar Sean O’Malley’s Archdiocese of Boston condemned the effort on the part of Satanists to stage a black Mass with an unconsecrated host (which is the only type that they could have obtained from a conciliar church) at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, last evening both before its cancellation and thereafter as the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, although not billed as devil worship, is nonetheless pleasing to the adversary as it is a mockery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered, at least for the most part today, by men who are not truly ordained priests.

There is further irony in the fact that the statement issued by archdiocesan spokesman Terrence Donilon noted that there is “freedom of speech” in the United States of American while seeking to call for respect for the common good. Alas, open worship of the devil is the logical consequence of the very supposed “religious liberty” that was championed by Archbishop John Carroll (see John Carroll Opened The Door To Today’s Persecution) and is thus powerless to stop the descent into sacrilegious displays at a time when so many souls are in the devil’s grip (see Religious “Liberty” Even For The Adversary). Mr. Donilon’s own employer, Sean Patrick O’Malley, welcomed all manner of the devil’s agents, including out-and-out pro-aborts and pro-perverts, into Holy Cross Cathedral on Thursday, April 18, 2013, to give their “thoughts” three days after the Boston Marathon bombing (Antichrist’s Liturgical Presiders).

Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini championed the cause of Dignitatis Humanae, which was approved by the bishops in attendance at the “Second” Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, along with the equally revolutionary and heretical Gaudium et Spes. He opened the door to the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s celebration of the “goodness” not even in the rites and the heretical doctrines of Protestant sects but of “believers” who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The conciliar revolutionaries have participated in “inter-religious prayer” services. They have entered into the “worship spaces” of false religions. They have invited “ministers” from false religions to preach in formerly Catholic churches. Several “popes,” including “Saint John Paul II” and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, have attempted to give “joint blessings” with these “ministers” as they have entered personally into temples of false worship, each of which belongs to the devil, and have esteemed symbols of false worship with their own priestly hands.

Yes, what was proposed to take place at Harvard University last evening, Monday, May 12, 2014, the Feast of Saint Nereus, Acilleus, Pancras and Domitlla within the Octave of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph, was sickening. It was not shocking, however, as open worship of the devil is but the end result of what must happen in any nation that is not founded in a recognition of the true religion and is not duly subordinate to the Catholic Church in all that pertains to Faith and Morals as she exercises her Indirect Power over temporal affairs. If Christ is not the King of nations, good readers, then there can only be one who rises as king: the devil himself.

Men who welcome the devil and his conceits get “beatified” and “canonized” after they are dead and new leaders have come to take the people across more figurative “Rubicons” to new and more daring “innovations” and “annoyances” and “inconveniences.” We can have no share in the work whatsoever.

Today, the Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine, whose teaching on sedevacantism has been misrepresented by anti-sedevacantists for over three decades now (see the summary as found at Novus Ordo Watch Wire), is also the Ninety-seventh Anniversary of Our Lady’s First Apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Lucia dos Santos, in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal. Our Lady wants us to fly unto her patronage through her Most Holy Rosary as we seek to vanquish the influences of the world, the flesh and the devil in our own souls and as we seek to keep ourselves untainted by the hideous heresies, blasphemies, sacrileges and apostasies of the false lords of a false religion, conciliarism. While it is important to pray for the conversion of the conciliar officials, we must recognize them for the apostates that they are, and apostates cannot hold office in the Catholic Church legitimately.

Indeed, we are in a figurative Battle of Lepanto at present, dealing with preternatural forces that appear to vastly outnumber those who have chosen, despite their own sins and failings, to remain faithful to the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church and have rejected such abominations as the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgicalservice and the “luminous mysteries.” (how do the 150 Psalms fit into the the number 200?; what, as a reader reminded me, is “one third” of a Rosary consisting of 200 Hail Marys; Sixty-six point six; got it?) and the new ecclesiology and ecumenism and religious liberty and separation of Church and State. We are hated by our own former friends and colleagues and by many of members of our own families. None of this matters if we care to unite ourselves to the Mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, giving each Rosary we pray to the Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart of Mary as her consecrated slaves.

Although we should note with sadness the ceaseless (and ceaselessly clumsy and transparent) efforts of the conciliar revolutionaries to deconstruct Our Lady’s Fatima Message, we must never be discouraged or disconsolate. Never. We are Catholics, not brooding or sappy sentimentalists. The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We can plant the seeds for this victory by our daily fidelity to Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary. And, my friends, praying the Rosary is not being inert or passive in the midst of our state of apostasy and betrayal!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.


The Rubicon Was Crossed Fifty Years Ago, part three

As has been noted many times on this site, the soon-to-be “canonized” Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick, was enamored of Marxist principles. Indeed, Father Michael Roach, who taught Church History at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland, said in a class lecture in the Fall of 1981 that he had been with the then rector of the seminary, Monsignor Harry Flynn, who would later denounce Father Paul Marx, O.S.B., as an “anti-Semite” in 1997 (see Disconnects) in his capacity as the conciliar “archbishop” of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, at the time of the death of Montini/Paul VI on August 6, 1978. According to Father Roach, the then Monsignor Flynn, a priest of the Diocese of Albany, New York, said, “Ah, yes, Paul VI. A marvelous man. A Marxist, but a marvelous man nonetheless.”

All of his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, Jorge Mario Bergolio is just as enamored of Marxist principles as was the depraved heretic that he will “beatifyon October 19, 2014.

Look, this is really very, very simple.

For the sake of your reading pleasure and my own sanity, well, what’s left of what, if any, I ever possessed, that is, to permit me to summarize this in very succinct terms.

First, Karl Marx believed that all of the problems in the world were caused by the inequitable distribution of wealth So does Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

To wit, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is constantly talking about the “need” for there to be a “legitimate redistribution of wealth” by the civil state. He has identified “youth employment” is the principal problem facing the young today. He has reduced the message of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to nothing other than a message of temporal well-being in the name of “serving the poor.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as much as an economic reductionist or economic determinist as Karl Marx himself.

To wit, Jorge Mario Bergolio has been fawning in his praise for the supposedly “misunderstood” advocates of “liberation theology” and “servants of the poor,” including out-and-out Communists such as the Communist and homosexual advocate Don Michele De Paolis, a ninety-three year-old priest who belongs to the Salesians of the Saint John Bosco. Jorge went so far as to kiss this reprobate’s hand when he met with him in the Casa Santa Marta on Tuesday, May 6, 2014, something that is documented with superb commentary on the Call Me Jorge website.

Support Communism and perversity, thereby enslaving countries to a false ideology and leading souls to eternal ruin as they persist in one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?

Why this is enough to get one “beatified” and “canonized” in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Second, Karl Marx, an atheist who rejected the supernatural and thus contended that the human being was merely matter without a soul, denied Original Sin, believing that peace would reign on earth once the bourgeoisie was killed off everywhere in the world and their property confiscated, thus permitting the representatives the “proletariat” to redistribute wealth “equitably” according to the following Marxist principle: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

As noted above and in yesterday’s article, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that the “legitimate redistribution” of material wealth by the civil state will help the “poor” and thus alleviate tensions among men. One who believes this, of course, cannot believe that Original Sin is the proximate cause of all human problems, no less that the Actual Sins of men cause those problems to multiply, especially when men refuse to admit their sins and then to confess them to a true priest, worse yet that they persist in such sins and seek to have their commission protected under cover of the civil law and exalted in all the precincts of what passes for popular culture. Indeed, the unrepentant sinners in our world today want to consider anyone who condemns their actions as sinful as guilty of “hate crimes,” something that does get in the way, at least just every now and again, you understand, if one who does criticize such behavior and is harmful effects upon man in their own individual lives and in their own nations and the world attempts to hold or to secure employment. [This might, emphasis on might, be the subject of an upcoming article.]

Writing in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, Pope Pius XI explained that the entirely of what is called, most laughably, “public education” (see Inside the Prison Walls and Common Core: From Luther To Mann To Bismarck To Obama) is based upon the forgetfulness of Original Sin:

60. Hence every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth, is false. Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and relying on the sole powers of human nature, is unsound. Such, generally speaking, are those modern systems bearing various names which appeal to a pretended self-government and unrestrained freedom on the part of the child, and which diminish or even suppress the teacher’s authority and action, attributing to the child an exclusive primacy of initiative, and an activity independent of any higher law, natural or divine, in the work of his education.  (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Indeed, the whole point of my “Living in the Shadow of the Cross” lecture program, which includes much of what I used to teach in college classrooms (see Living in the Shadow of the Cross, part one; there are sixty-four others, these can be found on my You Tube channel, listed in reverse order of uploading) was to explain that it is impossible to understand human problems without understanding the doctrine of Original Sin as it is taught infallibly by the Catholic Church. The only way to ameliorate the problems caused by Original Sin and our own Actual Sins is to seek to cooperate with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Pope Pius XI made this precise point in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937, which condemned Nazism, and Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, which condemned Communism:

5. “Original sin” is the hereditary but impersonal fault of Adam’s descendants, who have sinned in him (Rom. v. 12). It is the loss of grace, and therefore of eternal life, together with a propensity to evil, which everybody must, with the assistance of grace, penance, resistance and moral effort, repress and conquer. The passion and death of the Son of God has redeemed the world from the hereditary curse of sin and death. Faith in these truths, which in your country are today the butt of the cheap derision of Christ’s enemies, belongs to the inalienable treasury of Christian revelation.

26. The cross of Christ, though it has become to many a stumbling block and foolishness (1 Cor. i. 23) remains for the believer the holy sign of his redemption, the emblem of moral strength and greatness. We live in its shadow and die in its embrace. It will stand on our grave as a pledge of our faith and our hope in the eternal light.

27. Humility in the spirit of the Gospel and prayer for the assistance of grace are perfectly compatible with self-confidence and heroism. The Church of Christ, which throughout the ages and to the present day numbers more confessors and voluntary martyrs than any other moral collectivity, needs lessons from no one in heroism of feeling and action. The odious pride of reformers only covers itself with ridicule when it rails at Christian humility as though it were but a cowardly pose of self-degradation.

28. “Grace,” in a wide sense, may stand for any of the Creator’s gifts to His creature; but in its Christian designation, it means all the supernatural tokens of God’s love; God’s intervention which raises man to that intimate communion of life with Himself, called by the Gospel “adoption of the children of God.” “Behold what manner of charity the Father hath bestowed on us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God” (1 John iii. 1). To discard this gratuitous and free elevation in the name of a so-called German type amounts to repudiating openly a fundamental truth of Christianity. It would be an abuse of our religious vocabulary to place on the same level supernatural grace and natural gifts. Pastors and guardians of the people of God will do well to resist this plunder of sacred things and this confusion of ideas.

29. It is on faith in God, preserved pure and stainless, that man’s morality is based. All efforts to remove from under morality and the moral order the granite foundation of faith and to substitute for it the shifting sands of human regulations, sooner or later lead these individuals or societies to moral degradation. The fool who has said in his heart “there is no God” goes straight to moral corruption (Psalms xiii. 1), and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion, is legion. They either do not see or refuse to see that the banishment of confessional Christianity, i.e., the clear and precise notion of Christianity, from teaching and education, from the organization of social and political life, spells spiritual spoliation and degradation. No coercive power of the State, no purely human ideal, however noble and lofty it be, will ever be able to make shift of the supreme and decisive impulses generated by faith in God and Christ. If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says — Thou must! — also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. To let forces of moral formation of such efficacy lie fallow, or to exclude them positively from public education, would spell religious under-feeding of a nation. To hand over the moral law to man’s subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction. The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations.

30. Such is the rush of present-day life that it severs from the divine foundation of Revelation, not only morality, but also the theoretical and practical rights. We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator’s hand on the tablet of the heart (Rom. ii. 14) and which reason, not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read. It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction with the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend. In the light of this principle one must judge the axiom, that “right is common utility,” a proposition which may be given a correct significance, it means that what is morally indefensible, can never contribute to the good of the people. But ancient paganism acknowledged that the axiom, to be entirely true, must be reversed and be made to say: “Nothing can be useful, if it is not at the same time morally good” (Cicero, De Off. ii. 30). Emancipated from this oral rule, the principle would in international law carry a perpetual state of war between nations; for it ignores in national life, by confusion of right and utility, the basic fact that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect. To overlook this truth is to forget that the real common good ultimately takes its measure from man’s nature, which balances personal rights and social obligations, and from the purpose of society, established for the benefit of human nature. Society, was intended by the Creator for the full development of individual possibilities, and for the social benefits, which by a give and take process, every one can claim for his own sake and that of others. Higher and more general values, which collectivity alone can provide, also derive from the Creator for the good of man, and for the full development, natural and supernatural, and the realization of his perfection. To neglect this order is to shake the pillars on which society rests, and to compromise social tranquillity, security and existence.

31. The believer has an absolute right to profess his Faith and live according to its dictates. Laws which impede this profession and practice of Faith are against natural law. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

This is a powerful antidote to the supposedly “salvific” power of any secular political ideology, a theme that has underscored my own academic work and my teaching long before I returned to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. “The Illusion of Secular Salvation” was the title of a presentation I gave at Hofstra University in the Fall of 1984 by way of a response to then New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo’s infamous rationalization of “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but” speech at the University of Notre Dame on Thursday, September 13, 1984, that was sponsored by Hartford’s Mark of Apostasy, Father Richard P. McBrien. It is impossible to retard any social evil by means merely natural, and the plain truth of the matter is that “conservatives” agree with this just as much as does the quasi-Marxist Bergoglio.

Pope Pius XI issued his condemnation of Marxism, Divini Redemptoris, two days after issuing Mit Brennender Sorge, repeating the truth that no secular political ideology can “save” man or create the “better” world and teaching us that the civil state cannot steal from the people what is rightfully theirs under slogan of “justice”:

30. Man cannot be exempted from his divinely-imposed obligations toward civil society, and the representatives of authority have the right to coerce him when he refuses without reason to do his duty. Society, on the other hand, cannot defraud man of his God-granted rights, the most important of which We have indicated above. Nor can society systematically void these rights by making their use impossible. It is therefore according to the dictates of reason that ultimately all material things should be ordained to man as a person, that through his mediation they may find their way to the Creator. In this wise we can apply to man, the human person, the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who writes to the Corinthians on the Christian economy of salvation: “All things are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”[12] While Communism impoverishes human personality by inverting the terms of the relation of man to society, to what lofty heights is man not elevated by reason and Revelation!

31. The directive principles concerning the social-economic order have been expounded in the social Encyclical of Leo XIII on the question of labor.[13] Our own Encyclical on the Reconstruction of the Social Order[14] adapted these principles to present needs. Then, insisting anew on the age-old doctrine of the Church concerning the individual and social character of private property, We explained clearly the right and dignity of labor, the relations of mutual aid and collaboration which should exist between those who possess capital and those who work, the salary due in strict justice to the worker for himself and for his family.

32. In this same Encyclical of Ours We have shown that the means of saving the world of today from the lamentable ruin into which a moral liberalism has plunged us, are neither the class-struggle nor terror, nor yet the autocratic abuse of State power, but rather the infusion of social justice and the sentiment of Christian love into the social-economic order. We have indicated how a sound prosperity is to be restored according to the true principles of a sane corporative system which respects the proper hierarchic structure of society; and how all the occupational groups should be fused into a harmonious unity inspired by the principle of the common good. And the genuine and chief function of public and civil authority consists precisely in the efficacious furthering of this harmony and coordination of all social forces.

33. In view of this organized common effort towards peaceful living, Catholic doctrine vindicates to the State the dignity and authority of a vigilant and provident defender of those divine and human rights on which the Sacred Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church insist so often. It is not true that all have equal rights in civil society. It is not true that there exists no lawful social hierarchy. Let it suffice to refer to the Encyclicals of Leo XIII already cited, especially to that on State powers,[15] and to the other on the Christian Constitution of States.[16] In these documents the Catholic will find the principles of reason and the Faith clearly explained, and these principles will enable him to defend himself against the errors and perils of a Communistic conception of the State. The enslavement of man despoiled of his rights, the denial of the transcendental origin of the State and its authority, the horrible abuse of public power in the service of a collectivistic terrorism, are the very contrary of all that corresponds with natural ethics and the will of the Creator. Both man and civil society derive their origin from the Creator, Who has mutually ordained them one to the other. Hence neither can be exempted from their correlative obligations, nor deny or diminish each other’s rights. The Creator Himself has regulated this mutual relationship in its fundamental lines, and it is by an unjust usurpation that Communism arrogates to itself the right to enforce, in place of the divine law based on the immutable principles of truth and charity, a partisan political program which derives from the arbitrary human will and is replete with hate.

34. In teaching this enlightening doctrine the Church has no other intention than to realize the glad tidings sung by the Angels above the cave of Bethlehem at the Redeemer’s birth: “Glory to God . . . and . . . peace to men . . .,”[17] true peace and true happiness, even here below as far as is possible, in preparation for the happiness of heaven — but to men of good will. This doctrine is equally removed from all extremes of error and all exaggerations of parties or systems which stem from error. It maintains a constant equilibrium of truth and justice, which it vindicates in theory and applies and promotes in practice, bringing into harmony the rights and duties of all parties. Thus authority is reconciled with liberty, the dignity of the individual with that of the State, the human personality of the subject with the divine delegation of the superior; and in this way a balance is struck between the due dependence and well-ordered love of a man for himself, his family and country, and his love of other families and other peoples, founded on the love of God, the Father of all, their first principle and last end. The Church does not separate a proper regard for temporal welfare from solicitude for the eternal. If she subordinates the former to the latter according to the words of her divine Founder, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you,”[18] she is nevertheless so far from being unconcerned with human affairs, so far from hindering civil progress and material advancement, that she actually fosters and promotes them in the most sensible and efficacious manner. Thus even in the sphere of social-economics, although the Church has never proposed a definite technical system, since this is not her field, she has nevertheless clearly outlined the guiding principles which, while susceptible of varied concrete applications according to the diversified conditions of times and places and peoples, indicate the safe way of securing the happy progress of society. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 17, 1937.)

Steeped in the revolutionary ideologies of Modernity and Modernism, rife with the influences of scores of different ideologues who adhered to one form of naturalism or another and scores more of “theologians,” Catholic and Protestant alike, who were wedded to the anthropocentric, evolutioinist and anti-Incarnational precepts of Modernity, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does exactly what Karl Marx himself did. That is, Bergoglio condemns various perceived social evils, some real and others imagined, while having no understanding whatsoever of their remote and proximate causes. You see, Karl Marx and Jorge Mario Bergoglio are as one in rejecting Catholicism as the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

It is foreign to the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to consider even for one moment the simple fact that his own Modernism is simply the result of the marriage of Protestantism with the multifaceted and interrelated errors of the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry. As has been noted on this site, Pope Leo XIII said as much Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, and Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, something that Pope Saint Pius amplified in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate.

15. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the experience once acquired, and secondly, in those who do not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This describes Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Josef Wojtyla, Joseph Alois Ratziner and Joge Mario Bergoglio perfectly. Perfectly. This is why each, including Luciani/John Paul I, open to seeing the “good” in error and why Ratzinger, during his long tenure as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Faith, actually said during a conference that two Protestant theologians who denied the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ nevertheless still “continued believing in a Christian way” (see With A Shrug of the “Papal” Shoulders). Obviously, this is why Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that there are Marxists who are “good people” because of their supposed concern for “the poor.”

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio refuses to accept the evils of unbridled capitalism are but the result of Protestantism and that his embrace of Marxism, albeit while protesting that he is not a Marxist, is but the “flip side of the coin,” if you will, of capitalism, a a point made very well a century ago by Dr. George O’Brien:

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest  possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical–they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.

The science of economics is the science of men’s relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man’s ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual’s spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O’Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation.)

This is all foreign to the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a man whose mind is that of the egalitarianism of the Protestant, American, French and Bolshevik revolutions all rolled into one, who believes that the “better world” can be built without demanding that men quit their sins and by believing that the provision of the temporal needs of “the poor” will make them happy even though many of them will never be happy in this life as desire to have more and more and more of this world’s goods and believe that there is no need to embrace the life of Holy Poverty of the Holy Family, especially. All of the false “pontiff’s” denunciations in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, of the idolatry of money are contradicted by his belief that the poor will be happy by means of government redistribution programs.

Indeed, many of the poor, steeped in envy, will lead miserable lives until they die, principally because what they think is the Catholic Church today is feeding their sense of entitlement and to live in states of constant agitation to “demand” more and more of what they believe is rightfully theirs.

Those of us who are old enough (and, no, I still can’t be believe that I will be sixty-three years of age in six months, thirteen days, barring my death before then, of course) to have lived through the era of revolutionary change in the immediate aftermath of the “Second” Vatican Council was we “fought from within” to “save” what came to accept later was a false church from suffering the inevitable consequences of its own heresies, apostasies, sacrileges, blasphemies and other abominations know that the drivel that comes out of the mouth of Jorge Mario Bergoglio is nothing new. Indeed, many of us heard it all ad nauseam, ad infinitum from the mouths of conciliar “bishops,” priests and presbyters. Indeed, the then-named National Conference of Catholic Bishops produced a “pastoral letter,” Economic Justice for All,” in 1986 that is remarkably similar to the Marxist beliefs spouted within the past year by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his chief Commissar of Antichrist, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez.

It was while the American “bishops'” pastoral letter on “economic justice” was in its formative stages that I was asked to speak at the first annual Brooklyn Catholic Charities Congress on Saturday, May 7, 1983, ten days before giving a farewell address to my students at Nassau Community College that exhorted them to convert to the true Faith. Actually, I was a last-minute substitution for a colleague of mine who had another commitment, and my colleague got an earful from the irate “peace and justice” types who worked under “Bishop” Joseph Sullivan, now deceased, the notorious supporter of Mario Matthew Cuomo and Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccaro, about the fact that I had “preached” to them. Well, it was true. I had.


Well, after enduring a Marxist presentation from Howard Hubbard, the now-retired destroyer of the Catholic Faith in Albany, New York, who was appointed by the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul VI” in 1977 when he was only thirty-eight years of age, I had to endure another Marxist screed from a religious sister, Sister Amada Miller, who hailed from the birthplace of the Marxist, Homosexualist and Ultra-Progessive Modernist Call to Action, the Archdiocese of Detroit.

Sister Amada Miller said that poor people needed to be given more material goods to make them happy. No, I am not making this up! I was there. I heard this with my own thirty-one and one-half year-old ears. This is, in all of its essential components, what Bergoglio believes and has reiterated constantly as “Pope” Francis in the last nearly fourteen months. (Yes, I do intend to return to my review of his first year as the universal public face of apsotasy at some point in the next few weeks, although it is possible that Jorge’s upcoming trip to Jordan and Israel may push this back a bit more. If only this man would shut up! See Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson To Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!, part one, and Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson to Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!, part two.)

I began my own address by noting that the singularly most important issue of genuine social justice, to which the “congress” was supposedly dedicated, namely, restoring legal protection to all preborn children without any exception whatsoever, was not on their agenda. “I find this very curious,” I told those in the audience. Two elderly Sisters, dressed in their traditional habits, applauded furiously. Everyone else in the audience sat on their hands, including Joseph Sullivan, whose bald head turned beat red as I noted and denounced the meeting’s naturalistic, liberal agenda.

I was not invited back to speak at the “Second Annual Brooklyn Catholic Charities” Congress in 1984. Was it something that I said?

Modernists such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez refuse to accept the fact that their straw man of the bad “no church” of the “past” has always served the temporal needs of human beings, doing so as Christ the King would do so as she has sought their temporal good in light of their Last End: the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity n Heaven.

Those who believe that “human rights” were the result of the American or French or Bolshevik Revolutions or the result of the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is blind to the simple fact that the Catholic Church, she who lifts high the Cross of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, in the midst of an unbelieving world, has been and continues to be the only means by which the poor have received what is truly theirs temporally as their souls have fed with the fullness of Catholic doctrine, pure and untainted by any error.

Pope Leo XIII made this point in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and so did Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

21. There was once a time when States were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then it was that the power and divine virtue of Christian wisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws, institutions, and morals of the people, permeating all ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, the religion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firmly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by the favor of princes and the legitimate protection of magistrates; and Church and State were happily united in concord and friendly interchange of good offices. The State, constituted in this wise, bore fruits important beyond all expectation, whose remembrance is still, and always will be, in renown, witnessed to as they are by countless proofs which can never be blotted out or ever obscured by any craft of any enemies. Christian Europe has subdued barbarous nations, and changed them from a savage to a civilized condition, from superstition to true worship. It victoriously rolled back the tide of Mohammedan conquest; retained the headship of civilization; stood forth in the front rank as the leader and teacher of all, in every branch of national culture; bestowed on the world the gift of true and many-sided liberty; and most wisely founded very numerous institutions for the solace of human suffering. And if we inquire how it was able to bring about so altered a condition of things, the answer is — beyond all question, in large measure, through religion, under whose auspices so many great undertakings were set on foot, through whose aid they were brought to completion.

22. A similar state of things would certainly have continued had the agreement of the two powers been lasting. More important results even might have been justly looked for, had obedience waited upon the authority, teaching, and counsels of the Church, and had this submission been specially marked by greater and more unswerving loyalty. For that should be regarded in the light of an ever-changeless law which Ivo of Chartres wrote to Pope Paschal II: “When kingdom and priesthood are at one, in complete accord, the world is well ruled, and the Church flourishes, and brings forth abundant fruit. But when they are at variance, not only smaller interests prosper not, but even things of greatest moment fall into deplorable decay.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people? (Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants perfection for “man” now in this life. Indeed, as will be noted in part four of this series, which may not appear until 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 their cousin Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service has been and continues to be the chosen instrument of perdition by which the “cult of man,” so celebrated by the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick,” is celebrated in an exercise of communitarian self-congratulations.

Those who think that the figurative “Rubicon” will be crossed only if Bergoglio and pals impose their plan to ignore the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage in favor of a “pastoral solution” that makes a mockery of said indissolubility and gives free license to ignore every other of God’s Holy Commandments are living in a dream world. “Saint John XXIII” led to to the river. The “Venerable Paul VI” led them across the river. “Saint John Paul II” and “Benedict XVI” celebrated the “springtime of the church” in the “civilization of love.” “Francis” is merely finishing the job by grafting his own false church onto the One World Ecumenical Church that is but a precursor to the arrival of Antichrist himself.

Keep close, if possible, to Our Lord’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Pray as many Rosaries each day as your state-in-life permits (turn off the blasted radio and stop having your soul polluted by naturalist blather; pray Rosaries instead!).

Entrust the present difficulties to Our Lord through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, relying upon the intercessory power also of Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful.

This time will pass. No, maybe not in our own lifetimes. However, it will pass. The Triumph of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will be made manifest in God’s good time. We must simply suffer what we must, realizing that Our Lord never permits us to suffer anything beyond our capacity to bear by means of the graces He sends us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother.

Every day is Mother’s Day for a believing Catholic. That is, every day is the day for Our Blessed Mother!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Viva La Virgen de Guadalupe!

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.

The Rubicon Was Crossed Fifty Years Ago, part two

As was noted four days ago now in Viscerally Speaking, part two, Jorge Mario Bergoglio preached at the Casa Santa Marta on Friday, May 2, 2014, the Feast of Saint Athanasius, without ever mentioning the great, heroic foe of Arianism and without mentioning that Our Lord’s multiplication of the loaves and fishes as recorded in the Gospel of Saint John the Evangelist was a prelude to His Eucharistic Discourse.

Trying to be as fair as possible to a figure of Antichrist, whose conversion back to the Catholic Faith from which he defected at least by the time he entered the Society of Jesus, I noted that Bergoglio might make reference to the Eucharistic Discourse on Thursday and Friday of this week when it constitutes the Gospel readings in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Maybe he will do today, Saturday May 10, 2014, the Feast of Saint Antoninus, O.P., when the Gospel reading in the “renewed” liturgy contains the account of the Jews’ reaction of Our Lord’s teaching. We will see.

As it stands now, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not even make reference to the lesson in yesterday’s conciliar, which was about Our Lord’s conversion of Saul of Tarsus while he was on the road to Damascus to persecute the Catholics there after having presided over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr in Jerusalem. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is concerned about the temporal needs of man, believing that nothing else, integrity of doctrine in matters of Faith, Worship and Morals, has any bearing on the “true” message of Our Lord’s Gospel that he believes has been “obscured” by a “no church” that was “too sure of itself,” “too closed-in-on-itself” and full of “rigidity.” Why mention supernatural truths when almost everyone, except believing Catholics, that is, is saved?

Although many of the Argentine Apostate’s apologists like to believe that their “pope” is not a statist, he is. He believes that the civil government has an obligation to “redistribute the wealth” in order to provide for the material needs of the poor. He made this clear in the remarks he delivered when appearing with the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization, Ban-Ki Moon, yesterday, Friday, May 9, 2014, the Feast of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen within the Octave of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph:

I thank you, Mr Secretary-General, for your cordial words of introduction. I thank all of you, who are primarily responsible for the international system, for the great efforts being made to ensure world peace, respect for human dignity, the protection of persons, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, and harmonious economic and social development.

The results of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in terms of education and the decrease in extreme poverty, confirm the value of the work of coordination carried out by this Chief Executives Board. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the world’s peoples deserve and expect even greater results.

An essential principle of management is the refusal to be satisfied with current results and to press forward, in the conviction that those gains are only consolidated by working to achieve even more. In the case of global political and economic organization, much more needs to be achieved, since an important part of humanity does not share in the benefits of progress and is in fact relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Future Sustainable Development Goals must therefore be formulated and carried out with generosity and courage, so that they can have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger, attain more substantial results in protecting the environment, ensure dignified and productive labor for all, and provide appropriate protection for the family, which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development. Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the “economy of exclusion”, the “throwaway culture” and the “culture of death” which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted.

With this in mind, I would like to remind you, as representatives of the chief agencies of global cooperation, of an incident which took place two thousand years ago and is recounted in the Gospel of Saint Luke (19:1-10). It is the encounter between Jesus Christ and the rich tax collector Zacchaeus, as a result of which Zacchaeus made a radical decision of sharing and justice, because his conscience had been awakened by the gaze of Jesus. This same spirit should be at the beginning and end of all political and economic activity. The gaze, often silent, of that part of the human family which is cast off, left behind, ought to awaken the conscience of political and economic agents and lead them to generous and courageous decisions with immediate results, like the decision of Zacchaeus. Does this spirit of solidarity and sharing guide all our thoughts and actions, I ask myself?

Today, in concrete terms, an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands, material goods but also intellectual and spiritual ones, and to give back generously and lavishly whatever we may have earlier unjustly refused to others.

The account of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches us that above and beyond economic and social systems and theories, there will always be a need to promote generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others. Jesus does not ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others. Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors (cf. JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42-43; Centesimus Annus, 43; BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 6; 24-40), that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.

Consequently, while encouraging you in your continuing efforts to coordinate the activity of the international agencies, which represents a service to all humanity, I urge you to work together in promoting a true, worldwide ethical mobilization which, beyond all differences of religious or political convictions, will spread and put into practice a shared ideal of fraternity and solidarity, especially with regard to the poorest and those most excluded. (Jorge Addresses  Fellow Masons and Statists.)

An economy of words is call that is necessary to deal with this “kindler, gentler” form of “liberation theology,” which Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his wrecking crew of doctrinal, moral and liturgical revolutionaries support. Among those who support “liberation theology” is none other than Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who is at war now with another revolutionary, Walter Kasper, on the admission of public sinners to the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the conciliar liturgical service, something that will be touched upon briefly below.

First, it is necessary once again to point out that gratuitous words about the “dignity” of human life and its inviolability from the moment of natural conception to the point of death does not make one a member of the Catholic Church. This is especially so when one considers the simple fact that Bergoglio refuses to use the word “abortion,” at least in most instances, and as he couches his supposed “pro-life” remarks in the context of “human dignity” rather than in respect for the immutable laws of God. Bergoglio meant to appeal to Ban-Ki Moon and his entourage in terms of mere humanism. Apostates do not get to rejoin the Catholic Church by opposing child-killing. Even some of the Roman pagans of antiquity, including Juvenal and Ovid, did so.

Second, Bergoglio’s gratuitous reference to the inviolability of all human life will be the “takeaway” of his remarks only for “conservatives” who want to reassure themselves that their “pope” is “solidly pro-life” and that he “stood up” to the the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

If Jorge Mario Bergoglio understood the fact that the only true charity is Catholic charity, which seeks the eternal good of souls first and foremost, which he does not, he would have spoken as follows to his audience of fellow statists and natuarlists yesterday:

Your very organization is waste of time. You spend billions of dollars every year promoting evil while expecting there to “peace” and “justice” by doing so. You lay waste the rights of Christ King to impose upon men and their nations decrees that defy His teaching and thus bring further ruin in its dreadful wake. You dare to lecture the Holy See on the necessity of ceasing to oppose the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in their mothers’ wombs, which your own and related agencies support and fund fully.

You are ignorant of the following truths:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.  (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

“Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

You are instruments of disorder and social chaos. Your “work,” such as it is, destroys, eradicates national boundaries and thus consigns to the dust bin of history any true understanding of legitimate national sovereignty. You had better take the words of Pope Pius XI seriously as you find yourself condemned by him when you die if you do not convert to the true Faith and repent of your crimes before then.

There is only peace in Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to His true Church. Pope Pius XI made this very clear in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, as he mocked your predecessor organization, the League of Nations:

No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

46. There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

While I will entrust your conversion to the Mother of God, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, I beg you to take your leave and stop your diabolical work at once.

Not strong enough?

Please forgive me.

Third, the statists and globalists and environmentalists and feminists and redistributionists who constituted Bergoglio’s audience yesterday will doubtlessly take the false “pope’s own advice, given to Walter “Cardinal” Kasper when the latter was chastised as a heretic by fellow heretic Gerhard Ludwig Muller (“in one ear and out the other”) concerning respecting the inviolability of all innocent human life. The following lines will be the “takeaway” that they will use to cite “papal” approbation for higher and higher tax rates and for “climate control” programs that further restrict the legitimate liberties of human beings:

A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.(Jorge Addresses  Fellow Masons and Statists.)

This one sentence will be all the arch-criminals who listened to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s remarks yesterday need to feel “empowered” to bring the private sector further under the control of unelected appartchiks and to give statists such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro rhetorical ammunition to push for more and more policies that will wind up making everyone equally poor and equally subservient as a slave of the civil state.

Fourth, Bergoglio’s reference to “integral human development” is straight out of the humanist handbook of Jacques Maritain, who was a supporter of none other than Saul Alinsky, a man whose “community organizing” in behalf of the “poor” helped to shape none other than the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, at least in some respects, and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in all respects. It was Maritain who introduced Alinsky to Maritain introduced Alinsky to the Archbishop of Milan in 1958, none other than the soon to be “Blessed” Paul The Sick,  and the rest, as they say, is history:

In the Alinsky paradigm, organizing is a euphemism for revolution, with the objective that any “oppressed” group of the population should acquire power by radically transforming the social and economic structure of the U.S.

As a subtle revolutionary he avoided flaunting bloody radicalism, as set out in his infamous book Rules for Radicals. Instead, for the victory of Marxism he recommended infiltration of churches, unions and political parties to transform them from within. His aim was to ultimately crush the Establishment and install Socialism.

Jacques Maritain, a French Catholic philosopher, was born in in 1882 and died in 1973. He was a Protestant who became a Catholic in 1906 during his student days at the Sorbonne. From 1945 to 1948, he was the French Ambassador to the Vatican. His reputation to be a Thomist scholar and lectures at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies enhanced his prestige and enabled him access to Pope Pius XII and his pro-Secretary of State, Msgr. Montini, with whom he often visited privately. In 1948 he returned to America to take a professorship at Princeton.

In 1936 Maritain expounded his liberal thinking in political philosophy in a book he titled Integral Humanism. In it he promotes a new Christendom rooted in a theocentric pluralism, informed by rights of man of the Enlightenment and conjoined to the philosophy of democracy. Creating this integral humanism would not be a matter of trying to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, Maritain tells us, but rather of making the world a “place of a truly and fully human earthly life” . . . .

Maritain’s theories called for a basic shift in the way the Church looks at herself, i.e. her function and identity. Integral humanism, like the theories of the pantheist-evolutionist Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, sees every religion converging toward a single human ideal in a world civilization where all will be reconciled in peace, love and justice, which supposedly will lead all to a mysterious fulfillment of the Gospel.

In the integral humanism of Jacques Maritain, man enters a universal fraternity where the Catholic Church does not demand or even suggest that she is the one true Church. Maritains’ theory is a call for Catholics to set aside dogmatic differences with her enemies and achieve the desired unity throughout practical arrangements.

From Pius XII onward, Maritain was praised and promoted by the Vatican. Paul VI’s enthusiasm for his theories was life-long. Maritain’s thinking on integral humanism and the rights of man spoke to the central concerns of Montini’s life and ministry.

Pope Paul VI readily admitted the profound influence of the French theologian’s thinking, and he even cited Maritain’s Integral Humanism in his Encyclical Populorum progressio. At the close of the Vatican Council II, the Pope’s “Address to Men of Thought and Science” was dedicated to his dear friend and mentor.

Maritain’s thinking influenced many of the documents of Vatican II that dealt with human dignity, ecumenism and the relations between Church and State. Maritain’s presentation on rights is the language of rights that Dignitatis humanae employs.

Many Catholics are unaware of the strong 30-year friendship between the progressivist philosopher Jacques Maritain and the Marxist agitator Saul Alinsky. They were “devoted friends” from their first meeting in 1940, visiting often and discussing issues of social justice. When Maritain was in Rome as ambassador, he sent Alinsky copies of all his articles and talks, and in return he reviewed Alinsky’s manuscript of Rules for Radicals.

In Alinsky’s organizations, Maritain found a near-perfect embodiment of the mediating structures he had called for in Integral Humanism. He also approved of Alinsky’s subversive methods as outlined in Rules for Radicals. (3)

A short biography of Paul VI follows before we reach the intriguing scenario that involves the three men – Montini, Maritain and Alinsky. Giovanni Battista Martini was born in 1897 and died in 1978. He was pro-Secretary of State from 1922 to 1954 and was protected and promoted by Pius XI and Pius XII. In 1954 Pius XII named him Archbishop of Milan. In 1958, John XXIII made him a Cardinal, a perfect timing for Montini to be elected Pope in 1963, after the short reign of John XXIII.

Already in Milan, Archbishop Montini was hosting ecumenical activities, principally by receiving successive delegations of non-Catholic theologians, mostly Anglicans. Another visitor was Jacques Maritain, whose integral humanism Montini and Pacelli had been promoting for the last 20 years.

In summer of 1958, Maritain brought to Montini’s residence a man he considered to be “one of only three revolutionaries worthy of the name, indeed one of the few really great men of this century.”  That man was the young Saul Alinksy. (An Intriguing Scenario.)

This is why Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Barack Hussein Obama got along so famously as both had been influenced by Saul David Alinsky, whose influence upon man that Bergoglio will “canonize” soon, Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, is well-documented. It should also be clear by now that Bergoglio himself believes the late Romano Amerio’s cogent summary of Martain’s thought: “. . . man enters a universal fraternity where the Catholic Church does not demand or even suggest that she is the one true Church. Maritains’ theory is a call for Catholics to set aside dogmatic differences with her enemies and achieve the desired unity throughout practical arrangements.” Anyone who does not see that Bergoglio believes this is willfully blind or intellectually dishonest.

This is exactly what Pope Saint Pius X condemned in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people? (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is just the latest of the conciliar “pontiffs” who have given “papal” voice to the ideologies of the French Revolution by way of The Sillon, whose founder continued to have the support of Father Angelo Roncalli even after its principles were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X.

As should be understood by now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a worthy successor of Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger. It is no wonder at all why Bergoglio is proceeding with the “beatification” of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI as he is as much of a “servant of man” as was the Modernist who was “pope” during his years studying philosophy and theology under the tutelage of Jesuits who were in the vanguard of the revolution in behalf of the service of “man.”

Therefore, by avoiding to provide dogmatic definitions, Paul VI could also utter these other incredible enormities, such as are read shortly after that declaration in the same address:
«Aliud est etiam, quod consideratione dignum putamus: huiusmodi divitem doctrinae copiam, eo unice spectare, ut homini serviat» (!!).The English version, perhaps, will highlight in a higher disquieting degree the enormity of that declaration: “… All this doctrinal points to but one direction: serve man.”
Disconcerting indeed! For these are the words of a “Pope” whom, to further reinforce us in his thought, continues:
“The Church has, so to say, declared Herself the SERVANT OF HUMANITY»… (Whereas Our Lady had declared Herself “ANCILLA DOMINI”)…In both one and the other, in fact, the “center” is always Man.The remainder of the Address, then, intensifies his position even more:”Any careful observer of THE COUNCIL’S PREVAILING INTEREST FOR HUMAN AND TEMPORAL VALUES (?!) Cannot deny that such (PREVAILING) INTEREST derives from the PASTORAL CHARACTER the COUNCIL has made ITS PROGRAM…”
The great mistake, therefore, of Paul VI was that of being rather a humanist than a Christian, putting the Gospel at the service of his humanist “dream”, identical to the ideal of Freemasonry, whose ideal of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, would be achieved through the development of the universal conscience. The whole of the writings and speeches of Paul VI, in fact, show, with sad clearness, that it was man, rather than God, the center of his cares…That all was thought out, judged, and directed according to the service of man. Paul VI’s Christianity unpinned from the Cross. Namely:–a Christ considered a “liberator”, not as much from sin, as from suffering, from humiliation, from enslavement;–a Gospel mixed up with the “Charter of Man’s Rights”, and placed at the service of “social justice”;
–the “Rights of God” neglected, to the advantage of the exaltation of the “Rights” and preferences of man;

–an evangelization reduced to a “dialogue”, not to convert, and resting upon “human means” rather than upon supernatural means…

In brief: Paul VI, more than Christ and His Gospel, has served, and had man served, substituting:

–the supremacy of the supernatural with the supremacy of the natural, of the temporal, of man;

–the supremacy of the “Law of God” with the supremacy of the conscience;

–the supremacy of the “Kingdom of God” and of the “eternal life” with the supremacy of the world, of history, of his chimera toward achieving a sort of paradise on earth.

After which, one could accuse Paul VI of giving man a “cult” that should not be given him. Man must be certainly loved, but not of a disorderly love, that is, a love not regulated by the love of God or independent of His love.

The “cult of man”, instead, leads to the myth of the sameness among all men, hence the leveling of the classes (with all the violence this brings about), hence “universal democracy” (another utopia dear to Paul VI), which is but Masonic universalism.

Let us further quote, therefore, some other “text” that illustrates his “cult of man” in Paul VI, so evident in his humanism.

In his “Address” to the Last Public Session of Vatican II, Paul VI made a sort of “profession of faith” that sounds unprecedented. That his speaking of man, whom must be understood, respected, and admired, ended up in an authentic “cult of man”!

“The Church of the Council – said he – has much focused on man, man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality… Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the Council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs. But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind; WE HAVE THE CULT OF MAN.” (As found in Father Luigi Villa, Paul VI Beatfied? Never!, pp. 35-36, 40-42.)

[A formatting problem developed beyond this text as it became impossible to outdent my own commentary from quoted text. It is also impossible to indent new quotations. I will thus put quotation marks around referenced material. I am sorry for any confusion. Much time has been spent trying to remedy this problem for the twelve people who will actually read this commentary!]

As should be understood by now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a worthy successor of Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger. It is no wonder at all why Bergoglio is proceeding with the “beatification” of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI as he is as much of a “servant of man” as was the Modernist who was “pope” during his years studying philosophy and theology under the tutelage of Jesuits who were in the vanguard of the revolution in behalf of the service of “man.”

This service in behalf of “man” is why whatever warnings, no matter how apologetically made, that the heretic Gerhard Ludwig Muller (see Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part two, Daft? Deft Is More Like It, part three, Does The Defense of Catholic Truth Matter To You?, When Will The Madness End?, part one and Memo To Bishop Fellay: Ratzinger/Benedict Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Loves Gerhard Ludwig Muller) makes to the heretical leadership of the Leadership of Women Religious to reinforce the doctrinal points that were made two years ago now (see Apostates Reprimanding Apostates) as the American women parading around as consecrated religious dressed up like feminist social workers know that they can, according to the words of Muller’s apostate superior, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, let his remarks go “in one here” and “out the other:’

[Begin Muller remarks] “Let me begin with the notion of ‘disproportionate sanctions.’ One of the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a ‘sanction,’ but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.

An example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well.” (End of the quotation of the Muller remarks as found at: Remarks of Apostate Gerhard Müller at the Meeting of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), 30 April 2014.)

Continuing his very public warfare with Muller, fellow heretic Walter Kasper has praised the very “theologian,” Sister Elizabeth Johnson,  whose invitation to speak at the LCWC national meeting Muller called a “provocation” by these feminists in defiance of the warnings they were given by William “Cardinal” Levada two years ago. Here is what Kasper said while at Fordham University in the Borough of The Bronx in the City of New York, New York, on Monday, May 5, 2014:

[Begin excerpt from The New York Times]  “Cardinal Kasper’s advice was that the nuns should not be overly concerned because the Vatican bureaucracy ‘sees some things a little bit narrower’ than other church workers. He told a story about the pope (who has endorsed the investigation) smiling dismissively at conservative criticism of Cardinal Kasper’s own writings and declaring, ‘This enters in one ear and goes out the other.’

The cardinal spoke optimistically at Fordham that dialogue might eventually smooth things out, but he took care to express particular ‘esteem’ for Sister Elizabeth Johnson, a widely respected feminist theologian at Fordham criticized in the past by Cardinal Muller.

‘She is in good company, Cardinal Kasper said, noting that Thomas Aquinas, one of the great theologians, was condemned for years by his bishop. (Why Are American Nuns Under Vatican Scrutiny? End of report from The New York Times.]

[Resume Droleskey Commentary]

Leaving aside Walter Kasper’s blasphemous comparison between the sanctions imposed upon Saint Thomas Aquinas while his work was reviewed and the paganism of Sister Elizabeth Johnson as standard-fare sloganeering on the part of a conciliar revolutionary, what is interesting to note is that his “in one ear and out the other ear” remark that he attributed to Jorge Mario Bergolio is exactly what he told a group of leaders representing men and women religious from Latin America on June 6, 2013:

[Begin quotation from Rorate Caeli] They will make mistakes, they will make a blunder [meter la pata], this will pass! Perhaps even a letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine (of the Faith) will arrive for you, telling you that you said such or such thing… But do not worry. Explain whatever you have to explain, but move forward… Open the doors, do something there where life calls for it. I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up…  (Address to Latin American Religious.)

[Resume Droleskey commentary]

What Kasper said at Fordham University five days ago, therefore, was nothing new. The false “pontiff” has been very public in dismissing “corrections” made by curial congregations. What matters to him is the “opening of doors.”

The laugh of all of this is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is in close agreement on many, though not all, points of theology with the members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Whatever their differences, however, they are as one supporting social work and statism as part of the “new evangelization” for the “good of man” as though his immortal soul is guaranteed of salvation. And for that they have Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, who helped to lead the conciliar revolutionaries over the figurative Rubicon River to tear down those “bastions” of Catholic orthodoxy that Bergoglio seeks to eradicate once and for all.

Indeed, Montini’s Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service was meant to be from its inception a means to emphasize the “community” rather to worship God. The contrast between true worship and this false worship is very clear, something that the final part of this commentary.

We must rely upon the intercession of Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, Saint Joseph and the saints  to remain steadfast in the Catholic catacombs as we offer up the sufferings of the moment to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for our own many sins and those of the whole world.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end.

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 Antoninus, pray for us.

The Rubicon Was Crossed Fifty Years Ago, part one

Refusing to acknowledge the simple fact that the “Second” Vatican Council taught heresy, especially in Lumen Gentium and Unitatis Redintegratio, each of which was issued on November 21,1964, Nostra Aetate, October 28, 1965, and in Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, or to admit that the conciliar “popes” have preached, written and acted in ways in complete contradiction of immutable teaching of Holy Mother Church, some within the Roman curia of the counterfeit church of conciliaism believe that the “line” into heresy will be “crossed” if Jorge Mario Bergoglio succeeds in his desire to make it possible for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in the conciliar structures who lack the cover provided them by a diocesan tribunal’s decree of nullity to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Particular alarm in this regard has been caused by the Argentine Apostate’s telephone call to Jakelina Lisbona in which he assured her that she could “safely” approach for Holy Communion at the Novus Ordo liturgical service even though she is civilly married to a man who is divorced and lacks of a conciliar decree of marital nullity. Some in the curia inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River and outside thereof in offices on the Via della Concilizione and in the Trastevere district a few miles to the south of the Vatican along the Tiber are saying that the now infamous phone call, which was the subject of Jorge Cooks the Books, on Easter Thursday, April 24, 2014, represents a slippery slope into heresy:

If the gist of the pope’s call was accurately relayed – that the woman could receive Communion – that’s seen by some Vatican conservatives as crossing the Rubicon.

In this case, the woman had been told by her pastor that she could not receive Communion unless her husband received an annulment and the two were married in the church. Didn’t the pope undercut the authority of priests everywhere with his phone call? How are priests to respond when divorced Catholics come to them and declare: “But Father, the pope said it’s OK?”

It’s clear that Pope Francis wants the church to find a better pastoral solution to the situation of divorced and remarried Catholics, and all indications are that this fall’s Synod of Bishops will propose some changes – perhaps, as outlined by Cardinal Walter Kasper, a penitential practice that would allow divorced Catholics to receive Communion, with the understanding the church could tolerate, though not accept, second unions.

That idea has generated much debate among bishops and cardinals, and enthusiasm among many Catholics. But it is not playing so well inside the Vatican. “If that happens, we’ve crossed the line into heresy,” one official told me. (Curial Rumblings About A Man Who Won’t Be Filtered.)

It would relatively pointless to demonstrate yet again the numerous ways in which the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its “popes” and “bishops” have defected from the Catholic Faith, ceasing not to profess and reiterate an endless barrage of heresy while committing grave sacrileges, uttering blasphemies aplenty and provide ample proof of the era of apostasy in which we find ourselves at this time in salvation history. (For a ready-guide to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “laundry list” of offenses against the Holy Faith, see Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now.)

Just to provide a bit of perspective on the garment rending and teeth-gnashing taking place among some within the conciliar curia at this time, contrast the following infamous passage from Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, with the clearly Catholic teaching provided by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth”.(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.  (Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.)

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

The contrast could be clearer.

While individual Protestants may be validly baptized and can baptize others, each of whom falls away from the true Church thereafter, Protestant sects, which are not “churches,” have no valid means as “churches” sanctify anyone as they are nothing other than instruments of the devil himself.

Indeed, as has been noted before on this site, the devil has been bold enough to take complete authorship of the liturgical rites used by Protestants:

As the strange circumstances of Nicola’s possession became known everywhere, several Calvinist preachers came with their followers, to “expose this popish cheat,” as they said. On their entrance, the devil saluted them mockingly, called them by name, and told them that they had come in obedience to him. One of the preachers took his Protestant prayer book, and began to read it with a very solemn face. The devil laughed at him, and putting on a most comical look, he said: “Ho! Ho! My good friend; do you intend to expel me with your prayers and hymns? Do you think that they will cause me any pain? Don’t you know that they are mine? I helped to compose them!”

“I will expel thee in the name of God,” said the preacher, solemnly.

“You!” said the devil mockingly. “You will not expel me either in the name of God, or in the name of the devil. Did you ever hear of one devil driving out another?”

“I am not a devil,” said the preacher, angrily, “I am a servant of Christ.”

“A servant of Christ, indeed!” said Satan, with a sneer. “What! I tell you, you are worse than I am. I believe, and you do not want to believe. Do you suppose that you can expel me from the body of this miserable wretch? Ha! Go first and expel all the devils that are in your own heart!”

The preacher took his leave, somewhat discomfited. On going away, he said, turning up the whites of his eyes, “O Lord, I pray thee, assist this poor creature!”

And I pray Lucifer,” cried the evil spirit, “that he may never leave you, but may always keep you firmly in his power, as he does now. Go about your business, now. You are all mine, and I am your master.” (Father Michael Muller, C.SS.R., Exorcism of Nicola Aubrey.)

Unlike the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops,” Our Lady herself has sought the conversion of individual Protestants from time time, something that has been noted on this site numerous times concerning the example of the baptized Catholic, Pierre Port-Combet, who had converted to Calvinism and was later warned by Our Lady that he was going to Hell if he did not return to Catholic Church (see Do Not Permit Yourselves To Be Snookered.)

Obviously, this means nothing to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose impure mouth is a sewer of heresy and blasphemy, products of mind polluted by every Protestant, Judeo-Masonic and Modernist presupposition imaginable. It was only yesterday, Tuesday, May 6, 2014, the the Argentine Apostate went so far in his daily screed at the Casa Santa Marta as to state that the Catholic Faith is is not meant to be a “school of religion” that is concerned with enforcing “commandments:”

In his homily Pope Francis traced the path that led to the death of the first martyr of the Church, a death that was the exact replica of Christ’s. He, too, like Jesus , he said, had encountered “the jealousy of the leaders who were trying” to eliminate him. He too had “false witnesses” , a “rushed judgment”. Stephen warns them that are resisting the Holy Spirit, as Jesus had said , but “these people – said the Pope – were uneasy, were not at peace in their hearts”. These people , he added, had ” hatred ” in their heart . That is why, on hearing Stephen’s words, they were furious . “This hatred – said Pope Francis – was sown in their hearts by the devil”, “this is the devil’s hatred of Christ”.

The devil “who did what he wanted with Jesus Christ in his Passion now does the same” with Stephen. This “struggle between God and the devil” is clearly seen in martyrdom. “On the other hand, Jesus had told his disciples that they had to rejoice to be persecuted in his name: “To be persecuted, to be a martyr, to gives ones’ life for Jesus is one of the Beatitudes”. That is why, the Pope added , “the devil cannot stand seeing the sanctity of a church or the sanctity of a person, without trying to do something”. This is what he does with Stephen, but “he died like Jesus forgiving”.

“Martyrdom is the translation of a Greek word that also means witness. And so we can say that for a Christian the path follows in the footsteps of this witness, Christ’s footsteps, to bear witness to Him and, many times, this witness ends up in laying down one’s life . You cannot understand a Christian without witness. We are not a ‘ religion’ of ideas, of pure theology, beautiful things, of commandments. No, we are a people who follow Jesus Christ and bear witness – who want to bear witness to Jesus Christ – and sometimes this witness leads to laying down our lives”.

On Stephen’s death, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, “a severe persecution began against the Church in Jerusalem”. These people , the Pope observed , “felt strong and the devil provoked them to do this” and so “Christians scattered to the regions of Judea and Samaria”. This persecution, the Pope noted, means that “the people spread far and wide” and wherever they went they explained the Gospel , gave testimony of Jesus , and so “mission of the Church” began. “So many – he recalled – converted, on hearing these people”. One of the Fathers of the Church, explained this by saying : “The blood of martyrs is the seed of Christians”. With “their witness, they preach the faith” :

“Witness, be it in everyday life, in difficulties, and even in persecution and death, always bears fruit. The Church is fruitful and a mother when she witnesses to Jesus Christ. Instead , when the church closes in on itself , when it thinks of itself as a – so to speak – ‘school of religion’, with so many great ideas, with many beautiful temples, with many fine museums, with many beautiful things, but does not give witness, it becomes sterile. The Christian is the same. The Christian who does not bear witness, is sterile, without giving the life he has received from Jesus Christ”.

The Pope continued, “Stephen was filled with the Holy Spirit”, and “we cannot bear witness without the presence of the Holy Spirit in us”. Pope Francis advised those present: “In difficult times, where we have to choose the right path, where we have to say ‘no’ to a lot of things that maybe try to seduce us, there is prayer to the Holy Spirit, and He makes us strong enough to take this path of witness”: 

“Today thinking about these two icons – Stephen, who dies, and the people, the Christians, fleeing, scattering far and wide because of the violent persecution – let us ask: How is my witness? Am I a Christian who witnesses to Jesus or are a simple numerary in this sect ? Am I fruitful because I bear witness, or sterile because unable to let the Holy Spirit lead me forward in my Christian vocation?. (Church is not just a school of religion.)

This is enough to make a man want to weep with profound sorrow over the fact that a man who is thought by even most traditional Catholics in the world to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter can speak so blasphemously and in such a heretical manner while most people just “yawn” and dismiss the words of their “pope” as inconsequential because they are “unofficial” and not to be inserted in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Then again, heresy is inserted by the conciliar “popes” into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis on a regular basis while most Catholics today either ignore this fact or persist in the falsehood that a heretic can sit on the Throne of Saint Peter.

Leaving aside Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s continued airbrushing of Sacred Scripture, which in this case involved his choosing not to mention that Saint Stephen the Protomartyr was debating with Jews so as to seek their conversion and the fact that this transparently obsessed Modernist was once again attempting to assert that those who oppose him are subject him to a “martyrdom,” there are, among so many other citations that can be used, three passages, one from Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, and another from Pope Leo’s A Review of His Pontificate, May 19, 1902, and the final taken from Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, to demonstrate the diabolical grip that has hold of the dark, dark mind and proud heart of the Argentine Apostate:

Wherefore, as appears from what has been said, Christ instituted in the Church a living, authoritative and permanent Magisterium, which by His own power He strengthened, by the Spirit of truth He taught, and by miracles confirmed. He willed and ordered, under the gravest penalties, that its teachings should be received as if they were His own. As often, therefore, as it is declared on the authority of this teaching that this or that is contained in the deposit of divine revelation, it must be believed by every one as true. If it could in any way be false, an evident contradiction follows; for then God Himself would be the author of error in man. “Lord, if we be in error, we are being deceived by Thee” (Richardus de S. Victore, De Trin., lib. i., cap. 2). In this wise, all cause for doubting being removed, can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? – without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. “Whosoever shall offend in one point, is become guilty of all” (Ep. James ii., 10). Nay, it applies with greater force to an erroneous opinion. For it can be said with less truth that every law is violated by one who commits a single sin, since it may be that he only virtually despises the majesty of God the Legislator. But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. “In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them” (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel” (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3) . . . .

For God indeed even made the Church a society far more perfect than any other. For the end for which the Church exists is as much higher than the end of other societies as divine grace is above nature, as immortal blessings are above the transitory things on the earth. Therefore the Church is a society divine in its origin, supernatural in its  end and in means proximately adapted to the attainment of that end; but it is a human community inasmuch as it is composed of men. For this reason we find it called in Holy Writ by names indicating a perfect society. It is spoken of as the House of God, the city placed upon the mountain to which all nations must come. But it is also the fold presided over by one Shepherd, and into which all Christ’s sheep must betake themselves. Yea, it is called the kingdom which God has raised up and which will stand for ever. Finally it is the body of Christ – that is, of course, His mystical body, but a body living and duly organized and composed of many members; members indeed which have not all the same functions, but which, united one to the other, are kept bound together by the guidance and authority of the head. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar apostates stand condemned as they do indeed take from the Gospel what they want while at the same time disparaging the beauty and perfections of Holy Mother Church, the spotless, mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in order to make it appear that she has any other mission than to keep entirely pure and intact the doctrines that has received from Him, a mission that she continues to fulfill in the Catholic underground today at a time when her buildings are occupied by interloping apostates.

Consider once again the following words taken from Pope Leo XIII’s Satis Cognitum:

And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. “You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel.” (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Behold the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and, among so many others, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez, men who do indeed “take from Christian doctrine what they please,” thereby leaning on “their own judgments, not on faith.” To disparage the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church the way that these men do almost without cease is sickening beyond words. These men crossed the “Rubicon” decades ago. Anyone who does not see this is willfully blind to the truth.

Quite unlike the conciliar revolutionaries, Pope Saint Pius V, whose feast we celebrated two days ago now, that is, on Monday, May 5, 2014, sought to protect the integrity of Catholic doctrine down to its last detail, and he was intent on punishing heretics when many of the crowned heads of the kingdoms of what remained of Catholic Europe believed that was more efficacious to give the murderous heretic, Queen Elizabeth I, “time” to convert rather than excommunicating her:

At first, Pius V, as his predecessor, Pius IV, had entertained some hope of Elizabeth’s conversion and encouraged certain projects in this regard. But once finding that she was not to be trusted, he took the view that she was “a delinquent wearing a crown” and made public reference to her as a “pretended queen.”

On the other hand, event in Mary’s [Queen of Scots] life, and her third marriage to the Earl of Bothwell had made Rome diffident to her cause. Pope Pius himself appears to have regained full confidence in her from reassurances reaching him through diplomatic channels, and from Mary’s sincerity and piety. Yet he still felt it necessary to encourage her, through her Paris envoy, to persevere and not weaken in her attachment to the Holy See. In a letter sent to Pius at the end of 1569, Mary told the Pope there was no truth in the report made to Philip of Spain that she was wavering; deprived of the means of Catholic worship, she had listened to the prayers of a Protestant minister–that was all. She humbly asked penance if she had erred in so doing. This removed all diffidence, and Pius now wrote unreservedly that he was certain no threat would ever be able to sever her from Communion and obedience to the Holy See. Still hoping in help from her from the kings of France and Spain, he declared himself convinced that her misfortunes had come upon her for having kept and defended the Catholic Faith, and consoled her with the words of Christ: “Happy are they that suffer persecution for justice’s sake.”

When Cardinal Inquistor, Pius had granted certain English priests faculties for re-admitting schismatics into the Catholic Church, the only condition then having been to refrain from reception of the Protestant eucharist. In 1567, as Pope, he made the further, more rigorous condition of non-attendance at Protestant services. The effects of this were positive, some of the priests in question reporting an end to considerable wavering. More and more Catholics, mostly of the older generation, refused to take part in Anglican worship, professing their faith courageously before magistrates and willingly accepting penalties and imprisonment; but they expressed their fears for their children and the younger ones listening to heretical preaching.

Writing in 1561 to the Cardinal Protector of England, Cardinal Morone, the Welsh priest and jurist Dr. Morus Clynnog (the one-time confidante of Cardinal Pole and future warden Rome’s English hospice) had told him it was quite untrue the English, as it was rumored, could not bear the thought of a foreign monarch, which restoration of Catholicism by force of arms would mean: many felt it were “better to go to Heaven under foreign leadership than be dragged to Hell by an enemy at home.” By the end of that decade, hopes in Mary Stuart had risen high and it was thought that, if help could come from Spain, she might in a short time be made queen. But Spain had enough on her hands dealing with the Moors and Marranos, as well as the revolt in the Netherlands; and English Catholics had scruples (a factor brought out by the historian Charles Edwards) about fighting an anointed prince until such time as she had been declared a heretic by Rome. Part of the mission of the Cambridge theologian,  Dr. Nicholas Morton, penitentiary at St. Peter’s and warden of the English hospice, who travelled to England as Pius’ envoy in 1569, was therefore to sound the Catholics of the realm concerning the question of Elizabeth’s possible excommunication.

Dr. Morton returned to Rome shortly before the rising organized by the Northern Earls who had written to the Pope for support in their endeavor to free Mary. Pius had replied, urging them to be constant and courageous in the event of their having to shed their blood for the Faith and the Pope’s authority.

On learning of the failure of the rising after the momentary triumph in Durham, and that Elizabeth had ruthlessly sentenced nearly a thousand persons to torture and death, Pius V was almost alone in raising his voice in protest and condemnation of the queen’s actions. Most European monarchs remained silent for reasons of political interest.

Pope Pius received the counsels of English refugees in Rome, almost all in favor of restoration by force of arms, but did not allow himself to be determined by them knowing that they had not been in direct contact with England for some time. But on Dr. Morton’s return toward the end of 1569 he had the English queen advised that proceedings according to the Church’s canons were to be instituted against her. The papal envoy’s evidence, anyway, along with that of other Englishmen proscribed  for their religion, 12 in all, including a number of those resident in the English hopsice, served as basis in drawing up the Bull of excommunication Regnans in excelcsis. The 12 were formally questioned about something known to all; but legal proof was required by legal proceedings.

In February 1570, after spending days in prayer and fasting, Pius V finally put his signature to the Bull placing Elizabeth under the ban of the Church. The Bull was founded upon the Supreme Pontiff’s right to preserve the members of the one true Church from peril of corruption, and to punish apostates. By virtue of the powers conferred on him, the Pope declared the English queen guilty of heresy, and of upholding heresy, thereby incurring excommunication from the fold and forfeiting her pretended right to the crown of England. Her subjects were no longer bound by their oath of allegiance to her and under pain of excommunication might not themselves lend her obedience.

The Emperor Maximilian [II of Germany], influenced by the English ambassador, wrote urging the Pope even then not to have the Bull promulgated. The King of Spain, complaining that he had not been consulted, objected that zeal was not enough to guarantee success and that such an act would worsen the situation of English Catholics.

But Pius’ mind was made up. Rome had waited more than a decade, during which one appeal after another had reached Elizabeth in vain. Crowned according to Catholic rites, she had sworn to govern as a Catholic monarch. But almost immediately violating her coronation oath, and repudiating the Pope’s authority, she had begun to destroy the Catholic Faith and persecute the Church. The chief reason Pius V gave for having the Bull published was the prayers of English Catholics. His intention, he told the Spanish ambassador, was to give courage; and as the Catholics of England had requested justice against Elizabeth, he could not in conscience refuse. (Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, pp. 44-49.)

As we know, Regnans in Exclesis, which was promulgated on March 5, 1570, is held in contempt by the conciiar authorities. Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his pal Walter “Cardinal” Kasper treat the Anglican sect as having a legitimate “tradition” alongside the heretical and schismatic Orthodox and what they think is the Catholic Church herself. And it must never be forgotten by anyone prone to getting lost in the trees of Bergoglio’s screeds against the Holy Faith that none other than Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI accepted the Anglican “liturgical books,” which were deemed heretical by Pope Saint Pius V in Regnans n Excelsis, as perfectly acceptable for use by Anglican converts to the conciliar church, which he decreed in Anglicanorum Coetibus, November 9, 2009. It is furthermore the case that Ratzinger/Benedict, following the example of the soon-to-be “Blessed” Paul The Sick, and “Saint John Paul the Great, saw fit to offend the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and to defame the English Martyrs by giving a “joint blessing” with Anglican layman Rowan Williams in Westminster Cathedral on Friday, September 17, 2010:

What was that I was saying about no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio a few months ago now?

I am unaware of anyone in the Motu or even in the “resist while recognize” camps who said word one, at least publicly, as to how their beloved “pope” of Summorum Pontificum, Judely 7, 2007, offended God and defamed the English Martyrs by entering into the seized property of the Catholic Church and attempting to give a “blessing” with an Anglican layman. No, to do this would have been to “offend” the beloved “pontiff, who issued Summorum Pontificum precisely to “pacify the spirits” of traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciiiar structures in order that they might accept, even if by silence, apostate acts such as the one pictured just above.

Although they differ in style, rhetoric and areas of emphasis, the the former and the current universal faces of public apostasy are as one in showing themselves to have no regard the immutability of the Sacred Deposit of Faith while treating as entirely nonbinding any papal decrees and statements that they do not “like,” thus making of the Holy Faith their personal plaything.

The future of such men is, of course, very bright in the conciliar church as they can look forward to eventual “beatification” and “canonization” by their successors. We have just seen this with “Saint John the Rosicrucian” and “Saint John Paul the Showman.” The brave new world of conciliar “beatifications” is about to feature a new beatus, none of than the aforementioned “Blessed” Paul The Sick:

Giovanni Battista Montini’s beatification is near: this morning cardinals and bishops of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints unanimously approved the miracle attributed to the intercession of the Italian Pope from Brescia, who died in August 1978. The year which marked the canonization of two Popes – John XXIII and John Paul II – will also be the year of Paul VI’s beatification. In the next few days Pope Francis will be promulgating the decree on the miracle attributed to the late Pope and the date suggested for the actual beatification is 19 October. The beatification is expected to take place in Rome on the occasion of the concluding ceremony of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family: it was Paul VI himself who established the Synod in September 1965 in response to a request made by the Council fathers. It should be noted that next August will mark the 50th anniversary of the publication of Paul VI’s first big encyclical, the “Ecclesiam Suam”, which he wrote and edited entirely by himself. 

The miracle attributed to the intercession of Paul VI was witnessed in the United States in 2001. It involved the healing of an unborn child, which was found to have serious problems and a high risk of brain damage: the foetus’ bladder was damaged and doctors reported ascites (presence of liquid in the abdomen) and anhydramnios (absence of fluid in the amniotic sac). All attempts to correct the problem proved futile and in the end the doctors said the child would either die in the womb or it would be born with severe renal impairment. Abortion was offered as an option but the mother refused. Instead, she took the advice given to her by a nun who was a friend of the family and had met Montini: she decided to pray for Paul VI’s intercession using a fragment of the Pope’s vestments which the nun had given her. 

Ten weeks later the results of the medical tests showed a substantial improvement in the child’s health and it was born by Caesarean section in the 39th week of pregnancy. The case was presented to the former Postulator of the Cause, the Jesuit Paolo Molinari – who passed away last week – in Rome. Faith weekly Credere revealed that the diocesan inquiry was launched in 2003 and all witnesses agree that the case in question cannot be explained scientifically. 

The child has made it to thirteen and his health is constantly monitored to ensure that his psychophysical state is normal. Doctors are especially keeping an eye on the child’s renal function. On 12 December last year the medical consultation of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints headed by Professor Patrizio Polisca, confirmed the impossibility of explaining the healing and the dicastery’s theologians gave their approval last 18 February.G Benedict XVI promulgated Paul VI’s heroic virtues on 20 December 2012. (Montini to Join the Ranks of the Patheon of False Idols’ Triple A Affiliate.)

Lest anyone attempt to say  that this “Paul the VI” was faithful to the Catholic Church or that, to paraphrase what a pastor in the conciliar structures wrote  in online musings about the “canonizations” of “John XXIII” and “John Paul II” that were brought to my attention, “loved God with all his heart,” it must be remembered that it was Monsignor Giovanni Martini who betrayed Catholic priests behind the Iron Curtain to Soviet agents who had the “goods” on his depraved moral behavior. The stuff of the “love of God”? Not so. Not so.

Yes, yes, of course, that can be “overlooked” in the conciliar process of “beatification” and “canonization,” especially in light of all the “good” that Montini did as “Pope Paul VI:”  The new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, whose precepts were outlined in his first encyclical letter, Ecclesiam Suam, August 6, 1964, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, new rules for Scriptural exegesis, episcopal collegiality, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, the appointment of homosexual men as “bishops,” the destruction of the rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination, the revival of the permanent diaconate, endless praise for the United Nations as the last “hope” of man for “concord” on earth, etc.  As a conciliar presbyter, himself a “monsignor” now,  told me on Palm Sunday in 1986 just a few months before Assisi I occurred, “Tom, the Saracens themselves could not have done of better job of destruction” than the conciliarists themselves.

“Blessed Paul the VI”?

As the late Father Luigi Villa documented so thoroughly, Paul VI Beatfied? Never!  This book should be read by anyone who wants to have ready ammunition unless they know a putative “monsignor” in the conciliar structures who wants to claim publicly that Giovanni Montini “loved God with all his heart.” Passages from this book will be included in various articles once Jorge Mario Bergoglio signs the decree for “beatification” and sets the date for the travesty to take place.

Remember, the actions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are not those of the Catholic Church.

Although the conciliarists have to hunt around for alleged “miracles” to induct their Modernist forebears into the Patheon of False Idols, this was not the case with Pope Saint Pius V, who was not canonized until 1712, fully one hundred forty years after his death on May 1, 1572:

Clement XI canonized Pius V in 1712, in St. Mary Major’s Basilica. Miracles attributed to his intercession were by this time so numerous and proven as only to need selection for the two required by the canonization process. Among them were cures of sick persons, deliverance of the possessed, punishment of criminals and innumerable spiritual and physical graces especially through Agnus Dei images blessed by him. Robin Anderson, St. Pius V: A Brief Account of His Life, Times, Virtues & Miracles, published originally by St. Michael’s Press in 1973 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1978, p. 97.)

Yes, In Death As In Life: The Antithesis Of Christ The King, Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, stands as a contrast to the truly holy Dominican wonder worker, Pope Saint Pius V, whose Missale Romanum Montini dared to replace in order to facilitate his “dialogue” with Protestants and the “world.”

Behold the wretched results.


Today is the Solemnity of Saint Joseph in Paschaltide and the Commemoration of the Bishop-Martyr, Saint Stanislaus.

We need to intensify our devotions to Our Lady’s Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, who is the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the faithful, that his prayers will help us to be steadfast in this time of apostasy and betrayal we suffer through the Mystical Passion, Death and Burial of His foster-Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with the spirit of perfect resignation as characterized the founder of the Congregation of the Passion, Saint Paul of the Cross, and Saint Louis Grignion de Montfort, who saw many of his plans, including his magnificent Calvary scene, come to nothing in this life so that they could bear fruit in eternity. Saint Joseph, who did God’s Holy Will with promptness, will help us to be as patient in the carrying the crosses that we must bear in this era of apostasy and betrayal as was he and as were Saints Paul of the Cross and Louis de Montfort.

The very saint whose martyrdom in 1079 we commemorate today, Saint Stanislaus, stood up to the immorality of his own brother, Boleslaus, who governed in a wicked manner. We must stand up to evil in our own lives, rooting it out from our souls in cooperation with the graces sent to us by Our Lord through Our Lady’s loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces, and fear never to call it by its proper name in the world or in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has made its reconciliation with its false, anti-Incarnational and religiously indifferentist premises.

The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Our daily praying of as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit will help to plant a few seeds for this great victory as we endeavor to make reparation to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through that same Immaculate Heart for our sins and those of the whole world, keeping in mind once again these words of Pope Pius XI, contained in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:

We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

Although we pray most fervently for Catholics still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and recognize the simple truth that most of us who, solely by means of the graces of Our Lady and through no merits of our own, cling to the Catholic Church are not better than–and probably, at least in my case, far worse than–they, we must nevertheless be about the serious business of refusing communion with apostasy no matter how many names we are called

Vivat Chistus 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 Stanislaus, pray for us.

Viscerally Speaking, part two

As was pointed out yesterday in part one of this two-part commentary, we should expect the world to be plunged into the darkness of visceral emotionalism more than would be the case otherwise when the man who is accepted and recognized by most people in the world as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, speaks in visceral terms as he swats away at imaginary straw men in order to present himself as one who is “liberating” the “people” from restrictive rules and commandments.

The Argentine Apostate is relentless in his demagogic use of visceral rhetoric to denigrate those who, despite their own sins and failings, adhere to everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith without exception and without complaint solely because they love God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church. The false “pontiff” was particularly vicious during the “lesson” he gave during his Ding Dong School Of Apostasy on Friday, May 2, 2014, the Feast of Saint Athanasius:

The Pope’s homily drew from the Gospel of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes and the reading from the Acts of the Apostles, in which Christ’s disciples are flogged by the Sanhedrin. Pope Francis proposed three icons: the first is Jesus’ love for people, his attention to peoples’ problems. He said the Lord is not concerned with how many people follow him, he would “never even thinks of taking a census” to see if “the Church has grown … no! He speaks, preaches, loves, accompanies, travels on the path with people, meek and humble”. He speaks with authority, that is, with “the power of love”.

The second icon is the “jealousy” of the religious authorities of the time: “They couldn’t stand the fact that people followed Jesus! They couldn’t stand it! They were jealous. This is a really bad attitude to have. Jealousy and envy, and we know that the father of envy” is “the devil”. It was through his envy that evil came into the world”. Pope Francis continued: “These people knew who Jesus was: they knew! These people were the same who had paid the guard to say that the disciples had stolen Christ’s body!”.

“They had paid to silence the truth. People can be really evil sometimes! Because when we pay to hide the truth, we are [committing] a very great evil. And that’s why people knew who they were. They would not follow them, but they had to tolerate them because they had authority: the authority of the cult, the authority of the ecclesiastical discipline at that time, the authority of the people … and the people followed. Jesus said that they weighed people down with oppressive weights and made them carry them on their shoulders. These people cannot tolerate the meekness of Jesus, they cannot tolerate the meekness of the Gospel, they cannot tolerate love. And they pay out of envy, out of hate”.

During the gathering of the Sanhedrin there is a “wise man”, Gamaliel, who asks the religious leaders to free the apostles. Thus, the Pope insists, there are these first two icons: Jesus who is moved to see people “without a shepherd” and the religious authorities …

“These, with their political maneuvering, with their ecclesiastical maneuvers to continue to dominate the people … And so, they bring forth the apostles, after this wise man had spoken, the called the apostles and had them flogged and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus. Then they freed them. ‘We have to do something, we will give them a sound hiding and send them on their way! . Unjust! but they did it. They were the masters of conscience [thought police], and felt they had the power to do so. Masters of conscience … Even in today’s world , there are so many”.

Then Pope Francis confessed: “I cried when I saw reports on the news of Christians crucified in a certain country, that is not Christian. Still today – he pointed out – there are these people who kill and persecute, in the name of God. Still today, “we see many who” like the apostles “rejoice that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor in Christ’s name”. This – he said – “is the third icon today. The Joy of witness”.

“First icon: Jesus with people, his love, the path that He has taught us, which we should follow. The second icon: the hypocrisy of these religious leaders of the people, who had people imprisoned with these many commandments, with this cold, hard legality, and who also paid to hide the truth. Third icon: the joy of the Christian martyrs, the joy of so many of our brothers and sisters who have felt this joy in history, this joy that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for Christ’s name. And today there are still so many! Just think that in some countries, you can go to jail for just carrying a Gospel. You may not wear a crucifix or you will be fined. But the heart rejoices. The three icons: let us look at them today. This is part of our history of salvation”. (Argentine Apostate Weeps for Christians Still Crucified.)

This “homily” has several remarkable features to it.

First, Bergoglio’s remarks are meant to conflate the real suffering of Catholics today in various parts of the world, which he is correct to identify and to condemn, with the imagined “suffering” imposed upon followers of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by “religious hypocrites” who “had people imprisoned with these many commandments” and who hold to a  “cold, hard legality.”

By doing this, of course, Bergoglio was attempting to compare the state-sponsored persecution of Catholics and other baptized Christians with the “rigidity” that existed in his mythical “no church” that he outlined almost precisely a year to the day previously. He is the “liberator” who is in “solidarity” with those who suffer from state-sponsored persecution and those who have “suffered” and might still be “suffering” toady at the hands of “religious hypocrites” who consider themselves to be the “masters of conscience.”

Second, Jorge Mario Bergoglio completely ignored the true meaning of the Gospel passage read at the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service four days ago.

The miracle of the multiplication of the loaves of the fishes as recorded verses one through fifteen of Chapter Six of the Gospel according to Saint John, who is celebrated liturgically today, Tuesday, May 6, 2014, for the time in which he survived the effort to boil him alive at the Latin Gate (which is recounted in the final part of this commentary), was a prelude to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Eucharistic Discourse, which is read in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Order liturgical service on Thursday and Friday of this week, which is called the “Third Week of Easter” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

While it is still possible that Begoglio will preach about the Holy Eucharist later this week, it is nevertheless telling that he chose to emphasize Our Lord’s desire to satisfy the hunger of the people without also at least mentioning that he meant to prepare them for His discourse on the Holy Eucharist after they had found him in the synagogue across the Sea of Galilee in Capharnaum. Bergoglio, however, will likely use his screeds on Thursday and Friday of this week to once again compare believing Catholics with the Jews who walked away from Our Lord after He had satiated their whose physical hunger. Every Gospel passage, it would appear, provides him with an opportunity use his visceral demagoguery to denounce believing Catholics.

Third, although I have not suffered through the Easter cycle of weekday liturgies at the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service since 2001, it is my recollection that May 2nd is the Feast of Saint Athanasius on the conciliar calendar as it is in the calendar of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Let me check.

Hold on.

Thanks for your patience.

Here’s the answer: It is.

Yes, May 2nd is still what is called an obligatory “memorial” of Saint Athanasius what is purported to be the Roman Rite of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Why is this relevant?

Well, this is now the second straight year that the Argentine Apostate has conducted his Ding Dong School of Apostasy at the Casa Santa Marta inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River without making any reference to the great foe of Arianism, Saint Athanasius. Then again, how can an Arian find anything to praise about Saint Athanasius.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the visceral street fighter and professional ecclesiastical agitator who just loves to “make a mess” of things at the “retail level,” if you will,” for “conservative” “bishops” and presbyters, is a master demagogue as he is the one who is crucifying Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ mystically today by means of his being a serial killer of souls. This unreconstructed Modernist revolutionary loves to tickle the itching ears of Catholics who are unrepentant as their persist in lives of wanton sin while at the same time reaffirming non-Catholics in their false religions, assuring one and all that “doing good” is the only thing required by God to save one’s immortal soul.

Obviously, Jorge Mario Begoglio has accomplices aplenty in his false church of whom is steeped in the viscera of the profanity and vulgarity of the world just as much as he is. Indeed, the entire ethos born as a result of Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965, and enshrined within the General Instruction to the Roman Missal that governs stagings of the hideous Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service celebrates man, the world and the worldly. 

The so-called “papal” extravaganza liturgies that were designed by “Archbishop” Piero Marini at the specific behest of “Saint John Paul II” were nothing other than celebrations of the decadent, of the profane, of the vulgar and of the “traditions” of paganism or barbarism of peoples whose ancestors had been converted to the true Faith by Catholic missionaries who eradicated all deviltry and false worship from their midst. Rather than serve as a protective shield against the corrupting influence of the world, the ethos of conciliarism and the liturgies which enshrine and express it entices people to be immersed in a world of sin, licentiousness, blasphemy, sacrilege and utter indecency.

Consider the fact that a conciliar pastor in Amsterdam, New York, which is located in the ecclesiastical sewer known as the Diocese of Albany (which was my home diocese when I lived in Albany and then Troy, New York, between December 18, 1973, and June 30, 1976, while pursuing my doctorate at the State University of New York at Albany), has declared that a school attached to his parish, Saint Mary’s Institute, would celebrate “The Year of Lady Gaga.” To quote the late Jack Paar, “I kid you not” (the late Johnny Carson stole this line from his predecessor as the host of The Tonight Show):

Buyer beware those promising a “Catholic education.”

Saint Mary’s Institute is the Catholic grade school in my wife’s New York hometown, Amsterdam. It is affiliated with Saint Mary’s Catholic Church, whose pastor Rev. John Medwid pens the opening to the Saint Mary’s Institute annual newsletter.

“In September at the opening Mass I officially announced that this was going to be the Year of Our Lady at SMI,” the letter began.

How nice. Except that’s not what he wrote. There was someone else he had in mind to honor besides the Virgin Mary.

“In September at the opening Mass I officially announced that this was going to be the Year of Lady Gaga at SMI.”

That’s what he proclaimed. Apparently during mass, too. Why Lady Gaga? Was every other living or dead female or male on planet Earth or anywhere else unavailable? The answer, he explains, is “complex,” which is a euphemism for scandalous.

First, he writes, “many people may not realize that Lady Gaga is the product of Catholic education.” (To which the response would be: so was Hitler.) Her real name, he tells us, is Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta, as if she were some obscure Italian saint. She is a graduate of the Convent of the Sacred Heart, where — and here we’re getting to the point — “she was someone who followed her own path … It takes a great deal of courage especially for young people to blaze their own trails in life!”

Exactly which trail blazed should Catholic children find commendable?

Was it her attire during the nationally broadcast MTV Video Music Awards last year, watched by millions of children — a thong?

Was it her video earlier this year in which she simulates all manner of sexual activities while bizarrely “resurrecting” from their tombs Michael Jackson, Mahatma Gandhi and — maybe this was it? — Jesus Christ?

Was it her song “Judas” in which she proclaims: “I’m still in love with Judas, baby. Jesus is my virtue,” but “Judas is the demon that I cling to”?

Was it how she constantly promotes gay themes in her music and bashes the military for its treatment of gays? Or maybe she’s a trailblazer of another sort.

Speaking at a gay-left dinner in 2011, President Barack Obama began by joking, “I took a trip out to California last week, where I held some productive bilateral talks with your leader, Lady Gaga.”

Medwid’s second reason for having a Catholic grade school honor Lady Gaga is also vague. It is “to highlight her immense creativity.”

Was Medwid impressed when Lady Gaga said of Pope Benedict XVI, “What the Pope thinks of being gay does not matter to the world”?

Maybe it was the video “Alejandro” he found so immensely creative. In it she dressed in a nun’s habit, swallowed a rosary and engaged in simulated erotic activities with her male backup dancers. As the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue put it, Lady Gaga “has now become the new poster girl for American decadence and Catholic bashing.”

Maybe it was her “Marry the Night” music video in which she depicts herself having an abortion.

Maybe it was the song she deliberately released on Christmas Day, “Stuck on F—-in You” (and no, nothing’s edited in the song).

Maybe it’s other creative talents grade school children can admire. A couple of years ago Lady Gaga released a new fragrance called “Fame.” She referred to the scent as “a very slutty perfume.” She boasted: “It was taken out of my own blood sample, so it’s a sense of having me on your skin. I wanted to extract sort of the feeling and sense of blood and semen … “

Or is it just her mind we should celebrate, as when she stated on an MTV program in 2010: “For me this evening, if we don’t stand up for what we believe in, and if we don’t fight for our rights pretty soon, we’re going to have as much rights as the meat on our own bones. And, I’m not a piece of meat.”

That statement by Lady Gaga makes just about as much sense as a supposedly Catholic grade school, bearing the highest of responsibilities – providing a moral education to children — honoring her. (Conciliar School Celebrates Year of Lady Gaga.)

What is shocking about this is story is not the fact that a formerly Catholic school in conciliar captivity has chosen to honor a vile, vulgar, coarse and profane “entertainer” who loves to “celebrate” her sinful life as a “human right.” What is shocking is that Brent Bozell III is shocked by the story.

I mean, doesn’t this professional “conservative” follow the debauchery that passes for liturgical ceremonies in what he thinks is the Catholic Church?

Hasn’t he seen the evidence of “Cardinal” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s clown liturgies and balloon liturgies in Argentina?

Isn’t he aware of how the “gay agenda” is celebrated in diocese after diocese around the world?

Has he no sense of horror about the evil that is “rock music” in se, no less that this evil has been institutionalized at “papal” liturgies, including the gigantic display of indecency and decadence and liturgical sacrileges that go by the name of “World Youth Day.”

Has he not seen the antics of a “Father” Ray Kelly in Ireland, who sang a naturalistic “love” song after the distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service during a wedding, which just happened to have taken place right smack in the middle of Lent this year, April 9, 2014?

The video of Fr Ray Kelly’s unique version of the often-covered song was filmed at the weekend and has been watched on YouTube more than 2.7 million times in the space of four days.

The parish priest of Oldcastle, County Meath, told BBC Radio Ulster’s Talkback programme that the couple had no idea what was going to happen.

“Normally local people know I sing at weddings, funerals or when I’m asked, but they didn’t know – the bride Leah is from Dublin and the groom Chris is from Cookstown in County Tyrone,” he said.

“They were having their reception at a hotel about 10 miles away and chose our church.

“We had the rehearsal on Thursday evening and at the end I said, ‘sure maybe I’ll sing an aul song for you myself’ – Leah grinned and said ‘OK sure’ but I don’t think she was taking it too seriously.”

‘Standing ovation’

Fr Kelly changed the original lyrics to be more suitable for a wedding. It begins: “We join together here today, to help two people on their way.”

The video was filmed by a company owned by County Tyrone man Patrick Rushe, who said he was amazed by the reception it has received online.

He said he was just as surprised as anyone in the church when the priest began singing the song.

“The band Sunlight who had been doing the music for the wedding had just finished singing when he put on the backing track, but people were still looking at them as they didn’t know where the music was coming from – they were shaking their heads and saying it wasn’t them.

“At the end of the song he got a standing ovation.

“The couple are on their way to Mexico for their honeymoon but I sent them the link and they know it has been really popular,” he said.

“Chris says it’s madness while Leah says her dad is freaking out, in a good way.”

Fr Kelly is a trained singer who is currently working on his third album.

“I keep saying this will be my last because this year I’m 25 years a priest – I do it to make a few bob for local charities,” he said.

“I enjoy singing but I wouldn’t want to do it full time – I love what I’m doing as a priest.

“The way I look at it is, it’s a gift one has, and if you have a gift you use it.” (Singing Priest’s Hallelujah Wows Wedding Guests”.)

Isn’t Mr. Bozell aware that the Catholic Church, which is not to be confused with the counterfeit church of conciliarism, bans Nuptial Masses during Lent?

Doesn’t Mr. Bozell know that profane music is not be played during what is considered to be the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in atonement for our sins?

Sure, the “Year of Lady Gaga” is outrageous. Granted. Stipulated.

Does Mr. Brent Bozell III, however, really believe that the celebration of a supposedly “Catholic”-trained lesbian “entertainer,” who is prone, from what I have read, to give rather unkind gestures now and again, something that I believe she did at the now-defunct William A. Shea Municipal Stadium in Flushing Meadows, Queens, New York, at some point in the latter part of the last decade, is going to arouse the ire of the man he believes is “Pope” Francis?

Has “Pope” Francis said one word about “Father” Ray Kelly?

Has “Pope” Francis said one word about Suor Cristina and her own profane, vulgar and indecent celebration of the horrors of “rock music” and a Pelagian ballad of self-redemption called “Heroes,” including a performance shown during Holy Week, of all times, on Italian television?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio loves the profane and the vulgar as his own world revolves around revolutionary precepts grounded in visceral desire to show false “mercy” to “the people” as he “liberates” them from the “religious hypocrites” who use “cold commandments” to imprison and enslave them, thus brewing resentment, he believes, against “religion” and those who practice it.

Yes, so many “conservatives” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Mr. Bozell among them, it would appear, are loathe to admit, at least publicly that the ethos of the conciliaism is opposed to Catholicism or that, perhaps more to the point, the current universal public face of apostasy looks very benignly at those who celebrate the “gay lifestyle,” including the conciliar “bishop” of Saltillo, Mexico, Jose Raul Vera Lopez.

Here is a reminder for those of you who may be as much in the dark as Mr. Bozell about “Bishop” Jose Raul Vera Lopez:

Jose Raul Vera Lopez, the conciliar “ordinary” of the Diocese of Saltillo, Mexico, has called those who believe that “gay people” are deranged or deprived are “mentally ill.”

Here is a brief report from Clerical Whispers, which, amazingly enough, defended Jose Raul Vera Lopez’s assertion:

A Mexican Catholic bishop who has been a strong supporter of LGBT issues has declared that homophobia is a “mental illness.” Is that really an accurate classification?

The Billerico Project is reporting on an interview given by Bishop Jose Raul Vera Lopez to a television show, “Terra Mexico,” in which he stated:

“Why would I immediately think a gay or lesbian person is perverse or depraved the moment they approach me? That’s how people who are homophobic react. It’s a mental illness in which you see gays as depraved and promiscuous. You have to be sick in the head for that.”

“They are human beings and deserve respect. The Holy Father knows it’s a. . . .I am certain he knows because the reality is that many in the church do not want to acknowledge the scientific reality on the issue of sexuality. They want to keep homosexuality as a form of human perversion, an illness. But that is no longer the case, scientifically speaking. “

“We just have to read the Bible more carefully within a historical context and within a real context. The Biblical texts we have used to bash the heads of homosexuals to say they are condemned by the Bible? We have to read them much more carefully.” (Mexican Apostate Supports Perversity.)

This is pretty standard fare amongst the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Chancery office after chancery office around the world is composed of such men as Jose Raul Vera Lopez. Numerous parishes around the world are staffed by priests/presbyters and “pastoral assistants” who speak in the exact same manner as Jose Raul Vera Lopez, O.P, who was installed as a conciliar presbyter by none other than Paul The Sick on June 29, 1975, and was installed as a conciliar “bishop” by a man who protected moral derelicts, none other than “Saint John Paul the Great,” on January 6, 1998.

Jose Raul Vera Lopez, O.P., however, has some special distinctions that qualify him to speak in the way that he did on a Mexican television station.

Randy Engel wrote an article last year that enumerated these distinctions that qualify Jose Raul Vera Lopez, O.P., to speak as he did:

The recent controversy over a Mexican “gay Catholic ministry” called the San Elredo Comunidad or the Lesbian and Gay Community of San Elredo, an official organ of the Diocese of Saltillo, Coahuila, Mexico, headed by Dominican Bishop José Raúl Vera López, O.P., illustrates how well these politically-based and politically motivated Trojan horses serve the Homosexual Collective, as opposed to serving God, the Catholic Church, and the individuals caught up in the vice of sexual perversions who need to be extricated from the Collective.

The San Elredo Community is an “inclusive” ministry which caters to male homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, transvestites, leather and bondage devotees, sadomasochists, and a sundry of other “sexual orientations.” It was founded in 2002 by former New York publicist, Robert F. Coogan, who was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Saltillo by Bishop Vera López.

Somewhere between his birth on June 21, 1945, in the city of Acámbaro in the southeastern corner of the Mexican state of Guanajuato, and his ordination to the priesthood in Rome by Pope Paul VI and his being awarded a series of bishoprics from 1987 to 1999 by Pope John Paul II, Bishop Vera López must have found the clerical goose that laid the golden egg. His ascent up the hierarchical career ladder appears to have been rapid and seamless.

Three years after his installation in Saltillo, the Dominican political activist bishop formally took up the cause of “Gay Liberation.” His growing reputation as a pro-homosexual apologist, earned him a speaker’s spot at the 15th Anniversary National Association Of Catholic Diocesan Lesbian And Gay Ministries (renamed the Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry) held in Long Beach, California in 2008, and an invitation by the Archdiocese of Los Angeles to appear on a panel titled “Gay and Lesbian Catholics: Church Teaching and Pastoral Approaches” at one of Cardinal Roger Mahony’s notorious Religious Education gigs in March 2010.

Bishop Vera López has been an open promoter of “civil unions” legislation and extended legal benefits for homosexuals in the State of Coahuila, but has “drawn the line” at homosexual “marriages.” He is a vehement opponent of “homophobia” which he states needs to be erased from peoples’ hearts. He believes that “gays” are victims of discrimination and societal marginalization.

The Dominican prelate backs the pro-homosexual functions and projects of the San Elredo Comunidad including its participation in “Gay Pride” celebrations, and has welcomed to his diocese homosexual activists like British ex-Dominican James Alison.

According to Alison, who makes his regular rounds to Catholic “gay parishes” in the United States including Most Holy Redeemer in the Castro District of San Francisco, “Church authority has become aware that the advent of ‘matters gay’ in recent years may not primarily center on sexual ethics at all. Rather, it concerns an emerging anthropological truth about a regular, normal and non-pathological variant within the human condition.

San Elredo’s founder and main man, Fr. Robert Coogan, is a native of Long Island, N.Y. and is one of 14 children. His brother is also a pastor (who told the press that large family living was a “a way to learn tolerance and appreciation of diversity….”) [3]

In the meantime, Fr. Coogan is busy teaching tolerance and acceptance of sodomy and other forms of same-sex perversions and proselytizing Mexican Catholics in the Saltillo Diocese on the virtues of “diversity” and what a “blessing” homosexuals are for the world. “The world could not exist without homosexuals,” he says. [4] Coogan believes that God makes homosexuals, and therefore, they cannot be held responsible for their inordinate and sinful attractions and acts.

Coogan, who is one of three “spirit guides” assigned by Bishop Vera López to the group, is assisted in his “ministry” by Marco Antonio Mata, who intends to register himself and his partner under Coahuila’s new civil unions law, and Special Events Coordinator, Fernando Hernández, who supports the view that homosexuals are just following their nature so there is no harm in acting out. [5]

Noé Ruiz Malacara, who coordinates the group’s events with the Saltillo Diocese is a self-outed homosexual and an unemployed elementary school teacher in the state capital. He admits there is opposition from many traditional Mexicans, but adds that the population is gradually being softened up to accept sexual perversions as normal behavior. Sodomy is no problem, says Ruiz, as long as the couple is truly in love. He affirms that the group’s “spirit guides” encourage “stable” homosexual relations over promiscuous one-night affairs, and “safe sex.” [6]

The San Elredo Community is (mis)named after the great 12th Cistercian monk and abbot Aelred de Rievaulx, who along with Saint Sebastian and Saint John the Evangelist, vie for honors as the patron “saints” of the Homosexual Collective. [7]

While Coogan says the purpose of his “ministry” is to foster a deep love of God in the hearts of men and women given over to a wide-variety of sexual perversions, in truth, the San Elredo Community, aided and abetted by Bishop Vera López, simply confirms these poor souls in their sin.

The forty or so members of the San Elredo Community, mostly males in their late teens and early twenties, promote and participate in all things “gay” including “Gay Pride” events. In March 25-27, 2011, the diocesan-sponsored group held a “sexual, family and religious diversity forum” designed to promote homosexual acts and homosexual relationships in a more positive light. The bishop was present to say a mass for the gathering. [8]

On Good Friday, for the last four years, the San Elredo Community has held a “homosexual” Way of the Cross where homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals, transgenders, transvestites, leather and bondage tribes, sadomasochists, and almost certainly pederasts, clerical and lay, reinterpret the Scriptural Viacrusis to reflect the Homosexual Collective’s psychic masochistic litany of “injustice collecting” including the suffering, rejection, and discrimination caused by “homophobia.” [9]

One can learn a great deal about the pro-homosexual biases of Bishop Vera López and that of the leadership of the San Elredo Community by their language. They all speak “gayspeak.” In any war, words are weapons, and the bishop and his accomplices are using “gayspeak” to make war on the Catholic faithful in state of Coahuila and beyond.

For example, the bishop’s use of the word “gay” as opposed to the word “homosexual” or “sodomite” is a validation and advancement of the “Gay International.” In The Politics of Homosexuality, Toby Marotta explains the origins of each of the words found in the slogan “Gay Liberation Front”:

Simply by settling on a name, the radicals who met at Alternate U acknowledged that any persisting collectivity had to have an identity. Gay Liberation Front — each word in that name was selected with organizational as well as political considerations in mind. Unlike homosexual, the clinical term bestowed by heterosexuals and homophiles, the euphemism coined by cautious political forerunners, gay, which homosexuals called each other, was thought to be the word that would most appeal to homosexuals who were thirsting to be known as they knew themselves. Hence also liberation, intended to suggest freedom from constraint. Front implied a militant vanguard or coalition; it suggested that the GLF was the crest of a swelling wave destined to force people to recognize and respect the openly gay population.

Bishop Vera López publicly employs the gayspeak rhetoric of “homophobia,” a term linked to the Collective’s efforts to pass itself off as a “sexually repressed minority” in need of reclaiming its civil and religious “rights.”

Gayspeak is a defensive mechanism which insulates the homosexual in his fantasy world, affirms his perpetual adolescence and reinforces his perversion. It is a language that should be anathema to any Catholic prelate with a true interest in the spiritual welfare of all his flock including those unfortunate enough to be caught up in the damnable vice of sodomy and pederasty.

The very fact that so-called “gay ministries” exist today in the Catholic Church in almost every major diocese in the world is a testimony to the ability of heretofore sexual outlaws to successfully organize, politicize and legitimatize sexually deviant behavior even within traditional enemy camps.

Of all society’s institutions, none is as important to the Homosexual Collective as organized religion, especially the Catholic Church. Religion is the supreme arbitrator and validator of human behavior. The secular State declares what acts are legal, but only the Church can declare which acts are moral and which are sinful. Hence, the Collective’s preoccupation with infiltrating, colonizing, and subverting the Church using the same strategies that have proven effective in the penetration of secular institutions in order to bring it under the Collective’s sphere of influence.

Clearly, under the leadership of Bishop Vera López, the Diocese of Saltillo in Coahuila has become the beachhead, the first secured area for political advancement of the “Gay Liberation Front” in Mexico.

The strategies of the Homosexual Collective in the Saltillo Diocese

The organizational and political strategies which have been followed by the San Elredo Comunidad in the Diocese of Saltillo are constructed on a refinement of Hegelian and Marxist-Leninist theories and practices. Every action is first and foremost viewed through a political prism, not a religious one. Thus far, the group appears to have successfully concealed its ultimate goals from the general public. It has also managed to control the language of public discourse. It has secured financial, personnel and material aid from both from the Diocese of Saltillo and other public sources. And it has secured control of the mass media including the liberal Catholic press both in Coahuila and the United States.

Bishop Vera López, by his words and his deeds has already “sanctified,” or at least appeared to sanctify (which is just as useful) same-sex behavior and practices. Under his leadership, the group has been free to proselytize new homosexual recruits from the Catholic churches and community of Saltillo, as well as cull the diocese’s Catholic population for non-homosexual fellow travelers and enlist volunteers to serve its interests. (Jose Raul Vera Lopez and “Gayspeak”.

Perhaps “conservatives” in the conciliar structures who are upset about the “Year of Lady Gaga” might want to ask themselves the following question: How can a man such as Jose Raul Vera Lopez, who caricatured those who condemn homosexual attraction as disordered and who condemn the sin of Sodom and its sick culture as perverted, remain as the conciliar “bishop” of Saltillo, Mexico. Can it be that Jorge Mario “Who am I to judge?” Bergoglio has no problem with his being there.

Moreover, as has been noted on this site endlessly, there is no such thing as a “gay” person. A believing Catholic does not base his self-identification as a human being upon being attracted to the commission of certain sins, no less those that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Yet it is that Bergoglio himself uses “gayspeak.”

While poor “Father” John Medwid is certainly wrong and has subject himself to justifiable criticism, he is only a product of what the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982 as the conciliar church’s “official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789” (p. 382). And Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Ratzinger’s successor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, is merely giving the “children” under his command complete license to act as they want in order to “reach” the people with visceral displays of “affection” and “understanding” that have been condemned by time immemorial by Holy Mother Church, including by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.

When all is said and done, however, “Father” Ray Kelly and “Suor” Cristina and “Father” John Medvid and his “Year of Lady Gaga” are merely manifestations, no matter how offensive to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross, of the rotten fruit of a false religion.

For far, far more dangerous to the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and the eternal and temporal good of souls than are these manifestations of conciliarism, the true menace to souls in the world today is the man who permitted two Argentine “lesbians” to have a child baptized in Argentine cathedral and who gives encouragement to Catholics worldwide to “break the rules” as he engages in “unofficial” counseling that supposedly binds no one but winds up influencing everyone, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Yes, a man who can deny Catholic teaching in an “official” document is far, far more perilous to souls than the likes of Ray Kelly, “Suor” Cristina or John Medwid.

Perhaps “conservatives” might like to see a contrast between Jorge Mario Bergoglo’s false teaching and the true teaching of the Catholic Church:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] “And it is now,” says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, “that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is …. molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood.” [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area — He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.” [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. “For it was through His triumph on the Cross,” according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, “that He won power and dominion over the gentiles”; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God’s anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the chief practitioner of doctrinal obscenity and liturgical profanation, justified by his having almost daily recourse to the most vile, reprehensible forms of demagogic viscera that began to manifest themselves in earnest, especially among the Jesuits, in the 1970s.

Lest any “conservative” attempt to “save” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s nonexistent doctrinal “orthodoxy” by pointing out selected statements that appear to be consonant with Catholic teaching, one must adhere to the totality of the Holy Faith without exception:

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this, because everyone must believe all the truths of faith–both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

“Close enough” is not “good enough” to be a member of the Catholic Church in good standing, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, true to the false precepts of the false church that he heads, has shown himself to be an enemy of Christ the King, Whose very Social Kingship he rejects as an anachronism, and thus of the souls for Whom Our King became Man in Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb to redeem.

Today is the Feast of Saint John the Evangelist before the Latin Gate. Although it was not God’s will for the only bishop who remained faithful to Him during His Passion and Death to die a martyr’s death, Saint John the Evangelist was willing to do so as he was plunged into a cauldron of boiling oil at the site of the future Roman archbasilica built in his honor, the Basilica of San Giovanni di Laterano, which is the cathedral of a true pope in his capacity as the Bishop of Rome. Saint John the Evangelist, by then an old man during the reign of Emperor Domitian, emerged from the cauldron of boiling oil stronger than when he had been placed into it, convincing Domitian to send him into exile on the Island of Patmos.

We must be willing to die a martyr’s death, if only the white or the dry martyrdom of humiliation, to defend the Faith. And to this end, of course, we must call upon the help of the Queen of Martyrs, Our Lady, especially by means of using the spiritual weapon that is her Most Holy Rosary to keep us close to her as we are clothed in the garment of her Brown Scapular and adorned with her Miraculous Medal. The graces which she sends us daily from the Treasury of Grace won for us by her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, are sufficient helps to remain strong in the Catholic Faith, not the false religion of conciliarism, until the end. Never doubt that this is so. Never.

The final victory belongs to Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as she manifests a true restoration when a true pope consecrates Russia with all of the bishops of the world to her in fulfillment of Our Lady’s Fatima Message.

It is important therefore to give all of the penances and sufferings and humiliations of this present life through that same Immaculate Heart to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Vivat Chistus 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.



Viscerally Speaking, part one

As has been noted many times on this site, we are living in a world where most people we meet during the course of a day are devoid of any real understanding of First and Last Things.  A world such as this is one where people react to the events in their own lives and those around them viscerally, that is, by the use of emotions, irrationality, ignorance and “gut” instincts.

While it used to be the case that those who bloviate in such a manner were confined in the expounding of their ignorance and irrationality to their circle of relatives, friends, acquaintances and coworkers, the forums provided by so-called “social media” have made it possible for bloviators to demonstrate their ignorance about First and Last Things–and just about anything and everything else in between, to the entire world. Ramblings and and emotional screeds are sent out in a matter of second as others, much to the delight of admirers and to the consternation of detractors. Some people spend their entire waking hours reacting in what they think are “witty” ways to various events that agitate them to offer their “expert” commentaries for their eager readers or “friends” or “followers.”

Obviously, there are some, such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who are elected because of their ability to use demagogic use of emotion, self-pity, ignorance and outright deceit. What makes this so pitiable is that many of those of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” who oppose him are steeped in the same kind of demagogic emotionalism as he is.

As I have been explaining for nearly eight years now, one of the foremost practitioners of demagoguery and viscera among the luminaries of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is Sarah Heath Palin, the former Governor of Alaska (a Catholic apostate  whose visceral, shoot-from-the-lip approach to politics and public policy has been examined on this site in Gradually Accepting Naturalism’s False Premises, Absolute Insanity, Facts Are Troublesome Things, It’s Still Absolute Insanity and Fratricide in the Lodge), who ctashed in on the fame she gained as the vice presidential running mate of the unreconstructed war hawk named John Sidney McCain III, who would have launched wars all around the world had he been elected on November 4, 2008 (see Different Chief, Same War Drums). This poor woman, who is ignorant of so many things, is admired even by many traditional Catholic as “telling it like it is” even though she is nothing but a mass of viscera prone to emotional outbursts that she believes constitutes rational discourse but is nothing other than what Pope Pius IX rightly termed as “injurious babbling” in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.

Most Americans, however, are so awash in viscera themselves that they have become “inoculated,” if you will, from even the slightest semblance of rationality, desiring the ready, “red-meat” sound bit to satiate their desire to go for the jugular of those who adhere to the whichever of the two false opposites of naturalism they despise. This is why the likes Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro can maintain the unfailing support of his claque of sycophants in the mainslime media, and it is why this support will continue even if the cover-up of his reprehensible failure to send troops to rescue the Americans in Benghazi, Libya, who were under siege from terrorists on Tuesday, September 11, 2012. The “party line”is what matters, nothing else.

The “inoculation” against rationality is not confined to the precincts of the false opposite of the naturalist “left.” Not at all.

Remember, former President George Walker Bush was a master, however artless, of demagogy and raw emotionalism that ignored facts as he made up things to justify his policies of “compassionate” statism and overspending domestically, including to subsidize the chemical assassination of the innocent preborn by means of “family planning” programs, and naked aggression abroad that destabilized a sovereign nation, Iraq, needlessly placing Americans in harm’s way and permitting hordes of Iranian-trained, armed and financed terrorists to flood that country with a wave of violence, much of which was aimed at Chaldean Rite Catholics, two-thirds of whom fled the country as a result. Bush the Lesser was just as ignorant and as demogagic as his successor, and his so-called “Patriot Act” helped to make possible Obama/Soetoro’s use of intelligence agencies, the Department of Justice the Internal Revenue Service, the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Homeland Security into instruments of punish “enemies” and rewarding political supporters.

Ever trapped in the midst of the viscera that passes for political discourse, those who adhere to one brand of naturalism accept pretty much whatever it is that is said, no matter how offensive or stupid or simply factually wrong,  by their heroes and heroines, as what matters is having a bit of “fun” at the expense of the “enemy.” There are no bounds of propriety in a world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism, a world where most people, including many Catholics, especially those in the conciliar structures, think that it is “funny” to speak indecently or irreverently, and that there is “nothing wrong” with women dressing immodestly or in masculine attire, which equips the psyches of many to act as crudely as many men.

Well, behold the aforementioned Sarah Heath Palin, whom some in the traditional Catholic world thought was a “bright” face in American politics when she burst on the national scene as McCain’s vice presidential running mate in August of 2008 even though she quickly demonstrated her shallowness and complete unpreparedness for the vice presidency of the United States of America in short order, who received a standing ovation at the convention of the National Rifle Association on Easter Saturday, April 26, 2014, when she compared the form of torture called “waterboarding” with the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism, which she herself received shortly after her birth on February 11, 2014, the Feast of the Apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes, in Sandpoint, Idaho:

INDIANAPOLIS — Catholics and other Christians have criticized Sarah Palin’s recent comments comparing waterboarding to baptism, calling them disrespectful, irreverent and even blasphemous.

“Not all intolerant, anti-freedom, leftist liberals are hypocrites. I’m kidding; yes, they are. And they are not right policies that poke our allies in the eye and coddle adversaries, instead of putting the fear of God in our enemies. Come on! Enemies who would utterly annihilate America,” Palin said April 26 at a National Rifle Association convention in Indianapolis.

“They who’d obviously have information on plots, say to carry out jihad. Oh, but you can’t offend them, can’t make them feel uncomfortable, not even a smidgen. Well, if I were in charge, they would know that waterboarding is how we baptize terrorists.”

Edward Peters, professor of canon law at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, wrote April 29 at his blog, In the Light of the Law, that regardless of one’s political affiliation, Palin’s statement about baptism “should shock the conscience.”

He referred to Deacon Ed Kandra of the Brooklyn Diocese, who wrote April 28 at the website Patheos, “Equating torture with baptism is extremely offensive — and, in fact, blasphemous.” (Palin Rebuked For Comparing Waterboarding to Baptism.)

While it is certainly true that a multitude of pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholics in public life, including the likes of United States Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and House Minority Leader Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, regularly display their ignorance of truths, supernatural and natural, and facts as they act their own parts as unreconstructed demagogues who live in a visceral world of their very own, no amount of visceral demagoguery on the “left” can justify that employed by the visceral demagogue named Sarah Louise Heath Palin.

To compare waterboarding with the administration of the Sacrament of Baptism is reprehensible. What is even more reprehensible is that lots of people, including, presumably, a lot of Catholics, applauded her and can even think that it is possible to defend her utterly offensive remarks, which were compounded by her “doubling down” on them by calling those who took umbrage at them as “wusses.”

Let’s just put it to you this way: Sarah Louise Heath Palin knows nothing of the true femininity of Our Lady or of Saints Elizabeth of Hungary, Saint Margaret of Scotland, Saint Bridget of Sweden, Saint Hedwig of Silesia, Saint Elizabeth of Portugal, each of whom were married and took seriously the requirement to imitate the Mother of God at all times.

Sarah Louise Heath Palin is, of course, a victim of the heresy of Americanism and the conciliar revolution that was influenced in no small measure by its precepts of “freedom of religion” and “freedom of speech” and “separation of Church and State.” While the particulars as to why Mrs. Palin’s father, Charles R. Heath, decided to take his family out of the Catholic Faith in the 1970s after they had moved to Alaska, the revolutionary changes wrought by the counterfeit church of conciliarism may have played a role, especially when one considers the fact that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is a celebration of the errors of Modernity, including those of Protestantism, many of which have become integral parts of the conciliar ethos.

Taking nothing away the horror of Sarah Louise Heath Palin’s deplorable comparison of American sponsored torture (waterboarding) with the indwelling of the very life of the Most Blessed Trinity in a soul by means of Sanctifying Grace at Baptism as Original Sin is washed away in the Sacrament of Baptism and without for a moment taking nothing away from the many times that Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has misused, misquoted and misrepresented the Holy Gospel to defend his statist agenda of unbridled evil as he break the laws of God and man, these pitiable naturalists are simply the byproducts of a world that is celebrated by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, given his prominence as the universal public face of apostasy, is the greatest blasphemer on the face of this earth.

Why should Sarah Louise Heath Palin or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro know anything about the truths of the Catholic Faith when the man who is thought to the “pope” by almost everyone in the world demonstrates his own utter contempt for those truths practically every day?

Why does it not “shock the conscience” of Catholics for a putative “pope” to speak in ways that have been condemned by the authority of Holy Mother Church and that blaspheme Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Our Lady while fearing not to misrepresent the very nature of Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution.

Why were not Catholics shocked when Jorge Mario Bergoglio called the Catholic Church the “widowed church” seven months ago now?

Here is a reminder:

The Bridegroom is gone and she walks in history, hoping to find him, to meet with Him – and she will be His true bride. In the meantime she – the Church – is alone! The Lord is nowhere to be seen. She has a certain dimension of widowhood … and that makes me makes me think of the widowhood of the Church. This courageous Church, which defends her children, like the widow who went to the corrupt judge to [press her rights] and eventually won. Our Mother Church is courageous! She has the courage of a woman who knows that her children are her own, and must defend them and bring them to the meeting with her Spouse.”

The Pope reflected on some figures of widows in the Bible, in particular the courageous Maccabean widow with seven sons who are martyred for not renouncing God. The Bible, he stressed, says this woman who spoke to her sons “in the local dialect, in their first language,” and, he noted, our Mother Church speaks to us in dialect, in “that language of true orthodoxy, which we all understand, the language of catechism,” that, “gives us the strength to go forward in the fight against evil”:

“This dimension of widowhood of the Church, who is journeying through history, hoping to meet, to find her Husband… Our Mother the Church is thus! She is a Church that, when she is faithful, knows how to cry. When the Church does not cry, something is not right. She weeps for her children, and prays! A Church that goes forward and does rear her children, gives them strength and accompanies them until the final farewell in order to leave them in the hands of her Spouse, who at the end will come to encounter her. This is our Mother Church! I see her in this weeping widow. And what does the Lord say to the Church? “Do not cry. I am with you, I’ll take you, I’ll wait for you there, in the wedding, the last nuptials, those of the Lamb. Stop [your tears]: this son of yours was dead, now he lives.”

And this , he continued, “is the dialogue of the Lord with the Church.” She, “defends the children, but when she sees that the children are dead, she cries, and the Lord says to her: ‘I am with you and your son is with me.’” As he told the boy at Naim to get up from his deathbed, the Pope added, many times Jesus also tells us to get up, “when we are dead because of sin and we are going to ask for forgiveness.” And then what does Jesus “when He forgives us, when He gives us back our life?” He Returns us to our mother:

“Our reconciliation with the Lord end in the dialogue ‘You, me and the priest who gives me pardon’; it ends when He restores us to our mother. There ends reconciliation, because there is no path of life, there is no forgiveness, there is no reconciliation outside of Mother Church. So, seeing this poor widow, all these things come to me somewhat randomly – But I see in this widow the icon of the widowhood of the Church who is on a journey to find her Bridegroom. I get the urge to ask the Lord for the grace to be always confident of this “mommy” who defends us, teaches us, helps us grow and [teaches] us to speak the dialect.” (Reflecting on our Mother Church.)

Was Blessed Peter Julian Eymard, the founder of the Blessed Sacrament Fathers, wrong when he questioned as to who would now dare to call the Catholic Church “widowed” from her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom?

People who have never set foot inside one of her churches think she is widowed. They look upon her as a corpse, and upon her temples as places where only death and suffering are spoken of. But today the very ones who never attend her solemn festivals will see her in all her wealth and beauty, in a natural attractiveness which God, her Bridegroom, will enhance with His presence. What magnificence in the processions as they pass by! What reverence in the faithful as they kneel down! ! The Church shows to everyone her Bridegroom in the radiant monstrance. Ah! Who today will presume to say she is widowed? Her friends are in adoration and her enemies tremble. Jesus shows Himself to all men; He gives His blessing. to the good; He looks on sinners with compassion; He calls them and draws them to Himself. The Council of Trent calls this Feast the triumph of faith, and rightly so. It is also the triumph of the Church through her Divine Bridegroom. (THE REAL PRESENCE.)

No one who understands basic Catholic ecclesiology can claim, no matter how “randomly,” that the Catholic Church is widowed.

Why are so many Catholics so silent?

Are they as ignorant as Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Do they agree with Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Do they dismiss “off-handed” remarks made publicly by a putative “pope” to be of no consequence?

Why, then, the outrage over the comments of an ignorant naturalist who is a victim of the revolutions of Modernity and Modernism?

Why was there no outrage just five months ago when Jorge Mario Bergoglio blasphemed the Blessed Virgin Mary by stating out out that the ever Immaculate Mother of God could have uttered “Lies!”, “I was deceived” as she stood so valiantly at the foot of her Divine Son’s Holy Cross?

The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence. From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary. The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross”.

“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.” (Ever Talkative Apostate: Silence guards one’s relationship with God.)

Why should we expect naturalists, whether of the false opposites of the “left” or of the “right” to have more respect for the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and/or have reverence for the Sacraments of Holy Mother Church when the conciliar revolutionaries have supplanted the true Faith with a false one and have destroyed the validity of every liturgical rite save for Baptism, which is mocked when public sinners, including those who are steeped in perversity, are permitted to have public baptismal ceremonies for their “children”?

No, blame not the pitiable likes of the truly ignorant product of “freedom of speech,” Sarah Louise Heath Plain, or the reprehensibly lawless likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.

Blame the men who look askance and mock the following warnings given us by our true popes concerning the nature of Modernity and where its errors would lead the world over time, something that we can see very clearly with our own eyes today:

This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit” is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that “the people’s will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right.” But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests? (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

The sovereignty of the people, however, and this without any reference to God, is held to reside in the multitude; which is doubtless a doctrine exceedingly well calculated to flatter and to inflame many passions, but which lacks all reasonable proof, and all power of insuring public safety and preserving order. Indeed, from the prevalence of this teaching, things have come to such a pass that may hold as an axiom of civil jurisprudence that seditions may be rightfully fostered. For the opinion prevails that princes are nothing more than delegates chosen to carry out the will of the people; whence it necessarily follows that all things are as changeable as the will of the people, so that risk of public disturbance is ever hanging over our heads.

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God.

“So, too, the liberty of thinking, and of publishing, whatsoever each one likes, without any hindrance, is not in itself an advantage over which society can wisely rejoice. On the contrary, it is the fountain-head and origin of many evils. Liberty is a power perfecting man, and hence should have truth and goodness for its object. But the character of goodness and truth cannot be changed at option. These remain ever one and the same, and are no less unchangeable than nature itself. If the mind assents to false opinions, and the will chooses and follows after what is wrong, neither can attain its native fullness, but both must fall from their native dignity into an abyss of corruption. Whatever, therefore, is opposed to virtue and truth may not rightly be brought temptingly before the eye of man, much less sanctioned by the favor and protection of the law. A well-spent life is the only way to heaven, whither all are bound, and on this account the State is acting against the laws and dictates of nature whenever it permits the license of opinion and of action to lead minds astray from truth and souls away from the practice of virtue. To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error. A State from which religion is banished can never be well regulated; and already perhaps more than is desirable is known of the nature and tendency of the so-called civil philosophy of life and morals. The Church of Christ is the true and sole teacher of virtue and guardian of morals. She it is who preserves in their purity the principles from which duties flow, and, by setting forth most urgent reasons for virtuous life, bids us not only to turn away from wicked deeds, but even to curb all movements of the mind that are opposed to reason, even though they be not carried out in action.” (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) November 1, 1885.)

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers.   . No doubt “the Spirit breatheth where he will” (John iii. 8): “of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs” (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

There is no one on the face of the earth who is a bigger enemy of Christ the King and thus of the eternal and temporal good of men than Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who rejects each of these irreformable statements of Catholic truth as so much “Pharisaical” nonsense. His ignorance is thus far more dangerous than that of the likes of Sarah Louise Heath Palin or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro as he is content to leave these lost souls alone in their errors without ever once seeking with urgency their unconditional conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

The second part of this two-part commentary will provide a few more examples as to the truly shocking thing about Catholics today is that so few of them are capable of being shocked by the blasphemies, sacrileges, apostasies and heresies of the conciliar revolutionaries, who love to tickle the itching ears of Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Making reparation, as always, as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for our own sins and those of the whole world, may the Rosaries we pray during this month of May, the month of Our Lady, help us to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart and the fulfillment of her Fatima Message by a true pope with all of the true bishops in the world.

Vivat Chistus 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.

Pope Saint Pius V, pray for us.


Michael Bloomberg Embraces Universal Salvation

The pro-abortion, pro-perversity former Mayor of the City of New York, Michael Rubens Bloomberg, would make an excellent member of the counterfeit church of conciliarisim.

Here is a look at just of Michael Rubens Bloomberg’s many qualifications to be a member in good standing of the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

Qualification Number One: Michael Rubens Bloomberg is a self-described “billionaire playboy” who supports the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in their mothers’ wombs.

To wit, Michael Bloomberg was once sued by a female employee of his Bloomberg financial and media conglomerate for harassment when he responded as follows upon learning she was expecting a child, “Kill it! Kill it!” (See New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Testifies in Pregnancy Discrimination Case .) This episode was even too much for the pro-abort protege of Ralph Nader, Mark Green, who brought it up in a campaign advertisement when running as the Democrat Party nominee for Mayor of the City of New York, New York, in 2001 against Bloomberg, who had the endorsement of Republican Party even though he had been a lifelong Democrat until earlier that year and declared himself in 2008 to be an “independent.” One of the first things that Michael Bloomberg attempted to do as Mayor of the City of New York in 2002 was to impose mandatory training in methods of surgical baby-killing in all of the obstetrics/gynecological residency programs in all of the city’s public hospitals, permitting no one to opt out of the program as a matter of conscience (see Kathryn Jean Lopez on Med Students and Abortion).

Proof of Qualification as a Member in the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: The “good standing” maintained by Vice President of the United States of America Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., United States Secretary of State John F. Kerry, outgoing United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, United States Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, United States Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), United States Senators Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa), Patricia Murray (D-Washington), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island),  Christopher Murphy (D-Connecticut), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), California Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., former California Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, New York Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo and his father, former New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo, former New York Governors George Elmer Pataki and David Paterson, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, former Wisconsin Governor James Doyle, former United States Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former Mayor of the City of New York, New York, Rudolph William Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, United States Representative Charles Bernard Rangel (who is also a Freemason and remains a Catholic in “good standing”), for United States Attorney General Janet Reno, former United States Secretary of Defense  Leon Panetta (a favorite of the now retired conciliar “bishop” of Monterey, California, Sylvester Ryan), forme United States Senator Thomas Daschle, the late United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late United States Representative Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccaro, the late Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America William Brennan, current Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Anthony Kennedy and Sonya Sotomayor (non-practicing but not excommunicated, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, President of Brazil Dilma Roussef, President of Argentine Christine Kirchener, President of Bolivia Evo Morales (now a pantheist he was once a conciliar “bishop”), President of France Francois Hollande (a baptized Catholic who is now an agnostic, but who has never been excommunicated) and, among so many others, President of Argentina Argentine President Christine Kirchner.

Judgment: Check. Bloomberg would be make a good fit as a member of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Qualification Number Two: Michael Rubens Bloomberg, who is divorced, has a “domestic partner,” a divorcee named Diana Taylor.

Proof of Qualification as a Member of the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: Consider the following comments of none other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself:

“The problem cannot be reduced to whether” these couples “are allowed to take communion or not because whoever thinks of the problem in these terms doesn’t understand the real issue at hand,” Francis said. “This is a serious problem regarding the Church’s responsibility towards families that are in this situation.” Francis reiterated what he said on the return flight from Rio to Rome after World Youth Day, saying he will be discussing the issue with the group of eight cardinals who will be meeting in the Vatican in early October. Francis added that the issue will also be discussed at the next Synod of Bishops on the Gospel’s anthropological relationship with individual people and the family, so that the whole Synod can look into this problem. “This,” Francis said “is a real existential periphery”. (Francis urges priests to give a helping hand to couples that live together.)

“The problem cannot be reduced to whether” these couples “are allowed to take communion or not because whoever thinks of the problem in these terms doesn’t understand the real issue at hand,” Francis said. “This is a serious problem regarding the Church’s responsibility towards families that are in this situation.” Francis reiterated what he said on the return flight from Rio to Rome after World Youth Day, saying he will be discussing the issue with the group of eight cardinals who will be meeting in the Vatican in early October. Francis added that the issue will also be discussed at the next Synod of Bishops on the Gospel’s anthropological relationship with individual people and the family, so that the whole Synod can look into this problem. “This,” Francis said “is a real existential periphery”. (Francis urges priests to give a helping hand to couples that live together.)

Judgment: Check. Michael Rubens Bloomberg certainly does live on the “existential peripheries.” Another perfect fit for membership in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Qualification Number Three: Michael Rubens Bloomberg strongly defended the building of the “Ground Zero Mosque,” which would have been a “worship center” in a building to be constructed on a site near, but not at, the site where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed on Tuesday, September 11, 2011:

In his fiercest defense yet of the mosque proposed near Ground Zero, Mayor Bloomberg declared yesterday that it must be allowed to proceed because the government “shouldn’t be in the business of picking” one religion over another.

“I think it’s fair to say if somebody was going to try, on that piece of property, to build a church or a synagogue, nobody would be yelling and screaming,” the mayor said.

“And the fact of the matter is that Muslims have a right to do it, too.”

Placing the proposed mosque two blocks from the World Trade Center site has led to an outcry from opponents, including family members of 9/11 victims, who contend the holy place at 45 Park Place would defile the memories of those who perished in the worst terror attack in US history.

Community Board 1 approved the project Tuesday night by a 29-1 vote after a raucous four-hour hearing in which nine members abstained.

The meeting got so heated that one young girl, whose father is Muslim and mother is Jewish and who went to testify in favor, decided instead to sit silently.

The issue also continues to fuel an intense debate on the Internet. One commenter likened a mosque near Ground Zero to a convent established on the grounds of Auschwitz. Pope John Paul II ordered the nuns to move in 1993 after years of protests from Jewish leaders.

But Bloomberg argued that blocking the 13-story mosque and Islamic cultural center would violate the essence of America.

“What is great about America and particularly New York is we welcome everybody, and if we are so afraid of something like this, what does that say about us?” asked the mayor. (Bloomberg defends Ground Zero mosque as freedom-of-religion.)

Proof of Qualification as a Member of the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: The lords of conciliarism stumble all over themselves to praise Mohammedanism and its false teachings. Some, including “Saint John Paul II,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have esteemed its false symbols and, in the case of Ratzinger/Benedict,  entered into its places of false worship, calling them “sacred.”

None other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio, trumping the usual handiwork of the religious syncretist named Jean-Louis Tauran, the president of the “Pontifical” Council for Inter-Religious Diaologue, directly addressed Mohemmdans following the end of their false holiday, Ramadan, last year:

To Muslims throughout the World

It gives me great pleasure to greet you as you celebrate ‘Id al-Fitr, so concluding the month of Ramadan, dedicated mainly to fasting, prayer and almsgiving.

It is a tradition by now that, on this occasion, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sends you a message of good wishes, together with a proposed theme for common reflection. This year, the first of my Pontificate, I have decided to sign this traditional message myself and to send it to you, dear friends, as an expression of esteem and friendship for all Muslims, especially those who are religious leaders.

As you all know, when the Cardinals elected me as Bishop of Rome and Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church, I chose the name of “Francis”, a very famous saint who loved God and every human being deeply, to the point of being called “universal brother”. He loved, helped and served the needy, the sick and the poor; he also cared greatly for creation.

I am aware that family and social dimensions enjoy a particular prominence for Muslims during this period, and it is worth noting that there are certain parallels in each of these areas with Christian faith and practice.

This year, the theme on which I would like to reflect with you and with all who will read this message is one that concerns both Muslims and Christians: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.

This year’s theme is intended to underline the importance of education in the way we understand each other, built upon the foundation of mutual respect. “Respect” means an attitude of kindness towards people for whom we have consideration and esteem. “Mutual” means that this is not a one-way process, but something shared by both sides.

What we are called to respect in each person is first of all his life, his physical integrity, his dignity and the rights deriving from that dignity, his reputation, his property, his ethnic and cultural identity, his ideas and his political choices. We are therefore called to think, speak and write respectfully of the other, not only in his presence, but always and everywhere, avoiding unfair criticism or defamation. Families, schools, religious teaching and all forms of media have a role to play in achieving this goal.

Turning to mutual respect in interreligious relations, especially between Christians and Muslims, we are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these!

It is clear that, when we show respect for the religion of our neighbours or when we offer them our good wishes on the occasion of a religious celebration, we simply seek to share their joy, without making reference to the content of their religious convictions.

Regarding the education of Muslim and Christian youth, we have to bring up our young people to think and speak respectfully of other religions and their followers, and to avoid ridiculing or denigrating their convictions and practices.

We all know that mutual respect is fundamental in any human relationship, especially among people who profess religious belief. In this way, sincere and lasting friendship can grow.

When I received the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See on 22 March 2013, I said: “It is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people. Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam. At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world.” With these words, I wished to emphasize once more the great importance of dialogue and cooperation among believers, in particular Christians and Muslims, and the need for it to be enhanced.

With these sentiments, I reiterate my hope that all Christians and Muslims may be true promoters of mutual respect and friendship, in particular through education.

Finally, I send you my prayerful good wishes, that your lives may glorify the Almighty and give joy to those around you. Happy Feast to you all! (Francis the Self-Caricaturist to Muslims for end of Ramadan: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.)

The conciliar revolutionaries can even outdo Michael Rubens Bloomberg’s defense of the “worship center” as part of a Mohammedan cultural complex at 51 Park Avenue in lower Manhattan in the City of New York, York. The conciliar revolutionaries have handed over Catholic churches to the Mohammedans in order for them to be transformed into centers of false worship known as “mosques”:

Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Syracuse, New York, was sold in December to a Muslim group and will be turned into a mosque. The Muslim organization requested that six stone crosses be removed from the top of the century-old historic church, and the Syracuse Landmark Preservation Board has complied. However, as explains in an April 6, 2014 article, “Plans to turn a church into a mosque bring pain and hope to changing neighborhood,” everything evens out because the mosque will be named the Mosque of Jesus, Son of Mary “to build a bridge between the old and the new.”

So that’s all right then. Or is it? The news story is written to the theme that Islam and Catholicism share much in common—two sides of the same coin, so to speak. A diocesan spokeswoman is quoted as saying that “the building is once again being used to meet the needs of a growing population on the North Side, just as Holy Trinity did as it served the Catholic faithful.” In this telling, immigrant Muslims are just like immigrant Catholics of a hundred years ago. After all, both believe in Jesus, the son of Mary. “The Muslims could not keep the crosses on the church,” the report concludes, “But they chose the mosque’s name to build a bridge between the old and the new: The Mosque of Jesus, Son of Mary.”

Why do the crosses have to come down? The reason, as explained by one of the Muslim organizers, is that “crosses are not an appropriate representation of the religion of Islam.” Why is that? Because the Koran maintains that Jesus was never crucified and therefore never rose from the dead (4:157).

In short, there are reasons to wonder if the Jesus, son of Mary that Muslims revere is the same Jesus that Christians revere. For instance, the story reports that some of the Holy Trinity parishioners are worried that the massive stained glass windows which depict scenes from the life of Christ might be removed next. And well they might worry. Many of the scenes from the life of Christ do not pass the “appropriate representation of Islam” test. Naturally, the crucifixion scene would have to go, along with any representations of Christ’s resurrection, but so also would any depiction of Christ’s baptism or the Transfiguration. Both of these events identify Jesus not just as the son of Mary but as the Son of God, and from the Islamic point of view that is a blasphemous thought. On top of that, Islam prohibits the artistic representation of prophets. Have you ever seen a portrait of Muhammad? Probably not. And if you have any ideas about sketching one of your own, you’d be well-advised to keep it in your private collection. All things considered, the future of Holy Trinity’s rose-colored windows does not look too rosy.

The same Jesus? In places where religiously observant Muslims are in the majority and especially in places where they hold political power, there is much more emphasis on the differences between the two faiths than on the similarities. Christians are looked upon as inferiors, and they are well-advised to keep crosses, icons, and statues out of sight. When they are in power, observant Muslims seem less interested in building bridges than in desecrating churches and burning them down.

In the West, it’s a different story. When Muslims are first establishing themselves in a community, they tend to emphasize the commonalities between the two religions, and thus we get mosques named “Jesus, Son of Mary” and billboards that proclaim “Muslims Love Jesus Too.” Indeed, the supposedly shared love for Jesus is a primary recruitment tool for bringing Christians to Islam. A few years ago, Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, wrote an essay titled “Muslims and Christians: More in common than you think,” which is reprinted in many publications around Christmastime. Hooper writes: “It is well-known that Christians follow the teachings of Jesus. What is less well understood is that Muslims also love and revere Jesus as one of God’s greatest messengers to mankind” (Washington Post, 12/17/10).

Muslims love Jesus too? If so, why do Muslims [official disclaimer: not all of them, of course] display so much contempt for Christians when they gain power over them? Why are they so quick to charge Christians with blasphemy? To desecrate their churches and religious symbols? Could it be that the Jesus they believe in is not the same Jesus Christians worship?

While the Koranic portrait of Jesus borrows some elements from Christianity—the virgin birth, a handful of miracles—the differences are more striking than the similarities. The Jesus of the Koran is not a Jew or a Christian, he is a Muslim. He is not the Son of God, and to say that he is is the greatest of all blasphemies. He was not crucified. He did not rise from the dead. He is not the savior of mankind. And, although Ibrahim Hooper says that Jesus is “one of God’s greatest messengers,” his message differs markedly from that brought by Jesus of Nazareth. Other than the message that people should serve God, there is not much in common. The Muslim Jesus announces that he is a prophet sent by God; that he is not God and never claimed to be; and that he brings “news of an apostle that will come after me whose name is Ahmed [Muhammad]” (61:6). So, on the one hand you have the message, “I am the way and the truth and the life,” and on the other hand you have the message, “I am a messenger.” That’s no small difference.

Those who are looking for more from the Jesus of the Koran—more wisdom, more development of doctrine—will be disappointed. The Muslim Jesus has remarkably little to say about anything. There is nothing like the Sermon on the Mount in the Koran. In fact, that one sermon far exceeds in length the sum total of everything said by the Jesus of the Koran.

He also has remarkably little to do. When Christians hear that Jesus is in the Koran, they tend to assume that the Koran must contain some account of his life. But other than a strange and truncated account of his birth, there is nothing in the Koran that could remotely be called a life of Jesus. You will find considerably more scenes from the life of Jesus in the stained glass windows of Holy Trinity Church than you will in the Koran.

The Jesus of the Koran is nothing more than a disembodied voice. There is no information about where he lived or when he carried out his ministry or who his disciples were. In short, there is no attempt to portray him as recognizable human being. Judging by the cursory attention given to Jesus in the Koran, Muhammad seems to have had little interest in him as a person.

Nevertheless, Muhammad couldn’t afford to leave Jesus out of the picture. Why? Because if Christ is who Christians say he is, then there is no need for another prophet and another revelation. In other words, the claims made by Jesus of Nazareth, if true, would have put a major crimp in Muhammad’s prophetic career. Muhammad’s solution to this problem was to include Jesus in the Koran and recast him as a messenger, rather than as the Messiah, understood as the Son of God.

The reason Jesus is so frequently referred to as “son of Mary” in the Koran is to reinforce the point that he is not the Son of God. Likewise, whenever Jesus appears in the Koran or whenever he is mentioned by Allah, it is almost always for the purpose of denying his divinity. Take Chapter 5, verses 113 to 117. It is one of the few places in the Koran where the narrative about Jesus rises (well, almost) to the level of a scene:

“Jesus son of Mary,” said the disciples, “Can your Lord send down to us from heaven a table spread with food?”…“Lord,” said Jesus son of Mary, “send down to us from heaven a table spread with food…” (5: 113-114)

The interesting thing is what happens next. Allah agrees to send the table, but first he interrogates Jesus: “Jesus son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind: ‘Worship me and my mother as gods besides God?’” Jesus, the faithful Muslim, replies, “I could never have claimed what I have no right to. If I had ever said so, You would surely have known it” (5:117).

So, a demonstration of Jesus’ power to produce a tableful of food is used as an occasion to reject the central tenet of Christianity. As for the table of food, we are left guessing. Does Allah actually send down the meal? There is no further mention of it. Muhammad has made his point, and having made it, moves on to the next lesson.

Notice that the phrase “Jesus son of Mary” is used three times in the table scene. Was this because Muhammad had a deep Christian-like love of Jesus and his mother? Or was there another motive? Given that almost every page of the Koran contains reminders of Muhammad’s prophetic role, it seems highly likely that the Jesus-son-of-Mary motif was simply a device for enhancing his own importance by reducing the status of Christ.

The irony is that this self-serving stratagem has become the main plank for keeping Muslim-Christian dialogue afloat. One would think that Christians would be sore about Muhammad’s appropriation of Jesus and Mary for his own purposes—that is, to deny the Sonship of Jesus. Instead, this is sometimes put in positive terms that seem to overlook, for whatever reason, the problem at hand. For example, the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate says, “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems,” and two of the five reasons given for the esteem is that Muslims “revere” Jesus and “honor Mary.”

But a close reading of the Koran suggests that its inclusion of Jesus and Mary may not be the sign of hope that many Christians take it to be. John the Baptist said of Jesus, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn 3:30). Muhammad preferred it the other way around. For him to increase, it was necessary that Jesus decrease. Thus, what we find in the Koran is a diminished portrait of Jesus, who is not completely repudiated, but used to bolster Islamic claims.

Up in Syracuse, some Catholics have apparently taken the transformation of Holy Trinity Church into Jesus, Son of Mary Mosque to be a sign of continuity between Christianity and Islam. They might be less sanguine on that score if they knew the rest of the story. (Mohammedanism Gets Another Catholic Church.)

What Dr. Kilpatrick, whose analysis of the falsehoods of Mohammedanism is very accurate and extremely well done, does not understand is that his “pope” has no problem with turning Catholic church into a Mohammedan mosque as he believes that this false religion, which, quite ironically, is premised on a rejection of the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity, is indeed one that is pleasing to God and is blasphemous and heretical of its very insidious nature.

Pope Leo XIII put it this way in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and no amount of invoking the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity” can make Pope Leo’s teaching any less in perfect conformity with the precepts of the First and Second Commandments:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

Judgment: Check. Michael Rubens Bloomberg is in better standing with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his “bishops” than Dr. William Kilpatrick.

Qualification Number Four: Michael Rubens Bloomberg supports the “gay agenda” in its entirety, including so-called “gay marriage.”

Proof of Qualifications as a Member of the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: Well, Bloomberg would have no problem fitting in comfortably as a member of such parishes as Saint Francis Xavier in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, or Saint Brigid Church in Westbury, New York, or Saint Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, or Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, California. He’s in with them for sure.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, would also welcome Bloomberg into the conciliar fold despite his support of the agenda of perversity, including “marriage” between those of the same gender engaged in sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, as he would say, “Who am I to judge?” Moreover, Bergoglio is very open to “civil unions,” something that he stressed again in Interview Number Six two months ago now:

Q. Many countries have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?

Bergoglio: Holy Father: Marriage is between one man and one woman. The secular States want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of coexistence, spurred by the need to regulate economic aspects between persons as, for instance, to ensure healthcare. Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity. (March 5 interview with Corriere della Sera.)

Neither Michael Bloomberg or Jorge Mario Bergoglio have any sense of the horror of the sin of Sodom. They do not realize that is not any kind of “legal” or “economic” or “health-care” issues raised by those who are engaged in perverse sins against nature that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.  They are the living embodiment of those who approve or who denigrate the gravity of the sin of Sodom, which was described as follows by Saint Paul in his Epistle to the Romans:

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

Michael Rubens Bloomberg would thus feel right at home in the counterfeit church of conciliarism alongside such pro-perversity Catholics in public life as Vice President of the United States of America Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., United States Secretary of State John F. Kerry, outgoing United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, United States Ambassador to Japan Caroline Kennedy, Minority Leader of the House of Representatives of the United States of America Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, United States Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), United States Senators Thomas Harkin (D-Iowa), Patricia Murray (D-Washington), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island),  Christopher Murphy (D-Connecticut), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), California Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., former California Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis, New York Governor Andrew Mark Cuomo and his father, former New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo, former New York Governors George Elmer Pataki and David Paterson, Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn, former Wisconsin Governor James Doyle, former United States Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley, former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, former Mayor of the City of New York, New York, Rudolph William Giuliani, former Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge, United States Representative Charles Bernard Rangel (who is also a Freemason and remains a Catholic in “good standing”), for United States Attorney General Janet Reno, former United States Secretary of Defense  Leon Panetta (a favorite of the now retired conciliar “bishop” of Monterey, California, Sylvester Ryan), forme United States Senator Thomas Daschle, the late United States Representative Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zaccaro, current Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America Anthony Kennedy and Sonya Sotomayor (non-practicing but not excommunicated, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff, President of Argentine Christine Kirchener, President of Bolivia Evo Morales (now a pantheist he was once a conciliar “bishop”), President of France Francois Hollande (a baptized Catholic who is now an agnostic, but who has never been excommunicated) and, among so many others, President of Argentina Argentine President Christine Kirchner. (Yes, that’s pretty much the same list as earlier, and that’s precisely the point. Everyone’s welcome in the “big tent” of conciliarism except those who adhere to everything contained within the Sacred Deposit of Faith without exception.

Judgment: Check. Michael Rubens Bloomberg is in “full communion” with the lords of conciliarism when it comes to “tolerance” and “diversity.”

Qualification Number Six: Michael Rubens Bloomberg believes that he, a professed agnostic Talmudist, is going straight to Heaven because of all of the “good” that he does:

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn’t sure if there’s an afterlife. But if there is, he believes he’s going straight to Heaven:

“I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to Heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed,” he told the New York Times, citing his work on gun control, obesity, and anti-smoking laws. “I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in Heaven. It’s not even close.”

The comments came in an article about Bloomberg’s new $50 million effort to counter the National Rifle Association. The new spending is Bloomberg’s “first major political investment since leaving office,” according to the Times. By comparison, the NRA spends about $20 million on political activities annually. 

The money will be spent forming a political network that organizes and motivates pro-gun control voters (and tries to punish elected officials who work against that agenda). Bloomberg said that gun control advocates have to make their opponents “afraid of us.” 

The former mayor’s new group will focus on “the often-unseen field operations that have been effective for groups like the NRA in driving single-issue, like-minded voters to the polls,” and not television ads, the Times report indicated. It’s a new strategy for the billionaire, who has already spent millions of dollars advocating gun control without any major legislative accomplishments. 

His $50 million commitment may grow over time, as well. Asked about spending more, he casually described other political donations and added, “Let’s see what happens.” (I have earned my place in Heaven.)

Proof of Qualification as a Member of the Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism: Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes all that is necessary to go to Heaven is to “do good,” something that he has stated on more than one occasion:

(Vatican Radio) “Doing good” is a principle that unites all humanity, beyond the diversity of ideologies and religions, and creates the “culture of encounter” that is the foundation of peace: this is what Pope said at Mass this morning at the Domus Santae Martae, in the presence of employees of the Governorate of Vatican City. Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites, concelebrated at the Mass.

Wednesday’s Gospel speaks to us about the disciples who prevented a person from outside their group from doing good. “They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”:

“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him. Instead, this ‘closing off’ that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. That we can kill in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy.”

“Instead,” the Pope continued, “the Lord has created us in His image and likeness, and has given us this commandment in the depths of our heart: do good and do not do evil”:

“The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.

“Doing good” the Pope explained, is not a matter of faith: “It is a duty, it is an identity card that our Father has given to all of us, because He has made us in His image and likeness. And He does good, always.”

This was the final prayer of Pope Francis:

“Today is [the feast of] Santa Rita, Patron Saint of impossible things – but this seems impossible: let us ask of her this grace, this grace that all, all, all people would do good and that we would encounter one another in this work, which is a work of creation, like the creation of the Father. A work of the family, because we are all children of God, all of us, all of us! And God loves us, all of us! May Santa Rita grant us this grace, which seems almost impossible. Amen.” (Culture of encounter is the foundation of peace.)

Judgment: Check. Michael Rubens Bloomberg, the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, pro-corruption of children by means of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, pro-dispensing pills and devices to those children to make it “safe” for them to engage in sins against Holy Purity, quintessential Food Nazi, anti-smoking Nazi and anti-gun-ownng Nazi, pro-population control former Mayor of New York, New York, believes that he is “doing good.” That’s all that matters, right?


Catholic Reality Check to show that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as much of a non-Catholic as is Michael Bloomberg and that, at least as it stands now in the objective order of things, both are headed for eternal perdition, not eternal life, unless they convert to the true Faith before they die and publicly abjure their support of one evil after another:

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . . 

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

Not looking for you, Mike and Jorge. Not looking good at all.

We have returned to the days of Arianism, the days in which those who are considered “odd” are those who, despite their own sins and failings, defect from nothing contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. It is very fitting, therefore, that today is the feast day of the great Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, whose valiant deeds were described by Dom Prosper Gueranger. O.S.B., in The Liturgical Year in such a manner as apply the uncompromising heroism of this much-persecuted bishop and Doctor of the Holy Church, who was exiled on five different occasions from Alexandria, to our very own times of apostasy and betrayal today:

The Court of our divine King, during his grandest of seasons, is brilliant beyond measure; and to-day, it is gladdened by the arrival of one of the most glorious champions of the world of truth for his holy cause. Among the guardians of the word of truth, confided by Jesus to the earth, is there one more faithful than Athanasius? Does not his very name remind us of dauntless courage in the defense of the sacred deposit, of heroic firmness and patience in suffering, of learning, of talent, of eloquence–in a word, of everything that goes to from a Saint, a Bishop, and a Doctor of the Church? Athanasius lived for the Son of God; the cause of the Son of God was that of Athanasius; he who blessed Athanasius, blessed the eternal Word; and he who insulted Athanasius insulted the eternal Word.

Never did our holy faith go through a greater ordeal than in the sad times immediately following the peace of the Church, when the bark of Peter had to pass through the most furious storm that hell has, so far, let loose against her. Satan had vainly sought to drown the Christian race in a sea of blood; the sword of persecution had grown blunt in the hands of Diocletian and Galerius; and the Cross appeared in the heavens, proclaiming the triumph of Christianity. Scarcely had the Church become aware of her victory when she felt herself shaken to her very foundation. Hell sent upon the earth a heresy which threatened to blight the fruit of three hundred years of martyrdom. Arius began his impious doctrine, that he who had hitherto been adored as the Son of God was only a creature, though the most perfect of all creatures. Immense was the number, even of the clergy, that fell into this new error; the Emperors became its abettors; and had not God himself interposed, men would soon have set up the cry throughout the world that the only result of the victory gained by the Christian religion was to change the object of idolatry, and put a new idol, called Jesus, in place of the old ones.

But he who had promised that the gates of hell should never prevail against his Church, faithfully fulfilled his promise. The primitive faith triumphed; the Council of Nicaea proclaimed the Son to be consubstantial with the Father; but the Church stood in need of a man in whom the cause of the consubstantial Word should be, so to speak, incarnated–a man with learning enough to foil the artifices of heresy, and with courage enough to bear every persecution without flinching. This man was Athanasius; and everyone that adores and loves the Son of God, should love and honour Athanasius. Five times banished from his See of Alexandria, he fled for protection to the West, which justly appreciated the glorious confessor of Jesus’ divinity. In return for the hospitality accorded him by Rome, Athanasius gave her of his treasures. Being the admirer and friend of the great St. Antony, he was a fervent admirer of the monastic life, which, by the grace of the Holy Ghost, had flourished so wonderfully in the deserts of his vast patriarchate. He brought the precious seed to Rome, and the first monks seen there were the ones introduced by Athanasius. The heavenly plant became naturalized in its new soil; and though its growth was slow at first, it afterwards produced fruit more abundantly than it had ever done in the East.

Athanasius, who has written so admirably upon that fundamental dogma of our faith–the divinity of Christ–also has left us most eloquent treatises on the mystery of the Pasch: they are to be found in the Festal Letters which he addressed each year to the churches of his patriarchate of Alexandria. The collection of these Letters, which were once thought to be irretrievably lost, was found, a few years back, in the monastery of St. Mary of Scete in Egypt. The first, for the year 329, begins with these words, which beautifully express the sentiments we should feel at the approach of Easter: ‘Come, my beloved brethren, celebrate the feast; the season of the year invites you to do so. The Sun of justice, by pouring out his divine rays upon you that the time of the solemnity is come. At such tidings, let us keep a glad feast; let not the joy slip from us with the fleeting days, without our having tasted of its sweetness.’ During almost every year of his banishment, Athanasius continued to address a Paschal Letter to his people. The one in which he announced the Easter of 338, and which he wrote at Treves, begins thus: ‘Though separated from you, my brethren, I cannot break through the custom which I have always observed, and which I received from the tradition of the Fathers. I will not be silent; I will not omit announcing to you the time of the holy annual feast, and the day on which you must keep the solemnity. I am, as you have doubtless been told, a prey to many tribulations; I am weighed down by heavy trials; I am watched by the enemies of truth, who scrutinize everything I write, in order to rake up accusations against me and thereby add to my sufferings; yet notwithstanding, I feel that the Lord strengthens and consoles me in my afflictions. Therefore do I venture to address to you the annual celebration; and from the midst of my troubles, and despite the snares that beset me, I send you, from the furthermost part of the earth, the tidings of the Pasch, which is our salvation. Commending my fate into God’s hands, I will celebrate this feast with you; distance of place separates us, but I am not absent from you. The lord who gives us these feasts, who is himself our feast, who bestows upon us the gift of his Spirit–he unites us spiritually to one another, by the bond of concord and peace.’

How grand is the Pasch, celebrated by Athanasius, an exile on the Rhine, in union with his people who keep their Easter on the banks of the Nile! It shows us the power of the Liturgy to unite men and make them, at one and the same time, and despite the distance of countries, enjoy the same holy emotions and feel the same aspirations to virtue. Greeks or Barbarians, we have all the same mother country, the Church; but that which, after faith, unites us all into one family, is the Church’s Liturgy. Now there is nothing in the whole Liturgy so expressive of unity as the celebration of Easter. The unhappy Churches of Russia and the East, by keeping Easter on a different day from that on which it is celebrated by the rest of the Christian world, show that they are not a portion of the One Fold of which Our Risen Jesus is the One Shepherd. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Pascal Time, Book II, pp. 403-406.)

We must defend the Faith as we accept the rebukes that come out way in silence as we suffer in joy Christ the King as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, thanking Our Lord abundantly for opportunity to be more perfectly conformed to His Holy Cross and as we seek to draw inspiration from this prayer of Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., to our glorious Saint of this day:

Intercede for the country over which was extended thy patriarchal jurisdiction; but forget not this Europe of ours, which gave thee hospitality and protection. Rome defended thy cause; she passed sentence in thy favour, and restored thee thy rights; make her a return, now that thou art face to face with the God of infinite goodness and power. Protect and console her Pontiff, the successor of that Julius who so nobly befriended thee fifteen hundred years ago. A fierce tempest is now raging against the Rock on which is built the Church of Christ; and our eyes have grown wearied for a sign of calm. Oh! pray that these days of trial be shortened, and that the See of Peter may triumph over the calumnies and persecutions which are now besetting her, and endangering the faith of many of her children.

Thy zeal, O Athanasius! checked the ravages of Arianism; but this heresy has again appeared, in our own times, and in almost every country of Europe. Its progress is due to that proud superficial learning which has become one of the principal perils of the age. The Eternal Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, is blasphemed by our so-called philosophers, as being only Man–the best and greatest of men, they say, but still only Man. They despise all the proofs which reason and history adduce of Jesus’ divinity; they profess a sort regard for the Christian teaching which has hitherto been held, but they have discovered (so they tell us) the fallacy of the great dogma which recognizes in the Son of Mary the Eternal Word who became incarnate for man’s salvation. O Athanasius, glorious Doctor of of holy Mother Church! humble these modern Arians; expose their proud ignorance and sophistry; undeceive their unhappy followers, by letting them see how this false doctrine leads either to the abyss of the abominations of pantheism, or to the chaos of scepticism, where all truth and morally are impossibilities.

Preserve within us, by the influence of they prayers, the precious gift of faith, wherewith our Lord has mercifully blessed us. Obtain for us that we may ever confess and adore Jesus Christ our eternal and infinite God, ‘God of God; Light of Light; True God of True God; Begotten not men; who for us men, and for our salvation, took Flesh, of the Virgin Mary.’ May we grow each day in the knowledge of this Jesus, until we join thee in the face-to-face contemplation of his perfections. Meanwhile, by means of holy faith, we will live with him on this earth that has witnessed the glory of his Resurrection. How fervent, O Athanasius, was thy love of this Son of God, our Creator and Redeemer! This love was the very life of thy soul, and the stimulus that urged thee to heroic devotedness to his cause. It supported thee in the combats thou hadst to sustain with the world, which seemed leagued together against thy single person. It gave thee strength to endless tribulations. Oh! pray that we may obtain this love–a love which is fearless of danger, because faithful to him for whom we suffer–a Brightness of his Father’s glory, and Infinite Wisdom, emptied himself, taking the form of a servant and humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the Cross. How else can we make him a return for his devotedness to us except by giving him all our love,as thou didst. O Athanasius! and by ever singing his praise in compensation for the humiliations which he endured in order to save us? (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Paschal Time: Book II, pp. 411-413.)

Saint Athanasius has given us marching orders, and those marching orders do not make us Pharisees, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, or “closed-minded:”

They have the premises – but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: what is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in the struggle – the one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith? True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there; they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way …

“You are the ones who are happy; you who remain within the Church by your Faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to you from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis. No one, ever, will prevail against your Faith, beloved Brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

“Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church; but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray. Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock.)

Let these words continue to be our consolation in these days when it is easier for most people to believe in the mythologies of naturalists in the political realm and the Modernists in the theological realm who esteem false idols than it is to hold steadfast to the Faith.

We turn to Our Lady with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pledging to her in this month of May to pray the Litany of Loreto every day in addition to praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. We can crown Our Lady as Queen of our hearts by making reparation for our sins and those of the whole world by enslaving ourselves to her Divine Son through her Immaculate Heart, giving unto whatever merit we earn each day so that she can dispose of that merit however she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity and for the good of souls in the Church Suffering in Purgatory and here in the Church Militant on earth.

The final victory belongs to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. We must consider it a privilege that we are alive in these times to plant a few seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant on earth and for the restoration of Christendom in the world.

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 Andrew the Apostle, 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 Athanasius, pray for us.

Purity of Thought?

Although there is probably little need to continue to write about the now accomplished fact of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “canonization” of two Modernists, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, on Low Sunday, April 27, 2014, there is an aspect that, though touched upon briefly in some previous articles, requires just a little bit of discussion before attention is turned to other matters, including the always repetitive follies of naturalism.

Some fully traditional Catholic commentators, focused understandably on the “Saint John Paul II’s” heresies, blasphemies, apostasies and sacrileges that make it impossible for any true pope to proceed with any kind of canonization for a man such as Karol Wojtyla, have overlooked the fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II engaged in a systematic effort to protect, indemnify and, at least in a few instances, promoted “bishops” and priests/presbyters who were guilty of moral crimes, both natural and unnatural, in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The fact that Wojtyla/John Paul II served as enabler of men guilty of such heinous acts, committed against children, teenagers and adults alike, makes his “canonization” unthinkable even if he had not been a serial killer of souls.

Yet it is that none other than the man who was the Vatican spinmeister between 1984 and 2006, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, contends that the “Polish Pope” did not cover-up the crimes of “bishops” and priest/presbyters, that the supposed “purity” of his mind would not permit him to believe that clerics were capable of such crimes:

Joaquin Navarro-Valls, former Director of the Press Office of the Holy See: “The Pope was very concerned. One needs to to understand the purity of his thoughts, so to speak. To accept the situation was remarkably difficult, but he did accept it. Naturally he began to make decisions. He called for all of the American cardinals to come to Rome, he could not bring all of the bishops from United States because there were too many, but all of the cardinals came. I was at that meeting. He spoke clearly of the abuse cases and began to understand and make decisions, decisions that were of a legal nature”.

Rome Reports Narrative: Some time later, the double life of Marcial Maciel came to light. Joaquín Navarro-Valls explained that the investigation into the actions of Maciel began during the last year of the pontificate of John Paul II, and that the Pope was aware of the investigation. He declared that John Paul II in no way covered up or ignored the actions of Maciel.
Navarro-Valls: “There is simply a lack of objective information. I was on the inside of things and can deny these claims”.
Rome Reports Narrative: The investigation ended during the first year of now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s pontificate. Joaquín Navarro-Valls explains that from the very first moments the Pope asked to know the whole story, without having any intention of hiding the truth. (Joaquín Navarro-Valls: John Paul II did not cover up for clergy abuses.)
This is, to put it charitably, simply not true.
Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II knew as early as 1984 that there were clergy abusers among his “hierarchy” right here in the United States of America, something that a “Father” Thomas Doyle,” writing recently the “ultra-progressive” National Catholic Reporter, documented very thoroughly:

Sitting on a bookshelf in my office is a red leather-bound copy of the Code of Canon Law. This isn’t just any copy of the church’s rulebook. It was signed by Pope John Paul II for me at the request of my former boss, the late Cardinal Pio Laghi. It is dated 6-6-1983 in the late pope’s own hand. I was definitely a fan in those days.

On Sunday after John Paul is promoted to sainthood, it will become a second-class relic. I will not venerate it, nor will I join the cheering crowds.

The past 30 years have led me to the opinion that his sainthood is a profound insult to the countless victims of sexual assault by Catholic clergy the world over. It is an insult to the decent, well-intentioned men and women who were persecuted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during his reign, and it is an insult to the memory of Pope John XXIII, who has the misfortune being a canonization classmate.

This soon-to-be relic is a symbol of the shame and the failure of the book’s content, the collection of church rules, and of the pope who autographed it. People more eloquent than I have publicly stated the many reasons why this is so. I won’t repeat their words here. However, I believe it is important to clarify some of the bizarre statements John Paul’s two main cheerleaders have been making.

George Weigel claimed there was an information gap between the United States and the Holy See in 2002. This is nonsense. There was no gap then, and there was no gap in 1984, when the abuse issue boiled to the surface of public awareness. I was working at the Vatican embassy in 1984 and have firsthand experience of the transmission of information to the Vatican.

The papal nuncio, Laghi, then an archbishop, received a letter in the summer of 1984 from the vicar general of Lafayette, La., telling him that a couple whose little boy had been violated by Gilbert Gauthe was suing Gauthe, the bishop, the diocese, the archbishop of New Orleans, the papal nuncio and the pope. Soon after, the nuncio received the official complaint. From then on, there was a constant flow of information from Lafayette to the nuncio and from another diocese that popped onto center stage for the same reason — Providence, R.I.

I was the conduit for most of the information and prepared daily memos for Archbishop Laghi. The usual procedure would have been to prepare a report for the Holy See, but that didn’t happen at this stage. Laghi was on the phone to various officials in the Vatican, including the Secretariat of State, which is as good as going directly to the pope. In our conversations about the problem, and there were many, he frequently made statements such as, “I have talked to my superiors in Rome” or “My superiors in Rome” have said such and so.

In late February, I suggested to the archbishop that we ask the Holy Father to appoint a U.S. bishop to go to the Lafayette diocese as a special investigator to both see firsthand what was going on and to try to put some order into what was a rapidly growing chaotic mess. I suggested the late Bishop A.J. Quinn of Cleveland. Although my intentions were good, he was a mistake. Before long, it became obvious that he was part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Laghi agreed with my suggestion and asked me to prepare a report that would be attached to the request. The purpose of the report was to explain the situation in Louisiana. I quickly put together a report that was about 35 pages in length. It was detailed and factual, naming names and giving dates. It included the history of the cover-up as we knew it and a fairly graphic description of the harm done to the victims, a description based on some of the first medical reports I had received.

The nuncio told me that this was an urgent matter and for that reason, he wanted the report to go directly to the pope and not through one of the Vatican congregations. The late Cardinal John Krol of Philadelphia, a close friend of the pope, was leaving for Rome the following Monday. My orders were to get the report, signed by Laghi, to Krol by Sunday night. He had spoken with Laghi and had agreed to put it directly into the pope’s hands. The report was sent by courier to Philadelphia. By Tuesday, it was before the pope, and by Thursday night, we had received a telex informing us that the pope had duly deputized Quinn as Laghi had requested.

From then on through the spring of 1985, I continued to prepare memos for Laghi, who continued to report to his superiors in the Vatican. There were some written reports sent over, but I don’t recall how many. Among the items sent was a copy of the now-infamous report prepared by the late Fr. Michael Peterson, Attorney Ray Mouton, and me. This was the same report that the officials of the bishops’ conference said they didn’t need because they knew everything that was in it.

Fast forward to June, bypassing the famous Collegeville, Minn., meeting at which the bishops spent an entire day in executive session hearing about clergy sexual abuse but apparently learning nothing given the long-range outcome. In mid-June, as I recall, the late Cardinal Silvio Oddi visited the nunciature. At the time, he was prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. Oddi reminded me of the cartoon character “The Little King.” He had a cardinalatial ring with a stone as big as a golf ball.

He told Laghi that he wanted to hear about the sex abuse crisis. The nuncio told me to meet with the cardinal and brief him. I prepared a “briefing paper.” This was June, and a lot had transpired since February. The nuncio had become aware of many more reports of sexual abuse by clergy from a number of different dioceses. I prepared my report and knew enough to be factual and detailed and, in some areas, graphically explicit. Oddi sat for about two hours while I in essence read the report, with occasional diversions to add more detail.

Normally very affable, the good cardinal was clearly in a dark mood when I finished. He asked a number of pointed questions about both the abusers and the abused and wanted to know why the accused priests were not subjected to a canonical trial. I will never forget his closing comments. “I will speak of this to the Holy Father. We will have a meeting of the prefects of all the dicasteries [Vatican departments], and we will issue a decree!” Subsequent to his departure, I recall Laghi assuring me that something would be done because Oddi would report to the pope. Whatever happened is anyone’s guess. There was no decree, and even if there had been, it would have been useless.

This was in 1985, not 2002. It is hard to believe that this pope, who was supposed to be one of the smartest men alive at the time, could not have understood the gravity of significant numbers of priests raping and violating little children. The excuse that he did nothing because of his “purity of thought” is as ridiculous as the excuse that he wanted to preserve the priesthood for which he held such high esteem.

Joaquín Navarro-Valls, John Paul’s press officer, said Friday that he didn’t think the pope or anyone else understood the gravity of the crisis. Other than the fact that this assertion is also ridiculous, a number of people in the church did understand the gravity: the mothers and fathers of the children who were violated and even the general public, who were clamoring for action even back in the mid-’80s.

Navarro-Valls said after 2002, Pope John Paul immediately began taking action. Other than making nine recorded public statements, all of which were sufficiently nuanced to be innocuous, and calling a meeting of the U.S. cardinals to tell them what everyone already knew, he did nothing positive.

He did, however, do a few negative things. He was ultimately responsible for short-circuiting the investigation of Fr. Marcial Maciel Degollado. He refused to investigate the accusations against Cardinal Hans Hermann Groër of Vienna. He promoted the careers of some of the bishops and cardinals who intentionally inflicted horrendous damage on victims and expended vast amounts of donated money to stonewall the process of justice, e.g., Cardinals Bernard Law, Roger Mahony and George Pell, to name but a few. Perhaps the most egregious nonaction was completely ignoring the pleas of thousands of victims, many of whom wrote directly to him. Victims and victims’ groups bombarded the Vatican with letters and requested audiences or at least recognition by the pope, especially at the World Youth Day celebrations. Not only were their requests ignored, but not one ever even received an acknowledgement of the receipt of their communication. (Woytla could have intervened in abuse crisis, but did not do so. For a more detailed look at the Gilbert Gauthe case, see Jason Berry, The Tragedy of Gilbert Gauthe and Rev. Gilbert J. Gauthe-Assignment.)

I was studying at Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, when the story of Father Gilbert Gauthe broke. It was big news. It was international news. It fit perfectly into a pattern that I had noticed while at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland in the Fall of 1981 (leaving just before my mother was diagnosed with cancer and I returned to teaching) the phenomenon of truly effeminate men studying that what they thought was priestly ordination. It had just been a year before my time at Mount Saint Mary’s Seminary that four “ordained” transitional deacons were caught in the sin against nature, resulting in the expulsion of one, who later died of a particular disease associate with unnatural vice, while the other three were “ordained” as “priests” for what I came later to accept as the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Yes, the Gilbert Gauthe story fit perfectly into the pattern I had seen with my own eyes: the systematic recruitment, promotion and protection of highly effeminate men, some of whom were caricatures of those steeped the sin of Sodom, to the conciliar presbyterate. This was no secret in the conciliar structures.

Indeed, a diocesan vocations director told me in 1974 (at a time I was studying for my doctorate in political science at the then-named State University of New York at Albany, now called “The University at Albany) that there were dioceses “within two hundred miles of here that accept homosexuals,” explaining that this is the reason that he had to be very cautious in screening candidates. Even then, forty years ago now, the problem was very well known within clerical circles in the conciliar church.

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II knew all about the facts. I knew too many true priests who went to Rome with the facts about various cases. Moreover, as has been reported on this site in the past, I used an American contact in the Congregation for the Bishops to seek the removal of the notorious abuser of his own clergy who paid for “favors” from “professional” men, “Bishop” Daniel Leo Ryan of Springfield, Illinois, in January of 1997 after the courageous founder of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., Mr. Stephen G. Brady, had written to Ryan in November of 1996 to demand his resignation after one of the “clerics” abuse came forth privately with his story. The conciliar Vatican refused to do anything even after the late Father John Anthony Hardon, S.J., met with the then prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, Dario Castriollon “Cardinal” Hoyos, in February of 1997, although the presbyter in question was transferred to a different diocese.

Additionally, Francis “Cardinal” George, who has been the conciliar “archbishop” of Chicago for the past twenty-seven years, admitted in January of 1998 to Stephen G. Brad that he, “Cardinal” George had known all about Ryan’s moral corruption of the then conciliar “bishop” of for years, urging Mr. Brady to “wait” before expose more evidence about Ryan in addition to the information that had been brought forth by Brady in February of 1997 and was reported by this writer in the pages of The Wanderer (see Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment and More Witnesses Emerge in Bishop Ryan Case; these articles–and an editorial that I wrote that appears on the same page as the second article–were, of course, eight years before I, bright light that I am, finally concluded that the Catholic Church could be responsible for none of the outrages that I was criticizing). Ryan was allowed to resign in “good standing” in the conciliar structures in 1999, and it was not until 2003 that a commission appointed by George got around, quite belatedly, to admitting that the charges against Ryan were true all along. Steve Brady had been correct all along.

“Saint John Paul II” did not know about this?


Quite the contrary is true. The now “canonized” “pontiff” had quite an extensive intelligence network that he relied upon during the early years of his “pontificate” by which his aides were able to gather evidence about various “bishops” before they made their quinquennial or ad limina apostolorum visits to the Vatican. Some of this evidence was gathered by Father Hardon, who died on December 30, 2000. Other priests, including the late Monsignor George Kelly, who worked closely with John “Cardinal” Wright and Silvio Cardinal Oddi during their respective tenures as prefects of the Congregation for the Clergy, also sent information to “papal” aides that was used during the interviews that John Paul II had with various “bishops.”

One of those interviews took place with the late John Raymond McGann, who was the conciliar “bishop” of my home diocese, the Diocese of Rockville Centre, from 1976 to 2000 despite his record of ultra-progressivism that I documented so many times in The Wanderer, a little over thirty-one years ago, in April of 1983. Wojtyla/John Paul II questioned McGann closely as to why four parishes in his diocese did not schedule confessions during the recently-concluded Paschal Triduum. McGann responded by saying, “Well, you know, Your Holiness, our priests are very busy.” How do I know this? Because an auxiliary “bishop” of the diocese spoke about the “papal” interview publicly at a reception at Saint Gertrude Church in Bayville, New York, following his putative administration of the conciliar rite of confirmation. Anyone who says that Wojtyla/John Paul II did not have an intelligence network and/or that his aides “kept” information from him is the one living in a fantasy world.

Joaquin Navarro-Valls also failed to mention the little fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II rewarded the enabler of Father Paul Shanley, who cofounded an organization whose name is so repulsive that it will not be repeated here, Bernard “Cardinal” Law, by appointing him the archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, where he served until 2012.

No place in the clergy for abusers?

Why did Wojtyla/John Paul II continue to reward the “bishops” who protected the abusers?

The rhetoric of the false “pontiff” in 2002 that was cited by Dr. Navarro-Valls was meaningless, backed up by no disciplinary actions against the “bishops.” This is why I wrote Time for Plain Talk in 2002, four years before I came to recognize and accept the true state of Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Insofar as the Legionaries of Christ is concerned, it is no accident that its corrupt, venal founder maintained his “reputation” throughout John Paul II’s tenure even though I know for a fact that information was sent directly to the Apostolic Palace by former presbyters in the Legion about the problems there, including that the community’s founder, Father Marcel Maciel Degollado, had abused them physically and tortured them emotionally. The very man who is pushing for the “canonization” of John Paul II, the current conciliar “archbishop of Krakow, Poland, Stanislaw Dziwisz, who was Wojtyla/John Paul II’s personal secretary for many years, took bundles of cash from those with ties to the Legionaries of Christ:

The Vatican office with the greatest potential to derail Maciel’s career before 2001 — the year that Ratzinger persuaded John Paul to consolidate authority of abuse investigations in his office – was the Congregation for Religious, which oversaw religious orders such as the Dominicans, Franciscans and Legionaries, among many others.

According to two former Legionaries who spent years in Rome, Maciel paid for the renovation of the residence in Rome for the Argentine cardinal who was prefect of religious from 1976 to 1983, the late Eduardo Francisco Pironio. “That’s a pretty big resource,” explains one priest, who said the Legion’s work on the residence was expensive, and widely known at upper levels of the order. “Pironio got his arm twisted to sign the Legion constitution.”

The Legion constitution included the highly controversial Private Vows, by which each Legionary swore never to speak ill of Maciel, or the superiors, and to report to them anyone who uttered criticism. The vows basically rewarded spying as an expression of faith, and cemented the Legionaries’ lockstep obedience to the founder. The vows were Maciel’s way of deflecting scrutiny as a pedophile. But cardinals on the consultors’ board at Congregation for Religious balked on granting approval.

“Therefore, Maciel went to the pope through Msgr. Dziwisz,” said the priest. “Two weeks later Pironio signed it.”

Dziwisz was John Paul’s closest confidante, a Pole who had a bedroom in the private quarters of the Apostolic Palace. Maciel spent years cultivating Dziwisz’s support. Under Maciel, the Legion steered streams of money to Dziwisz in his function as gatekeeper for the pope’s private Masses in the Apostolic Palace. Attending Mass in the small chapel was a rare privilege for the occasional head of state, like British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his family. “Mass would start at 7 a.m., and there was always someone in attendance: laypeople, or priests, or groups of bishops,” Dziwisz wrote in a 2008 memoir, A Life With Karol: My Forty-Year Friendship With the Man Who Became Pope.

“When the guests came in (there were never more than 50),” Dziwisz wrote, “they often found the pope kneeling in prayer with his eyes closed, in a state of total abandonment, almost of ecstasy, completely unaware of who was entering the chapel. … For the laypeople, it was a great spiritual experience. The Holy Father attached extreme importance to the presence of the lay faithful.”

One of the ex-Legionaries in Rome told NCR that a Mexican family in 1997 gave Dziwisz $50,000 upon attending Mass. “We arranged things like that,” he said of his role as go-between. Did John Paul know about the funds? Only Dziwisz would know. Given the pope’s ascetic lifestyle and accounts of his charitable giving, the funds could have gone to a deserving cause. Dziwisz’s book says nothing of donations and contains no mention of Maciel or the Legion. The priest who arranged for the Mexican family to attend Mass worried, in hindsight, about the frequency with which Legionaries facilitated funds to Dziwisz.

“This happened all the time with Dziwisz,” said a second ex-Legionary, who was informed of the transactions.

Fr. Alvaro Corcuera, who would succeed Maciel as director general in 2004, and one or two other Legionaries “would go up to see Dziwisz on the third floor. They were welcomed. They were known within the household.”

Struggling to give context to the donations, this cleric continued: “You’re saying these laypeople are good and fervent, it’s good for them to meet the pope. The expression is opera carita — ‘We’re making an offering for your works of charity.’ That’s the way it’s done. In fact you don’t know where the money’s going.” He paused. “It’s an elegant way of giving a bribe.”

Recalling those events, he spoke of what made him leave the Legion. “I woke up and asked: Am I giving my life to serve God, or one man who had his problems? It was not worth consecrating myself to Maciel.”

What’s a bribe?

In terms of legal reality, does “an elegant way of giving a bribe” add up to bribery? The money from Maciel was given to heads of congregations in the early 1990s and the newspaper exposure of Maciel did not occur until 1997, and the canon law case in 1998.

Further, such exchanges are not considered bribes in the view of Nicholas Cafardi, a prominent canon lawyer and the dean emeritus of Duquesne University Law School in Pittsburgh. Cafardi, who has done work as a legal consultant for many bishops, responded to a general question about large donations to priests or church officials in the Vatican.

Under church law (canon 1302), a large financial gift to an official in Rome “would qualify as a pious cause,” explains Cafardi. He spoke in broad terms, saying that such funds should be reported to the cardinal-vicar for Rome. An expensive gift, like a car, need not be reported.

“That’s how I read the law. I know of no exceptions. Cardinals do have to report gifts for pious causes. If funds are given for the official’s personal charity, that is not a pious cause and need not be reported.”

Because the cardinals did not respond to interview requests, NCR has been unable to determine whether they reported to Vatican officials the money they allegedly received from the Legion.

“Maciel wanted to buy power,” said the priest who facilitated the Mexican family’s opera carita to Dziwisz. He did not use the word bribery, but in explaining why he left the Legion, morality was at issue. “It got to a breaking point for me [over] a culture of lying [within the order]. The superiors know they’re lying and they know that you know,” he said. “They lie about money, where it comes from, where it goes, how it’s given.” (Money paved way for Maciel’s influence in the Vatican.)

Karol Wojtyla/ohn Paul II did not know any of this?

If he did not, he should have known. And that is what a real examination of a candidate’s cause for canonization would examine as this is, at the very least, dereliction of duty by acts of omission by failing to see that one’s trust in another is misplaced and is resulting in the wreckage of souls. The facts, however, speak to this being a case of protecting and indemnifying clerical abusers time and time again.

Mind you, this is not even to mention for the eighty-eighth thousandth time the number of ways that “Saint John Paul II” defected from the Catholic Faith, something that has been examined at length on this site and was explored in the context of the nature of infallibility in a very scholarly article written by “Athanasius” (who is not me; I write under my own poisoned name, thank you very much) at Novus Ordo Watch: The “Canonization of John Paul II: A Catholic Perspective.)

Keeping close to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we enter into this month devoted to her honor, the month of May, may we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit as we continue to offer up all of our prayers and sufferings and sacrifices to that same Sacred Heart through the Immaculate Heart out of which It was formed and with which It beats as one. May it be our privilege to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we attempt to make reparation to Jesus through Mary for our sins and those of the whole world as we make reparation for our own sins and those of the conciliar revolutionary whose life full of heresy and scandal has now been declared to “venerated” by all Catholics in the world by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

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 Andrew the Apostle, 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.

Saints Philip and James, pray for us.

Jorge’s Preferential Option for Heresy and Those Who Profess It

Fresh off of his “canonization” of “Saints John XXIII” and “Saint John Paul II” three days ago now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio went on something called “Twitter” to write the following:

“Inequality is the root of social evil.” (See Inequality Root of all Social Evil.)


Heavy sigh.

This man is obsessed. He is a 1960s/1970s revolutionary who, despite all of his protestations to the contrary, has a Marxist view of the world.

Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio has repeated this mantra of “inequality is the root of social evil” repeatedly throughout the course of the past thirteen months, seventeen days, including in Evangelium Gaudium, November 26, 2013, this obsession is just another sign of his absolutely manifest rejection of the Catholic Faith.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not realize that inequality is inherent in the nature of created things.

God ordered the Nine Choirs of Angels according to a hierarchy, assigning to each a specific function.

Archangels, Angels, and Principalities have been assigned to watch over the ordering of the universe down to its smallest detail, including the eternal and temporal welfare of human beings.

Powers, Virtues, and Dominations have been assigned to watch over the multiplicity of causes that govern the universe.

Thrones, Cherubim and Seraphim contemplate the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity.

God made inequality inherent in the nature of the world and in all created things.

There are distinctions between males and females, distinctions that can no amount of sloganeering or surgical mutations can eliminate.

While God cares equally for all creatures, whether great or small (cf. Wisdom 6: 8), He metes out his punishment as unequally as He distributes various gifts and talents, expecting more from those to whom more has been given, thus making their punishment more severe for the misuses of that which had been given unto them.

There is even inequality among the souls of the elect in Heaven. Although everyone in Heaven is as happy as they are capable of being, not everyone is equally happy. The reason for this is that those who loved God more in this life will have a greater enjoyment of His Beatific Vision in Heaven than those who loved him less in this life. As there is no envy in Heaven, each of the souls of the just rejoice in the justice of God, Who apportions to each according what he has given Him during his life on earth as a member of His true Church, outside of which there is no salvation.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not seem to understand that the remote cause of all evil in the world is Original Sin and the the proximate cause of all evil in the world is Actual Sin. Indeed, his casual, blithe acceptance of the Actual Sins of men show himself to be without any understanding that it is impossible for men to know order in their own souls and for there to be any right ordering of relations among men in the world if that which is repugnant to the peace and happiness of eternity is suborned by the civil law and promoted with abandon all throughout what passes for “popular culture.”

Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio refuses to accept the simple truth that one of the chief proximate causes of disorder within the souls of men and in the world-at-large is the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that was institutionalized over the course of time thereafter by the rise of the various, interrelated “philosophies” and ideologies of naturalism that can be referred to collectively as Judeo-Masonry.

Pope Leo XIII pointed this out with exacting precision in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885:

23. But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law.

24. Amongst these principles the main one lays down that as all men are alike by race and nature, so in like manner all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men. In a society grounded upon such maxims all government is nothing more nor less than the will of the people, and the people, being under the power of itself alone, is alone its own ruler. It does choose, nevertheless, some to whose charge it may commit itself, but in such wise that it makes over to them not the right so much as the business of governing, to be exercised, however, in its name.

25. The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were no God; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether in their individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the whole origin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as is evident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own master and ruler. And since the people is declared to contain within itself the spring-head of all rights and of all power, it follows that the State does not consider itself bound by any kind of duty toward God. Moreover. it believes that it is not obliged to make public profession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religions is the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest; or to show to any form of religion special favor; but, on the contrary, is bound to grant equal rights to every creed, so that public order may not be disturbed by any particular form of religious belief.

26. And it is a part of this theory that all questions that concern religion are to be referred to private judgment; that every one is to be free to follow whatever religion he prefers, or none at all if he disapprove of all. From this the following consequences logically flow: that the judgment of each one’s conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks.

27. Now, when the State rests on foundations like those just named — and for the time being they are greatly in favor — it readily appears into what and how unrightful a position the Church is driven. For, when the management of public business is in harmony with doctrines of such a kind, the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only, or inferior, to societies alien from it; no regard is paid to the laws of the Church, and she who, by the order and commission of Jesus Christ, has the duty of teaching all nations, finds herself forbidden to take any part in the instruction of the people. With reference to matters that are of twofold jurisdiction, they who administer the civil power lay down the law at their own will, and in matters that appertain to religion defiantly put aside the most sacred decrees of the Church. They claim jurisdiction over the marriages of Catholics, even over the bond as well as the unity and the indissolubility of matrimony. They lay hands on the goods of the clergy, contending that the Church cannot possess property. Lastly, they treat the Church with such arrogance that, rejecting entirely her title to the nature and rights of a perfect society, they hold that she differs in no respect from other societies in the State, and for this reason possesses no right nor any legal power of action, save that which she holds by the concession and favor of the government. If in any State the Church retains her own agreement publicly entered into by the two powers, men forthwith begin to cry out that matters affecting the Church must be separated from those of the State. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, believes in none of this. He is an apostate.

There is no question whatsoever that unbridled capitalism has caused numerous injustices as it reduces many of us to means of sheer corporate profit, which are then shared with the power-brokers in the civil government, and has reduced a good many people around to the world to part-time employment, which has been caused also by the increase taxation and social benefits to those who desire “cradle to grave” government assistance that makes it difficult for small businesses to hire employees full-time and gives incentives to large corporations to hire workers on a part-time basis. The Judeo-Masonic system of banking and commerce is premised upon lending policies that trap so many people into lives of perpetual debt as people of all income levels are lured to “spend” for the sake of having “things” that are not essential to their eternal salvation. (See A Really Invisible Hand from five and one-half years ago now.)

To delineate these problems, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio did in however, is useless unless one understand their root causes as Holy Mother Church has never defined the needs of the “poor” as constituting the forcible redistribution of wealth.

Pope Leo XIII’s second encyclical letter, Quod Apostolic Muneris, December 28, 1878, demolished every single sophistic falsehood and socialist shibboleth that was recycled by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Evangelii Gaudium:

9. But Catholic wisdom, sustained by the precepts of natural and divine law, provides with especial care for public and private tranquillity in its doctrines and teachings regarding the duty of government and the distribution of the goods which are necessary for life and use. For, while the socialists would destroy the “right” of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate. For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven. But not the less on this account does our holy Mother not neglect the care of the poor or omit to provide for their necessities; but, rather, drawing them to her with a mother’s embrace, and knowing that they bear the person of Christ Himself, who regards the smallest gift to the poor as a benefit conferred on Himself, holds them in great honor. She does all she can to help them; she provides homes and hospitals where they may be received, nourished, and cared for all the world over and watches over these. She is constantly pressing on the rich that most grave precept to give what remains to the poor; and she holds over their heads the divine sentence that unless they succor the needy they will be repaid by eternal torments. In fine, she does all she can to relieve and comfort the poor, either by holding up to them the example of Christ, “who being rich became poor for our sake,[18] or by reminding them of his own words, wherein he pronounced the poor blessed and bade them hope for the reward of eternal bliss. But who does not see that this is the best method of arranging the old struggle between the rich and poor? For, as the very evidence of facts and events shows, if this method is rejected or disregarded, one of two things must occur: either the greater portion of the human race will fall back into the vile condition of slavery which so long prevailed among the pagan nations, or human society must continue to be disturbed by constant eruptions, to be disgraced by rapine and strife, as we have had sad witness even in recent times. (Pope Leo XIII, Quod Apostolic Muneris, December 28, 1878.)

The governments of Modernity have been in the business of stealing from the people in order to impoverish everyone equally for a very long time, working in close cooperation and coordination with the lords of banking, commerce and finance in our Calvinist-Judeo-Masonic system of business.

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII had used his first encyclical letter, Inscutabili Dei Consilio, April 21, 1878, to condemn the confiscation of the goods of Holy Mother Church in the name of “helping the poor,” which had been done, of course, in the French Revolution of 1789 and was being done in his own time by the Masonic revolutionaries in Italy and had been undertaken by Otto von Bismarck during the Kulturkampf that has been been condemned in no uncertain terms by Pope Pius IX in Etsi Multa, November 21, 1873.

Here is part of what Pope Leo XIII wrote in his first encyclical letter:

2. For, from the very beginning of Our pontificate, the sad sight has presented itself to Us of the evils by which the human race is oppressed on every side: the widespread subversion of the primary truths on which, as on its foundations, human society is based; the obstinacy of mind that will not brook any authority however lawful; the endless sources of disagreement, whence arrive civil strife, and ruthless war and bloodshed; the contempt of law which molds characters and is the shield of righteousness; the insatiable craving for things perishable, with complete forgetfulness of things eternal, leading up to the desperate madness whereby so many wretched beings, in all directions, scruple not to lay violent hands upon themselves; the reckless mismanagement, waste, and misappropriation of the public funds; the shamelessness of those who, full of treachery, make semblance of being champions of country, of freedom, and every kind of right; in fine, the deadly kind of plague which infects in its inmost recesses, allowing it no respite and foreboding ever fresh disturbances and final disaster.[1]

3. Now, the source of these evils lies chiefly, We are convinced, in this, that the holy and venerable authority of the Church, which in God’s name rules mankind, upholding and defending all lawful authority, has been despised and set aside. The enemies of public order, being fully aware of this, have thought nothing better suited to destroy the foundations of society than to make an unflagging attack upon the Church of God, to bring her into discredit and odium by spreading infamous calumnies and accusing her of being opposed to genuine progress. They labor to weaken her influence and power by wounds daily inflicted, and to overthrow the authority of the Bishop of Rome, in whom the abiding and unchangeable principles of right and good find their earthly guardian and champion. From these causes have originated laws that shake the structure of the Catholic Church, the enacting whereof we have to deplore in so many lands; hence, too, have flowed forth contempt of episcopal authority; the obstacles thrown in the way of the discharge of ecclesiastical duties; the dissolution of religious bodies; and the confiscation of property that was once the support of the Church’s ministers and of the poor. Thereby, public institutions, vowed to charity and benevolence, have been withdrawn from the wholesome control of the Church; thence, also, has arisen that unchecked freedom to teach and spread abroad all mischievous principles, while the Church’s claim to train and educate youth is in every way outraged and baffled. Such, too, is the purpose of the seizing of the temporal power, conferred many centuries ago by Divine Providence on the Bishop of Rome, that he might without let or hindrance use the authority conferred by Christ for the eternal welfare of the nations.[2]

4. We have recalled to your minds, venerable brothers, this deathly mass of ills, not to increase the sorrow naturally caused by this most sad state of things, but because we believe that from its consideration you will most plainly see how serious are the matters claiming our attention as well as devotedness, and with what energy We should work and, more than ever, under the present adverse conditions, protect, so far as in Us lies, the Church of Christ and the honor of the apostolic see — the objects of so many slanders — and assert their claims.

5. It is perfectly clear and evident, venerable brothers, that the very notion of civilization is a fiction of the brain if it rest not on the abiding principles of truth and the unchanging laws of virtue and justice, and if unfeigned love knit not together the wills of men, and gently control the interchange and the character of their mutual service. Now, who would make bold to deny that the Church, by spreading the Gospel throughout the nations, has brought the light of truth amongst people utterly savage and steeped in foul superstition, and has quickened them alike to recognize the Divine Author of nature and duly to respect themselves? Further, who will deny that the Church has done away with the curse of slavery and restored men to the original dignity of their noble nature; and — by uplifting the standard of redemption in all quarters of the globe, by introducing, or shielding under her protection, the sciences and arts, by founding and taking into her keeping excellent charitable institutions which provide relief for ills of every kind — has throughout the world, in private or in public life, civilized the human race, freed it from degradation, and with all care trained it to a way of living such as befits the dignity and the hopes of man? And if any one of sound mind compare the age in which We live, so hostile to religion and to the Church of Christ, with those happy times when the Church was revered as a mother by the nations, beyond all question he will see that our epoch is rushing wildly along the straight road to destruction; while in those times which most abounded in excellent institutions, peaceful life, wealth, and prosperity the people showed themselves most obedient to the Church’s rule and laws. Therefore, if the many blessings We have mentioned, due to the agency and saving help of the Church, are the true and worthy outcome of civilization, the Church of Christ, far from being alien to or neglectful of progress, has a just claim to all men’s praise as its nurse, its mistress, and its mother.

6. Furthermore, that kind of civilization which conflicts with the doctrines and laws of holy Church is nothing but a worthless imitation and meaningless name. Of this those peoples on whom the Gospel light has never shown afford ample proof, since in their mode of life a shadowy semblance only of civilization is discoverable, while its true and solid blessings have never been possessed. Undoubtedly, that cannot by any means be accounted the perfection of civilized life which sets all legitimate authority boldly at defiance; nor can that be regarded as liberty which, shamefully and by the vilest means, spreading false principles, and freely indulging the sensual gratification of lustful desires, claims impunity for all crime and misdemeanor, and thwarts the goodly influence of the worthiest citizens of whatsoever class. Delusive, perverse, and misleading as are these principles, they cannot possibly have any inherent power to perfect the human race and fill it with blessing, for “sin maketh nations miserable.“[3] Such principles, as a matter of course, must hurry nations, corrupted in mind and heart, into every kind of infamy, weaken all right order, and thus, sooner or later, bring the standing and peace of the State to the very brink of ruin. (Pope Leo XIII, Inscrutabili Dei Consilio, April 21, 1878.)

In other words, Catholicism is the one and only foundation of order within the souls of men and thus in the world. Although even in the age of Christendom, to quote Pope Pius XII’s own first encyclical letter, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939, Europe “was not free from divisions, convulsions and wars which laid her waste; but perhaps they never felt the intense pessimism of today as to the possibility of settling them, for they had then an effective moral sense of the just and of the unjust, of the lawful and of the unlawful, which, by restraining outbreaks of passion, left the way open to an honorable settlement. In Our days, on the contrary, dissensions come not only from the surge of rebellious passion, but also from a deep spiritual crisis which has overthrown the sound principles of private and public morality.” (Pope Pius XII, Summi Pontificatus, October 10, 1939.)

Pope Leo XIII explained in Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891, that inequality in the distribution of goods is part of the very nature of things, explaining further that working for gain (profit) is admirable as long as men are not abused in the process, something that is an inherent part of the very fabric of the Calvinist-Judeo-Masonic system of commerce, banking and finance:

17. It must be first of all recognized that the condition of things inherent in human affairs must be borne with, for it is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level. Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain. There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition. Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts; and each man, as a rule, chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition. As regards bodily labor, even had man never fallen from the state of innocence, he would not have remained wholly idle; but that which would then have been his free choice and his delight became afterwards compulsory, and the painful expiation for his disobedience. “Cursed be the earth in thy work; in thy labor thou shalt eat of it all the days of thy life.”[5]

18. In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently — who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment — they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is, and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as We have said, for the solace to its troubles.

19. The great mistake made in regard to the matter now under consideration is to take up with the notion that class is naturally hostile to class, and that the wealthy and the working men are intended by nature to live in mutual conflict. So irrational and so false is this view that the direct contrary is the truth. Just as the symmetry of the human frame is the result of the suitable arrangement of the different parts of the body, so in a State is it ordained by nature that these two classes should dwell in harmony and agreement, so as to maintain the balance of the body politic. Each needs the other: capital cannot do without labor, nor labor without capital. Mutual agreement results in the beauty of good order, while perpetual conflict necessarily produces confusion and savage barbarity. Now, in preventing such strife as this, and in uprooting it, the efficacy of Christian institutions is marvelous and manifold. First of all, there is no intermediary more powerful than religion (whereof the Church is the interpreter and guardian) in drawing the rich and the working class together, by reminding each of its duties to the other, and especially of the obligations of justice.

20. Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers — that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this — that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers . . . which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.”[6] Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. (Pope Leo XIII, Rerurm Novarum, May 15, 1891.)

Employers and employees must be bound together by the common bonds of the Catholic Faith as it is only through the supernatural eyes of the soul that men can see in each other the image and likeness of God Himself and to treat others as he would treat Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, conscious always that he must make an accounting for everything in his life at his Particular Judgment. Absent that, however, disparities and injustices will increase and serve as the breeding grounds for socialists of one stripe or another, including full-scale Marxist-Leninist Communists, to exploit the situation for their own purposes of gaining both governmental power and money, whether incrementally over the course of time, as has happened here in the United States of America, or by revolutionary strokes, as occurred in Russia and China and Cuba and Mexico and elsewhere.

Pope Pius XI, who decried the growing disparity between rich and the poor that had given rise to even more social injustices in a span of forty years after Rerum Novarum, explained that remedies to curb an insatiable desire for wealth at the expense of others lay not in socialism but in the truths of eternity taught by the Catholic Faith:

132. The root and font of this defection in economic and social life from the Christian law, and of the consequent apostasy of great numbers of workers from the Catholic faith, are the disordered passions of the soul, the sad result of original sin which has so destroyed the wonderful harmony of man’s faculties that, easily led astray by his evil desires, he is strongly incited to prefer the passing goods of this world to the lasting goods of Heaven. Hence arises that unquenchable thirst for riches and temporal goods, which has at all times impelled men to break God’s laws and trample upon the rights of their neighbors, but which, on account of the present system of economic life, is laying far more numerous snares for human frailty. Since the instability of economic life, and especially of its structure, exacts of those engaged in it most intense and unceasing effort, some have become so hardened to the stings of conscience as to hold that they are allowed, in any manner whatsoever, to increase their profits and use means, fair or foul, to protect their hard-won wealth against sudden changes of fortune. The easy gains that a market unrestricted by any law opens to everybody attracts large numbers to buying and selling goods, and they, their one aim being to make quick profits with the least expenditure of work, raise or lower prices by their uncontrolled business dealings so rapidly according to their own caprice and greed that they nullify the wisest forecasts of producers. The laws passed to promote corporate business, while dividing and limiting the risk of business, have given occasion to the most sordid license. For We observe that consciences are little affected by this reduced obligation of accountability; that furthermore, by hiding under the shelter of a joint name, the worst of injustices and frauds are penetrated; and that, too, directors of business companies, forgetful of their trust, betray the rights of those whose savings they have undertaken to administer. Lastly, We must not omit to mention those crafty men who, wholly unconcerned about any honest usefulness of their work, do not scruple to stimulate the baser human desires and, when they are aroused, use them for their own profit.

133. Strict and watchful moral restraint enforced vigorously by governmental authority could have banished these enormous evils and even forestalled them; this restraint, however, has too often been sadly lacking. For since the seeds of a new form of economy were bursting forth just when the principles of rationalism had been implanted and rooted in many minds, there quickly developed a body of economic teaching far removed from the true moral law, and, as a result, completely free rein was given to human passions.

134. Thus it came to pass that many, much more than ever before, were solely concerned with increasing their wealth by any means whatsoever, and that in seeking their own selfish interests before everything else they had no conscience about committing even the gravest of crimes against others. Those first entering upon this broad way that leads to destruction[66] easily found numerous imitators of their iniquity by the example of their manifest success, by their insolent display of wealth, by their ridiculing the conscience of others, who, as they said, were troubled by silly scruples, or lastly by crushing more conscientious competitors.

135. With the rulers of economic life abandoning the right road, it was easy for the rank and file of workers everywhere to rush headlong also into the same chasm; and all the more so, because very many managements treated their workers like mere tools, with no concern at all for their souls, without indeed even the least thought of spiritual things. Truly the mind shudders at the thought of the grave dangers to which the morals of workers (particularly younger workers) and the modesty of girls and women are exposed in modern factories; when we recall how often the present economic scheme, and particularly the shameful housing conditions, create obstacles to the family bond and normal family life; when we remember how many obstacles are put in the way of the proper observance of Sundays and Holy Days; and when we reflect upon the universal weakening of that truly Christian sense through which even rude and unlettered men were wont to value higher things, and upon its substitution by the single preoccupation of getting in any way whatsoever one’s daily bread. And thus bodily labor, which Divine Providence decreed to be performed, even after original sin, for the good at once of man’s body and soul, is being everywhere changed into an instrument of perversion; for dead matter comes forth from the factory ennobled, while men there are corrupted and degraded.

136. No genuine cure can be furnished for this lamentable ruin of souls, which, so long as it continues, will frustrate all efforts to regenerate society, unless men return openly and sincerely to the teaching of the Gospel, to the precepts of Him Who alone has the words of everlasting life,[67] words which will never pass away, even if Heaven and earth will pass away.[68] All experts in social problems are seeking eagerly a structure so fashioned in accordance with the norms of reason that it can lead economic life back to sound and right order. But this order, which We Ourselves ardently long for and with all Our efforts promote, will be wholly defective and incomplete unless all the activities of men harmoniously unite to imitate and attain, in so far as it lies within human strength, the marvelous unity of the Divine plan. We mean that perfect order which the Church with great force and power preaches and which right human reason itself demands, that all things be directed to God as the first and supreme end of all created activity, and that all created good under God be considered as mere instruments to be used only in so far as they conduce to the attainment of the supreme end. Nor is it to be thought that gainful occupations are thereby belittled or judged less consonant with human dignity; on the contrary, we are taught to recognize in them with reverence the manifest will of the Divine Creator Who placed man upon the earth to work it and use it in a multitude of ways for his needs. Those who are engaged in producing goods, therefore, are not forbidden to increase their fortune in a just and lawful manner; for it is only fair that he who renders service to the community and makes it richer should also, through the increased wealth of the community, be made richer himself according to his position, provided that all these things be sought with due respect for the laws of God and without impairing the rights of others and that they be employed in accordance with faith and right reason. If these principles are observed by everyone, everywhere, and always, not only the production and acquisition of goods but also the use of wealth, which now is seen to be so often contrary to right order, will be brought back soon within the bounds of equity and just distribution. The sordid love of wealth, which is the shame and great sin of our age, will be opposed in actual fact by the gentle yet effective law of Christian moderation which commands man to seek first the Kingdom of God and His justice, with the assurance that, by virtue of God’s kindness and unfailing promise, temporal goods also, in so far as he has need of them, shall be given him besides.[69]

137. But in effecting all this, the law of charity, “which is the bond of perfection,”[70] must always take a leading role. How completely deceived, therefore, are those rash reformers who concern themselves with the enforcement of justice alone — and this, commutative justice — and in their pride reject the assistance of charity! Admittedly, no vicarious charity can substitute for justice which is due as an obligation and is wrongfully denied. Yet even supposing that everyone should finally receive all that is due him, the widest field for charity will always remain open. For justice alone can, if faithfully observed, remove the causes of social conflict but can never bring about union of minds and hearts. Indeed all the institutions for the establishment of peace and the promotion of mutual help among men, however perfect these may seem, have the principal foundation of their stability in the mutual bond of minds and hearts whereby the members are united with one another. If this bond is lacking, the best of regulations come to naught, as we have learned by too frequent experience. And so, then only will true cooperation be possible for a single common good when the constituent parts of society deeply feel themselves members of one great family and children of the same Heavenly Father; nay, that they are one body in Christ, “but severally members one of another,”[71] so that “if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer with it.”[72] For then the rich and others in positions of power will change their former indifference toward their poorer brothers into a solicitous and active love, listen with kindliness to their just demands, and freely forgive their possible mistakes and faults. And the workers, sincerely putting aside every feeling of hatred or envy which the promoters of social conflict so cunningly exploit, will not only accept without rancor the place in human society assigned them by Divine Providence, but rather will hold it in esteem, knowing well that everyone according to his function and duty is toiling usefully and honorably for the common good and is following closely in the footsteps of Him Who, being in the form of God, willed to be a carpenter among men and be known as the son of a carpenter. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)

Pope Pius XI saw the same problems as Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Rather than address them in quasi-Marxist terms or to call for some kind of secular, religiously indifferentist world order, Pope Pius XI reiterated the theme that he had established in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio: “The Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ:”

138. Therefore, out of this new diffusion throughout the world of the spirit of the Gospel, which is the spirit of Christian moderation and universal charity, We are confident there will come that longed-for and full restoration of human society in Christ, and that “Peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ,” to accomplish which, from the very beginning of Our Pontificate, We firmly determined and resolved within Our heart to devote all Our care and all Our pastoral solicitude,[73] and toward this same highly important and most necessary end now, you also, Venerable Brethren, who with Vs rule the Church of God under the mandate of the Holy Ghost,[74] are earnestly toiling with wholly praiseworthy zeal in all parts of the world, even in the regions of the holy missions to the infidels. Let well-merited acclamations of praise be bestowed upon you and at the same time upon all those, both clergy and laity, who We rejoice to see, are daily participating and valiantly helping in this same great work, Our beloved sons engaged in Catholic Action, who with a singular zeal are undertaking with Us the solution of the social problems in so far as by virtue of her divine institution this is proper to and devolves upon the Church. All these We urge in the Lord, again and again, to spare no labors and let no difficulties conquer them, but rather to become day by day more courageous and more valiant.[75] Arduous indeed is the task which We propose to them, for We know well that on both sides, both among the upper and the lower classes of society, there are many obstacles and barriers to be overcome. Let them not, however, lose heart; to face bitter combats is a mark of Christians, and to endure grave labors to the end is a mark of them who, as good soldiers of Christ,[76] follow Him closely.  (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)

Socialists and Communists do not believe this. They believe that there must be the forcible confiscatory of property in order to achieve “equality” among men, something that Pope Pius XI condemned strongly in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937:

10. Communism, moreover, strips man of his liberty, robs human personality of all its dignity, and removes all the moral restraints that check the eruptions of blind impulse. There is no recognition of any right of the individual in his relations to the collectivity; no natural right is accorded to human personality, which is a mere cog-wheel in the Communist system. In man’s relations with other individuals, besides, Communists hold the principle of absolute equality, rejecting all hierarchy and divinely-constituted authority, including the authority of parents. What men call authority and subordination is derived from the community as its first and only font. Nor is the individual granted any property rights over material goods or the means of production, for inasmuch as these are the source of further wealth, their possession would give one man power over another. Precisely on this score, all forms of private property must be eradicated, for they are at the origin of all economic enslavement .

11. Refusing to human life any sacred or spiritual character, such a doctrine logically makes of marriage and the family a purely artificial and civil institution, the outcome of a specific economic system. There exists no matrimonial bond of a juridico-moral nature that is not subject to the whim of the individual or of the collectivity. Naturally, therefore, the notion of an indissoluble marriage-tie is scouted. Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle. She is withdrawn from the family and the care of her children, to be thrust instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as man. The care of home and children then devolves upon the collectivity. Finally, the right of education is denied to parents, for it is conceived as the exclusive prerogative of the community, in whose name and by whose mandate alone parents may exercise this right.

12. What would be the condition of a human society based on such materialistic tenets? It would be a collectivity with no other hierarchy than that of the economic system. It would have only one mission: the production of material things by means of collective labor, so that the goods of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would “give according to his powers” and would “receive according to his needs.” Communism recognizes in the collectivity the right, or rather, unlimited discretion, to draft individuals for the labor of the collectivity with no regard for their personal welfare; so that even violence could be legitimately exercised to dragoon the recalcitrant against their wills. In the Communistic commonwealth morality and law would be nothing but a derivation of the existing economic order, purely earthly in origin and unstable in character. In a word. the Communists claim to inaugurate a new era and a new civilization which is the result of blind evolutionary forces culminating in a humanity without God.

13. When all men have finally acquired the collectivist mentality in this Utopia of a really classless society, the political State, which is now conceived by Communists merely as the instrument by which the proletariat is oppressed by the capitalists, will have lost all reason for its existence and will “wither away.” However, until that happy consummation is realized, the State and the powers of the State furnish Communism with the most efficacious and most extensive means for the achievement of its goal.

14. Such, Venerable Brethren, is the new gospel which bolshevistic and atheistic Communism offers the world as the glad tidings of deliverance and salvation! It is a system full of errors and sophisms. It is in opposition both to reason and to Divine Revelation. It subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations; because it ignores the true origin and purpose of the State; because it denies the rights, dignity and liberty of human personality.

15. How is it possible that such a system, long since rejected scientifically and now proved erroneous by experience, how is it, We ask, that such a system could spread so rapidly in all parts of the world? The explanation lies in the fact that too few have been able to grasp the nature of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully concealed by the most extravagant promises. By pretending to desire only the betterment of the condition of the working classes, by urging the removal of the very real abuses chargeable to the liberalistic economic order, and by demanding a more equitable distribution of this world’s goods (objectives entirely and undoubtedly legitimate), the Communist takes advantage of the present world-wide economic crisis to draw into the sphere of his influence even those sections of the populace which on principle reject all forms of materialism and terrorism. And as every error contains its element of truth, the partial truths to which We have referred are astutely presented according to the needs of time and place, to conceal, when convenient, the repulsive crudity and inhumanity of Communistic principles and tactics. Thus the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic errors of the system. The preachers of Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions. They take advantage of the lack of orientation characteristic of modern agnostic science in order to burrow into the universities, where they bolster up the principles of their doctrine with pseudo-scientific arguments.

16. If we would explain the blind acceptance of Communism by so many thousands of workmen, we must remember that the way had been already prepared for it by the religious and moral destitution in which wage-earners had been left by liberal economics. Even on Sundays and holy days, labor-shifts were given no time to attend to their essential religious duties. No one thought of building churches within convenient distance of factories, nor of facilitating the work of the priest. On the contrary, laicism was actively and persistently promoted, with the result that we are now reaping the fruits of the errors so often denounced by Our Predecessors and by Ourselves. It can surprise no one that the Communistic fallacy should be spreading in a world already to a large extent de-Christianized.

17. There is another explanation for the rapid diffusion of the Communistic ideas now seeping into every nation, great and small, advanced and backward, so that no corner of the earth is free from them. This explanation is to be found in a propaganda so truly diabolical that the world has perhaps never witnessed its like before. It is directed from one common center. It is shrewdly adapted to the varying conditions of diverse peoples. It has at its disposal great financial resources, gigantic organizations, international congresses, and countless trained workers. It makes use of pamphlets and reviews, of cinema, theater and radio, of schools and even universities. Little by little it penetrates into all classes of the people and even reaches the better-minded groups of the community, with the result that few are aware of the poison which increasingly pervades their minds and hearts. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)

Pope Pius XI emphasized the fact that Communism was able to lure many people into its ranks as a result of the liberal economic policies based on amoral principles. This amorality was the product of Protestant Revolution, especially its Calvinistic strains, as Dr. George O’Brien pointed out a century ago in An Essay On The Economic Effects of Protestantism:

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest  possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical–they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.

The science of economics is the science of men’s relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man’s ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual’s spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (Dr. George O’Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation.)

This is all foreign to the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a man whose mind is that of the egalitarianism of the Protestant, American, French and Bolshevik revolutions all rolled into one, who believes that the “better world” can be built without demanding that men quit their sins and by believing that the provision of the temporal needs of “the poor” will make them happy even though many of them will never be happy in this life as desire to have more and more and more of this world’s goods and believe that there is no need to embrace the life of Holy Poverty of the Holy Family, especially. All of the false “pontiff’s” denunciations in Evangelii Gaudium of the idolatry of money are contradicted by his belief that the poor will be happy by means of government redistribution programs.

Indeed, many of the poor, steeped in envy, will lead miserable lives until they die, principally because what they think is the Catholic Church today is feeding their sense of entitlement and to live in states of constant agitation to “demand” more and more of what they believe is rightfully theirs.

When all is said and done, however, the truth of the matter is this: most, although not all, of those who claim to be “for the poor” by means of the confiscatory taxing powers of the civil government to redistribute wealth are gigantic hypocrites who are seeking to assuage their consciences for persisting in lives of odious sins and/or defecting from various articles contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

As we know only too well, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a mocker of doctrinal purity, claiming that the only thing that matters to God is his kind of “concern” for “the poor.” This is why he has no problem “rehabilitating” so-called “theologians whose support of unrepentant sin was so blatant that they were disciplined by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Indeed, Bergoglio considers it his duty to “liberate” free thinkers from the confines of “small minded” would-be clerics who, he believes, live lives from that detached from the “people in the streets.” This is why he has seen to it that sanctions upon an octogenarian Irish priest who has argued for decades that moral truth can “change” were lifted:

Pope Francis is believed to have intervened directly with the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to have all sanctions on silenced Irish priest Fr Sean Fagan (86) lifted.

It was confirmed to The Irish Times in Rome last night that Marist priest Fr Fagan, who has been subject to sanction by the Vatican for six years, is no longer so.

The superior general of the Marist congregation in Rome, Fr John Hannan, said last night that Fr Fagan is now “a priest in good standing” where the church is concerned.

It has also emerged that the change in Fr Fagan’s circumstances may have involved direct intervention by both Pope Francis and the former President of Ireland Mary McAleese.

The Irish Times has learned that Mrs McAleese, who is away from Rome at the moment, wrote to Pope Francis last December requesting that he directly intervene where Fr Fagan’s case was concerned. Receipt of the letter was acknowledged by the Pope’s secretary. It is understood that the Marist congregation was informed of Fr Fagan’s changed situation at Easter.

Others understood to have been approached to intervene with the Vatican on Fr Fagan’s behalf include his own congregation, the Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, the papal nuncio Archbishop Charles Brown and the former head of the Dominicans Fr Timothy Radcliffe.

For many years Fr Fagan, who has suffered ill health for some time, had been critical of rigid stances by the Vatican on issues to do with conscience and sexual morality notably in letters to this newspaper. In 2003 he published the book Does Morality Change? And in 2008 Whatever Happened to Sin?

In 2010 he was informed by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that he would be laicised should be write for publication any material it considered contrary to Church teaching and should he disclose this to media.

Remaining copies of his book were bought up by the Marist congregation whose website last night still carried a statement first posted in February of last year which reads that “ the writings of Fr. Sean Fagan in the book What Happened to Sin do not have the approval of or represent the views of the Society of Mary.

It was reported at the weekend that the CDF’s change of stance towards Fr Fagan was because “he loves the Church in spite of all its weaknesses: that he accepted his censure and observed his restrictions; and to his advanced age.”

Welcoming the news the Association of Catholic Priests (ACP) said in a statement yesterday that “it has been a source of great unease to our members and of continuing shame and embarrassment to our Church that a priest and theologian who has made such a huge contribution to Gospel and to Church over very many years would not be regarded as a priest ‘in good standing’.”

It said that “statements welcoming the lifting of restrictions on Fr Fagan by the Marist Order, the CDF and the Irish Catholic bishops are the least that might be expected.”

It also noted “that the decision of the CDF, according to reports, was influenced by pressure brought to bear through the efforts of friends.” It believed “that a concerted effort by the orders and congregations, supported by the Irish bishops, could lead to the lifting of similar restrictions on other members f the ACP colleagues of Fr Fagan, and from the Marist congregation.”

This was a reference to those other priests silenced by the Vatican, including Fr Tony Flannnery, Fr Gerard Moloney, Fr Brian D’Arcy, and Fr Owen O’Sullivan.  (Vatican Lifts Sanctions on Silenced Irish Priest. Although the subject of a different article at a different time, I had contact on several occasions with “Archbishop” Diarmuid Martin during my association with The Wanderer in the 1990s when he worked for the “Pontifical” Council for Peace and Justice and I had met with the then “Father” Charles Brown in the offices of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith on Via Uffizio just outside the Bernini columns in November of 1996 to bring him information a fake, phony fraud seer, Vassula Ryden. More about that on another occasion. I did not know that “Father” Brown was now “Archbishop” Brown, less yet that he had been involved in the rehabilitation of a moral relativist, Father Sean Fagan, after having worked in the conciliar congregation that censured him in the first place. Such are the paradoxes and contradictions of everyday life in the never-never land of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.)

Si Si, Father Sean Fagan, who now has the permission of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to continue his work that is both offensive to God and eternally and temporal harmful to the souls redeemed by the shedding of the Most Precious Blood of His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Si, Si, to the adulteress Jakelina Lisbona to receive what purports to be Holy Communion despite being civilly married to a civilly divorced man who does not even have the fig leaf of a decree of nullity from the conciliar authorities (see Jorge Cooks the Books).

Si, Si, to the Modernists, Marxists, feminists, environmentalists, moral relativists, evolutionists, pro-abortion, pro-perversity leaders and the professors of the formerly named Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, whom Jorge Mario Bergoglio is seeking to “reconcile” after the university was stripped of its title as a “pontifical Catholic” university under the authority Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in 2012. There is nothing stable, nothing secure in the counterfeit church of conciliarisim

No, no, Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, whose pilgrims were denied entrance recently to the Shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary in Pompeii, Italy, at the specific instructions of the diocesan ‘bishop”:

Congregation for Religious. The lay association Mission of the Immaculate Mediatrix (MIM) was denied the Marian Sanctuary of Pompeii.  Since the year 2004, MM brought believers together to  take a pilgrimage from Naples and Campania  to the Shrine of Our Lady of the Rosary in Pompeii, the most famous Marian shrine in this part of southern Italy. Yesterday, on Divine Mercy Sunday, however, the faithful were denied  access to the holy image.

Prohibition of Commissar Volpi Led Prelate of Pompeii to Ban

On 10 April, when everything was already organized, the faithful were informed by the rector of the Basilica, Monsignor Salvatore Acampora,  the use and access ban without notice. Pilgrimage, Holy Mass, Rosary and Marian songs had to be canceled. On request of the disappointed believers, Msgr Acampora declared the following day that the Church has the status of a Pontifical Basilica Cathedral and was erected as a Territorial Prelature in 1926. So it stands under papal law, which is why the responsible Prelate and Pontifical Delegate for the Shrine, Titular Archbishop Tommaso Caputo currently could not ignore the measures of the Apostolic Commissar of the Franciscans of the Immaculate,  Fr Fidenzio Volpi. (A New Blow Against the Franciscans of the Immaculata — Pilgrimage Church Refused Them.)

Yes, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has a preferential option for heresy and those who profess it. Catholic doctrine does not matter to him. What matters to him is fidelity to his revolutionary precepts that are straight out of every single one of Modernity’s various social revolutions, starting with the French Revolution itself.

Yet it is that, barring some miracle, this egregious figure of Antichrist will never realize that world that has overthrown the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church can do nothing other than to be plunged into the abyss of social chaos. To disbelieve that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is meant to be King of nations is to say that He is not God, a point made repeatedly by Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, a French bishop of Poitiers in the Nineteenth Century, whose writings were consulted regularly by Pope Saint Pius X himself :

If Jesus Christ,” proclaims Msgr. Pie in a magnificent pastoral instruction, “if Jesus Christ Who is our light whereby we are drawn out of the seat of darkness and from the shadow of death, and Who has given to the world the treasure of truth and grace, if He has not enriched the world, I mean to say the social and political world itself, from the great evils which prevail in the heart of paganism, then it is to say that the work of Jesus Christ is not a divine work. Even more so: if the Gospel which would save men is incapable of procuring the actual progress of peoples, if the revealed light which is profitable to individuals is detrimental to society at large, if the scepter of Christ, sweet and beneficial to souls, and perhaps to families, is harmful and unacceptable for cities and empires; in other words, if Jesus Christ to whom the Prophets had promised and to Whom His Father had given the nations as a heritage, is not able to exercise His authority over them for it would be to their detriment and temporal disadvantage, it would have to be concluded that Jesus Christ is not God”.

To say Jesus Christ is the God of individuals and of families, but not the God of peoples and of societies, is to say that He is not God. To say that Christianity is the law of individual man and is not the law of collective man, is to say that Christianity is not divine. To say that the Church is the judge of private morality, but has nothing to do with public and political morality, is to say that the Church is not divine.”

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

“Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies.” (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, which is available from Mr. Hugh Akin’s Catholic Action Resource Center)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio can beat his breast all the time over “inequality.” The truth is, however, that is own preferential option for heresy and those who profess it helps to worsen the state of men and of the world-at-large.

Every Rosary we pray helps to plant the seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and thus the restoration of Christendom in the world and of the Church Militant on the face of this earth.

Never underestimate the power of our simple prayers and the simple performance of our daily duties as members of the Mystical Body of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to plant seeds whose flowering may not occur until many years after we have died and have faced our Particular Judgment.

May Our Lady help us to be led out of the prison of our own sins and selfishness and the lies of Modernity and Modernism as we are enlightened at all times by the Light Who is her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, King of men and their nations.

May we pray to Our Lady to persevere in the true Faith no matter what calumnies come our way as a result. The rewards are Heavenly.

Let us trust in Our Lady to help us to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King as we make reparation for how this Kingship has been denied and buried by the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the crew of apostates that have brought about so much devastation among souls and the nations in which they live.Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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 Andrew the Apostle, 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 Catherine of Siena, pray for us.