Jorge Defines A “Healthy Christian”

This will be the shortest article that I have ever written.

Yes, at any time in my sixty-two and one-half years of life as of this very day.

Short.

To the point.

No digressions.

No lengthy historical backgrounds.

No references to the popular culture of th 1950s an early 1960s.

Are you ready?

Fine.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Ding Dong School Of Apostasy lesson at the Casa Santa Marta on Thursday, May 22, 2014, a Paschaltide ferial day and the Feast of Saint Rita of Cascia, who led a very joyful life precisely because the mortifications she undertook as an religious sister of the Order of Saint Augustine, included the following passage:

“Joy, which is like the sign of a Christian. A Christian without joy is either not a Christian or he is sick. There’s no other type! He is not doing well health-wise! A healthy Christian is a joyful Christian. I once said that there are Christians with faces like pickled peppers [sour faces – ed] … Always with these [long] faces! Some souls are also like this, this is bad! These are not Christians. A Christian without joy is not Christian. Joy is like the seal of a Christian. Even in pain, tribulations, even in persecutions. (Healthy are the Joyful–or is that Joyful are the healthy?)

Ignoring entirely Jorge’s attack on those whose “sad” countenances disturb as just another manifestation of his own compulsive need to belittle and, if necessary, to persecute those who can be considered “too traditional” in their beliefs and practices, here is my own definition of a healthful and joyful Christian:

 A HEALTHY, JOYFUL CHRISTIAN IS ONE WHO DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY ANY ATTENTION TO, NO LESS WRITE ABOUT, JORGE MARIO BERGOGLIO’S DIATRIBES.

A HEALTHY, JOYFUL CHRISTIAN IS ONE WHO RECOGNIZES THAT JORGE MARIO IS A HERETIC AND CANNOT BE A TRUE AND LEGITIMATE SUCCESSOR OF SAINT PETER.

A HEALTHY, JOYFUL CHRISTIAN IS ONE WHO UNDERSTANDS THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN NEVER BE THE AUTHOR OF HERESY, APOSTASY, RELIGIOUS INDIFFERENTISM, SCANDAL, SACRILEGE, BLASPHEMY AND LITURGICAL ABOMINATION.

This very joyful Catholic, who is very tired of having to deal with the unhealthy Argentine Apostate, is going to get some sleep before becoming unhealthy by having to read and then comment upon The Road to Gehenna Road Show with Jorge, Abe and Omar.

Pray Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady, Help of Christians, 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.

To Blot Out His Name Forever, part two

It was a little over seven years ago that a fully traditional priest, one who has great zeal for souls, said the following to me before I gave a lecture in his parish, “You have used the phrase Judeo-Masonry in your writing. You will not do so here.”

This admonition came just three months after the Christophobic Southern Poverty Law Center had issued its so-called “Dirty Dozen” list of “radical” traditional Catholic organizations that were said to be guilty of propagating “hate” (see Hating Without Distinction, Chopped Liver No More, To Advocate Christ The King, Nothing Else and Chopped Liver No More Update). The issuance of the list had a chilling effect in some fully traditional circles as any discussion of Talmudic influence in the twin, interrelated anti-Incarnational currents of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism was deemed as “unacceptable” or “inflammatory.” Pure honesty, however, requires one to speak the truth, yes, even when doing so will “offend” those who are hellbent on making war upon Christ the King and upon those who dare to criticize them publicly for doing so.

While it is true, as Father Edward Cahill, S.J., pointed out in his series on Freemasonry in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record eighty-five years ago now, that not all those who adhere to Judaism are responsible for this warfare against the true teachings of the Catholic Church or support the prevailing evils of the day, we must remember that unbelief in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is a sin. Those who persist in unbelief in the Catholic Faith must be reminded that their own false beliefs, whether they be religious or philosophical or both, cannot save their souls or serve as any kind of foundation for true social order within countries or peace among them.

Saint Thomas Aquinas taught us in his Summa Theologica that unbelievers do not merit anything before God for their good works and thus cannot please Him:

Objection 1. It would seem that each act of an unbeliever is a sin. Because a gloss on Romans 14:23, “All that is not of faith is sin,” says: “The whole life of unbelievers is a sin.” Now the life of unbelievers consists of their actions. Therefore every action of an unbeliever is a sin.

Objection 2. Further, faith directs the intention. Now there can be no good save what comes from a right intention. Therefore, among unbelievers, no action can be good.

Objection 3. Further, when that which precedes is corrupted, that which follows is corrupted also. Now an act of faith precedes the acts of all the virtues. Therefore, since there is no act of faith in unbelievers, they can do no good work, but sin in every action of theirs.

On the contrary, It is said of Cornelius, while yet an unbeliever (Acts 10:4-31), that his alms were acceptable to God. Therefore not every action of an unbeliever is a sin, but some of his actions are good.

I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 85, 2,4) mortal sin takes away sanctifying grace, but does not wholly corrupt the good of nature. Since therefore, unbelief is a mortal sin, unbelievers are without grace indeed, yet some good of nature remains in them. Consequently it is evident that unbelievers cannot do those good works which proceed from grace, viz. meritorious works; yet they can, to a certain extent, do those good works for which the good of nature suffices.

Hence it does not follow that they sin in everything they do; but whenever they do anything out of their unbelief, then they sin. For even as one who has the faith, can commit an actual sin, venial or even mortal, which he does not refer to the end of faith, so too, an unbeliever can do a good deed in a matter which he does not refer to the end of his unbelief.

Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted must be taken to mean either that the life of unbelievers cannot be sinless, since without faith no sin is taken away, or that whatever they do out of unbelief, is a sin. Hence the same authority adds: “Because every one that lives or acts according to his unbelief, sins grievously.”

Reply to Objection 2. Faith directs the intention with regard to the supernatural last end: but even the light of natural reason can direct the intention in respect of a connatural good.

Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 10, Article 4.)

Judeo-Masonry is the celebration of agnosticism and religious indifferentism as the foundation for personal happiness and social order, something that Pope Leo XIII noted very clearly in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

But the naturalists go much further; for, having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried headlong to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are — the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul, and its immortality. The sect of the Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for, although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with a firm conviction. Neither do they conceal that this question about God is the greatest source and cause of discords among them; in fact, it is certain that a considerable contention about this same subject has existed among them very lately. But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature.

When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths, also, which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall — namely, that all things were made by the free will of God the Creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life.

When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven. We speak now of the duties which have their origin in natural probity. That God is the Creator of the world and its provident Ruler; that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed; that the last end of men is a destiny far above human things and beyond this sojourning upon the earth: these are the sources and these the principles of all justice and morality.

If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call “civil,” and “independent,” and “free,” namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

Father Edward Cahill made the same point in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record in those series of articles that was published later as Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement:

We have already referred to Rationalism and Hermeticism (including Theosophy, Christian Scientism, Spiritism, etc.) as characteristic of the Masonic religion and philosophy, These, which are put forward as a substitute for real religion, are fast becoming more and more widespread in England and throughout the English-speaking world. They are the most powerful dissolvents of whatever elements of true Christianity are being attempted. This element is perhaps the most deadly and dangerous aspect of the whole Masonic movement; for it cuts deeper than anything into Christian life, whose very foundation it attacks.

The immediate aim of the practical policy of Freemasonry is to make its naturalistic principles effective in the lives of the people; and first of all to enforce them in every detail of public life. Hence its political and social programme includes:

(1) The banishment of religion from all departments of government, and from all public institutions; and as a mark of the triumph of this policy, the removal of the Crucifix and all religious emblems from the legislative assemblies, the courts of justice, the public hospitals, the schools and university colleges, etc. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 156-157.)

It is very telling that the conciliar revolutionaries have applauded these “developments” as most of their own colleges and universities have divested themselves of official control of what is purported to be the Catholic Church and have removed the Crucifix and other religious emblems from most of their classrooms. Formerly Catholic hospitals have done the same. Indeed, many of them, participating fully in the medical industry’s manufactured, money-making myth of “brain death” (see ObamaDeathCare), have merged with secular corporations. And most Catholics in public life are fully supportive of various evils under cover of the civil law, and none of them is reprobated by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who, quite instead, praises those of them that he meets as “servants of the poor.”

To return to Father Cahill’s enumeration of the Judeo-Masonic program:

(2) The secularization of marriage.

(3) The establishment of a State system of so-called education which, at least in its primary stages, will be obligatory and conducted by the laity.

(4) Complete freedom of worship (at least for all except the true one.) (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, p. 157.)

Absent the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His Catholic Church, men and their nations must fall into the abyss. Those who think that the perversity represented by so-called “gay marriage” has brought us to rock bottom are quite mistaken. Polygamy and “marriage” to children are the next frontiers in the path of “civil freedom” according to the logic of Judeo-Masonry. Total debauchery thus must be enshrined under cover of the civil law and promoted and celebrated throughout what passes for “popular culture.” (See Irreversible By Means Merely Human and Common Core: From Luther To Mann To Bismarck To Obama.)

As has been noted so many times on this site, public schooling has been in the control of Freemasonry from its very inception, and it is designed to eradicate all adherence to the true Faith. (See Inside the Prison Walls.)

What more can be said about “freedom of worship” that has not been said many times before on this site other than to note that Jorge and Pals, including his retired predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believe this heresy to be the “foundation of peace”?

To the final two points of the Judeo-Masonic program as outlined by Father Edward Cahill:

(5) Unrestrained liberty of the Press even in the propagation of irreligious doctrines and of principles subversive of morality; similar freedom for the stage, the cinema, and all manner of public activities, even when injurious to the public interest, such as the operation of the betting and gambling agencies, the drink traffic, etc.

(6) The elimination of all distinction between the sexes in education and in all departments of public life and the promotion or encouragement of radical feminism.

The same programme usually includes or favours a (so-called) Democratic or Republican form of government, indiscriminate universal suffrage, and the centralization of political and administrative authority in the hands of a bureaucracy. It is opposed on the other hand to all to the national distinctions which are associated with the Christian virtue of patriotism, to the ideal of strongly organized rural communities settled permanently on the land; and finally to the organization of society in classes bound together by ties of common interest and mutual service. Hence its policy tends towards commercialism, a false internationalism and extreme individualism.

It is clear that in a social system organized according to these Masonic ideals, the masses of the people, while nominally free, and in theory the source of all authority in the State, would inevitably become degraded and enslaved. Demoralized by indulgence, deprived of the guidance and help which Christian principles give, isolated and unorganized, mostly bereft of permanent property, having a smattering of literacy, but without real education, they would have little or no power of resistance against the tyranny of bureaucracies or financial combines controlling the Press and the economic life of the country. The substantial freedom, prosperity, and true civilization which accompany or result from the Christian regime would give way to social conditions akin to those of pre-Christian Rome. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 157-159.)

Nothing that I said in college classrooms between 1974 an 2007 or in campaigns for public office or in lectures around the nation or wrote in various publications or have written on this site contains an ounce of originality concerning the state of Western civilization as it spirals into the lowest reaches of the abyss possible, making ancient Rome seem truly tame by way of comparison. We have been given the prescient insights of such giants of Catholic scholarship as Fathers Edward Cahill and Denis Fahey in Ireland and defenders of the immutable Catholic doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King as Louis Edouard “Cardinal” Pie, Monsignor Henri Delassus and Father Theotime de Just in France.

Also, of course, we have been given the prophetic warnings of our true popes, including those of Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX:

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.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in none of this. He is just the latest of the conciliar “popes” to express his love of Modernity that is but an expression of the wreckage wrought by Protestantism, whose overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King made possible the rise of Judeo-Masonry.

Father Edward Cahill, quoting a French Jewish apologist, noted that “Progress is the true Mesiah” for Talmudists. The same, of course is true for the entirety of the conciiar revolution and its current grand master, Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

Leroy-Beulieu, a French Jewish apologist, describes thus the social ideals of modern Judaism:

Progress is the true Messiah, whose near advent she [Judaism] proclaims with all her hosannahs. . . . The [French] Revolution was its introduction, our doctrine of human rights its manifesto, and its signal was given to the world, when, at the approach of our Tricolour, the barriers of caste and the walls of the Ghetto fell to the ground. . . . The emancipated Jew takes pride in working for its realization . . . assailing superannuated hierarchies, battling with prejudices . . . struggling to pave the way for future revolution. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, p. 91.)

Yes, “progress” is the true messias of the lords of conciliarism, including, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Bergoglio and his minions are constantly extolling the “progress” that has been made in the “liturgical reform and renewal,” the “progress” that has made made in effecting “Christian unity,” the “progress” that has been made in “human rights” in the world, the “progress” that has been made in “understanding” the Jews and the “necessity” of the State of Israel, the “progress” that has been made in Scriptural exegesis, the “progress” that has been made in “pastoral outreach” to “gays” and the “transgendered,” the “progress” that has been made in “education” and in the provision of “universal health care” by the civil state, the “progress” that has been made by the “empowerment” of women in the word and the conciliar church, etc.

Pope Pius IX condemned the belief that the Roman Pontiff had to “reconciled” to “progress” in the world:

X.[CONDEMNED] ERRORS HAVING REFERENCE TO MODERN LIBERALISM

77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. — Allocution “Nunquam fore,” Dec. 15, 1856.

80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution “Jamdudum cernimus,” March 18, 1861.

The faith teaches us and human reason demonstrates that a double order of things exists, and that we must therefore distinguish between the two earthly powers, the one of natural origin which provides for secular affairs and the tranquillity of human society, the other of supernatural origin, which presides over the City of God, that is to say the Church of Christ, which has been divinely instituted for the sake of souls and of eternal salvation…. The duties of this twofold power are most wisely ordered in such a way that to God is given what is God’s (Matt. 22:21), and because of God to Caesar what is Caesar’s, who is great because he is smaller than heaven. Certainly the Church has never disobeyed this divine command, the Church which always and everywhere instructs the faithful to show the respect which they should inviolably have for the supreme authority and its secular rights….

. . . Venerable Brethren, you see clearly enough how sad and full of perils is the condition of Catholics in the regions of Europe which We have mentioned. Nor are things any better or circumstances calmer in America, where some regions are so hostile to Catholics that their governments seem to deny by their actions the Catholic faith they claim to profess. In fact, there, for the last few years, a ferocious war on the Church, its institutions and the rights of the Apostolic See has been raging…. Venerable Brothers, it is surprising that in our time such a great war is being waged against the Catholic Church. But anyone who knows the nature, desires and intentions of the sects, whether they be called masonic or bear another name, and compares them with the nature the systems and the vastness of the obstacles by which the Church has been assailed almost everywhere, cannot doubt that the present misfortune must mainly be imputed to the frauds and machinations of these sects. It is from them that the synagogue of Satan, which gathers its troops against the Church of Christ, takes its strength. In the past Our predecessors, vigilant even from the beginning in Israel, had already denounced them to the kings and the nations, and had condemned them time and time again, and even We have not failed in this duty. If those who would have been able to avert such a deadly scourge had only had more faith in the supreme Pastors of the Church! But this scourge, winding through sinuous caverns, . . . deceiving many with astute frauds, finally has arrived at the point where it comes forth impetuously from its hiding places and triumphs as a powerful master. Since the throng of its propagandists has grown enormously, these wicked groups think that they have already become masters of the world and that they have almost reached their pre-established goal. Having sometimes obtained what they desired, and that is power, in several countries, they boldly turn the help of powers and authorities which they have secured to trying to submit the Church of God to the most cruel servitude, to undermine the foundations on which it rests, to contaminate its splendid qualities; and, moreover, to strike it with frequent blows, to shake it, to overthrow it, and, if possible, to make it disappear completely from the earth. Things being thus, Venerable Brothers, make every effort to defend the faithful which are entrusted to you against the insidious contagion of these sects and to save from perdition those who unfortunately have inscribed themselves in such sects. Make known and attack those who, whether suffering from, or planning, deception, are not afraid to affirm that these shady congregations aim only at the profit of society, at progress and mutual benefit. Explain to them often and impress deeply on their souls the Papal constitutions on this subject and teach, them that the masonic associations are anathematized by them not only in Europe but also in America and wherever they may be in the whole world. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)

Pope Pius IX understood who was behind the conceits of Freemasonry to substitute the false god of “progress,” praised by none other but the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick” in Populorum Progessio, March 26, 1967:

42. What must be aimed at is complete humanism.[44] And what is that if not the fully-rounded development of the whole man and of all men? A humanism closed in on itself, and not open to the values of the spirit and to God Who is their source, could achieve apparent success. True, man can organize the world apart from God, but “without God man can organize it in the end only to man’s detriment. An isolated humanism is an inhuman humanism”.[45] There is no true humanism but that which is open to the Absolute and is conscious of a vocation which gives human life its true meaning. Far from being the ultimate measure of all things, man can only realize himself by reaching beyond himself. As Pascal has said so well: “Man infinitely surpasses man“.[46]

43. There can be no progress towards the complete development of man without the simultaneous development of all humanity in the spirit of solidarity. As We said at Bombay: ” Man must meet man, nation meet nation, as brothers and sisters, as children of God. In this mutual understanding and friendship, in this sacred communion, we must also begin to work together to build the common future of the human race“.[47] We also suggested a search for concrete and practical ways of organization and cooperation, so that all available resources be pooled and thus a true communion among all nations be achieved. (Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1967.)

This is completely Judeo-Masonic as it celebrates “man” and his “humanism,” albeit with some generic reference to God without an insistence that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Giovanni Eugenio Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s false “pontificate” was dedicated to the celebration of “man” and his “progress.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio is also one who celebrates the “joy” of the “progress” that has been made in the world and his false church since the “Second” Vatican Council.

In sum and substance, therefore, the goals of Universal Israelite Alliance, proclaimed n 1869, are identical to those adopted by the “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Father Cahill provided of how this is so:

The national aims and ideals here attributed to-—although they belong, probably, only to a comparatively small section of — the Jewish nation, are practically identical with those of Freemasonry. Hence, an international Jewish synod held at Leipsic, 1869, passed the following resolution:

This Synod recognizes that the development and realization of modern ideas are the surest guarantee in favour of the Jewish race for the present and future.

It seems clear that the ‘modern ideas’ here referred to are those of un-Christian Liberalism, of which Freemasonry has been the protagonist for the past two centuries.

The professed objects of the Universal Israelite Alliance founded in 1860 (whose headquarters are in Paris, and which is probably the most influential and most representative body of the Jewish nation), are similar to the professed aims of Freemasonry. These objects are thus summarized by its founder, the Jew, Adolphe Cremieux, who for many years held the position of Grand Master of the Supreme Council of the Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry: — –

The Universal Israelite Alliance . . . addresses itself to every type of worship. It wishes to interpenetrate all religions, as it has found access to all countries. . . . Let all men of enlightenment, without distinction of sect, find a means of union in the Universal Israelite Association, whose aims are so noble, so broad, and so highly civilizing. . . . To reach out a friendly hand to all who, although born in a different worship from ours, offer us the hand of fellowship, acknowledging that all religions which are based on morality and acknowledge God ought to be friendly towards one another: thus to destroy the barriers separating what is destined one day to be united— that is the grand and supreme object of our Alliance. … I summon to our Association our brethren of every form of worship. Let them come to us . . . Our grand mission is to put the Jewish population in touch with the authorities in every country … to make our voices heard in the cabinets of ministers and in the ears of princes, whatever be the religion that is despised, persecuted, or attacked.

The striking similarity between this programme and the religious ideals of Freemasonry (humanitarianism, cosmopolitanism, and non-sectarianism, or religious indifference) needs no elaboration. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 90-91,)

In like manner, of course, it is the case that the striking similarity of the program of the Universal Israelite Alliance and the program of the “Second” Vatican Council, both as adopted thereat and as implemented by the postconciliar “popes,” needs not much in the way of further elaboration.

Just consider, however, the words of the conciliar Vatican’s Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, who spoke of “Pope Francis’s” upcoming trip to Jordan and Israel, which begins tomorrow, the Feast of Our Lady Help of Christians, in terms that would have warmed the hearts of the Talmudists of the Universal Israelite Alliance in 1869 just as the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council were convening to condemn the very errors that the conciliar revolutionaries have endorsed and propagated for over five decades now:

The Vatican Secretary of State said that in its dialogue with Israelis and Palestinians, the Holy See wishes to see “the right of Israel to exist and to enjoy peace and security within internationally recognized borders; the right of the Palestinian people to have a sovereign and independent homeland,  the right to move freely, the right to live in dignity.”

Cardinal Parolin said that during the visit, Pope Francis will insist on these issues in line with Holy See policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and urge that “the sacred and universal character of the city of Jerusalem , its cultural and religious heritage” be recognized  so that it may be “a place of pilgrimage for the followers of the three monotheistic religions .” (Vatican Secretary of State expresses hopes for Jorge’s visit to Holy Land.)

Just a little something for everyone, a veritable Rodney King “Why can’t we all just get along” message that equates the one and only true religion, Catholicism, with Judaism and Mohammedanism, and that that verifies once again the nonexistent “right” of the Zionists to the territory of the Holy Land, which brave Catholic crusaders sought to rescue from the Mohammedans and their desecration of the sites made holy by the Incarnation, Nativity, Hidden Life, Public Ministry and Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

While Jorge Mario Bergoglio will doubtlessly defend the rights of Palestinians to their own homeland, he will do so in the context of praising the existence of the State of Israel as a manifestation of God’s will so that the three “great monotheistic religions” can live together in peace, thus providing a model of “peace” and “tolerance” for the whole world. It will be pure Judeo-Masonry from start to finish.

Father Cahill explained that no less a figure than the adversary himself uses the Talmudic synagogue as the means to destroy that which is indestructible, the Catholic Church:

Hence Pere Deschamps writes, apropos of the present question: —

Judaism itself is a kind of Freemasonry, owing to the national solidarity of the Jews, their cosmopolitanism, which sets the Jews free from all local and patriotic ties, and finally, the opposition of the Jews to Christianity.

On the same subject M. Doinel, at one time member of the Council of the Grand Orient, who in recent years has become a Catholic, writes: —

How often have I heard the Freemasons lament the dominance of the Jews. . . . Ever since the Revolution the Jews have taken possession of the Masonic lodges more and more completely : and their dominance is now unquestioned. The Cabala rules as mistress in the inner lodges : and the Jewish spirit dominates the lower grades. . . . In the mind of Satan the synagogue has an all important part to play. . . . The great enemy counts on the Jews to govern Masonry as he counts on Masonry to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ.

It is in fact only the Cabahstic elements in Freemasonry that can account adequately for its envenomed and aggressive opposition to the true Church, and its never-flagging efforts for the undermining and destruction of the Christian organization of society.’

This intimate connexion between the two powers [Freemasonry and Cabalistic Judaism] [writes R. Lambelin] is becoming so evident that there is no longer any attempt made to deny it. The Jewish lodges of B’ne Berith, which originated in the English-speaking countries, have swarmed all over Europe, and even into Asia; and they assume the leadership of control in the whole Masonic organization. Under cover of Theosophy a new religion, which is specifically Jewish, though enveloped in a nebulous mist that obscures its character, is bidding fair to take the place of the traditional Christian belief which it flatters, and insensibly destroys.

Finally, the history of the Jews of Europe during the past three or four centuries is suggestive in this connection. The emancipation of the Jews and the unprecedented growth of the influence and power of the great Jewish financiers have synchronized with the rise and growth of the Masonic movement of the past two centuries.

Up to the sixteenth century the Jews were excluded from practically all the Christian States of Europe. With the rise of Humanism, however, in the fifteenth century, and the accentuation of the other causes that finally led to the break up of Christendom, the Jews managed to improve their position. They gradually gained readmittance, sometimes covert, sometimes openly avowed, into most of the countries from which they had been excluded. But although they were allowed to live under the protection of the laws, they were not accorded full civic rights in any of the Christian States. They engaged in trade and carried on usury, by means of which they frequently acquired immense wealth. But they were not permitted to hold public offices, and were treated as aliens. They lived usually in ghettos, apart from the Christian community.

After the Protestant revolt, and especially under the influence of the Calvinistic sections of Protestantism, such as the Huguenots in France, the Puritans in Britain, and the Dutch and Swiss Calvinists, the position of the Jews gradually improved more and more. Finally, with the rise of the Liberalism of the eighteenth century, which was fostered and promoted by Masonic influence, the Jews were accorded full rights of citizenship, first in France and then, owing to the expansion of the French Napoleonic Empire, in nearly every country of Europe and America. In France the Jews were enfranchised in 1791 at the instance of the Jacobins, the most aggressive and militant of the anti-Christian Masonic organizations of that time. Ever since that time, with the exception, perhaps, of the early Napoleonic period, the Masonic Jews and the Masonic societies have dominated the public life of France, whose anti-clericalism, secularism, and divorce-laws have mostly been inspired from that source. Roumania, where the Jews did not possess the full rights of citizenship, and were precluded from acquiring property in land was forced by Bismarck (author of the Kulturcamp, and closely identified with Freemasonry of the most extreme type) at the Congress of Berlin (1878) to grant them full civic rights. At the Peace of Paris (1918-1919) Poland was forced, in the same way, to grant such privileges to the Jews living within her borders as almost to constitute the Jewish colony a kind of State within the State. At the same Congress the Jewish leaders were accorded practical control of Palestine as a quasi-independent or incipient Jewish State under the protection of Britain. Today Jewish financial and political power is especially felt in the countries which have fallen most completely under the influence of Freemasonry and un-Christian Liberalism, such as the United States of America, England, France, Germany, Russia, Roumania, etc. (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement, Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged, published originally by M. H. Gill and Son, Ltd., in Dublin, Ireland, 1930, and republished by Kessinger Legacy Reprints, pp. 91-95.)

This is why there has long been a kinship between Protestants, especially those who belong to evangelical or fundamentalist sects, and Zionism as Talmudism welcomed the Protestant Revolutions in the Sixteenth Century as the means to work assiduously against their mutual enemy: the Catholic Church. And this is why one of the most important litmus tests amongst the naturalists in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “right” is support for “America’s only friend” in the Middle East, Israel.

Who cares about the ransacking of the homes of the Palestinians in 1948 and thereafter?

Who cares about the atrocities that the Israeli Defense Force have committed against Palestinians, both Mohammedan and Christian, Syrians, the Lebanese?

Perhaps more to the point is that God Himself used the Romans to expel the Jews from the Holy Land in 70 A.D. as a punishment for their infidelity by refusing to convert to the true Faith, and they were not mean to return there to establish a “homeland.”

Who cares about this little fact?

Yes, the State of Israel exists. Its existence is an accomplished fact. However, the well-financed and heavily armed State of Israel has more than enough means to protect its own citizens from all manner of attacks, There can never be true peace in the Middle East–or anywhere else in the world for that matter–unless all there say together, “Blessed is He Who comes in the Name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not bringing that message to the Holy Land, of course. He is bringing a false peace of “peace” founded on “mutual respect,” “tolerance” and “religious liberty.” His is a message of Judeo-Masonry, and anyone who doubts this or who says that it is “impolitic” to even state this publicly is stuck in a fantasy world that things are somehow going to get “better” when the very signs of the times point to the coming of Antichrist himself. He is content to help the Talmudists in their goal to blot out the Holy Name from everyday public life, content to do the bidding of his fellow enemies of Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother’s Fatima Mesage, Heaven’s own Peace Plan.

Antichrist certainly will be pleased with what will transpire in Jordan and Israel in the next three days, which is why we must pray Rosaries of reparation at this time. So many people will be deceived.

So many people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, will come to believe that some kind of “inter-religious” peace is possible.

So many people, Catholics non-Catholics alike, will be reaffirmed in the very anti-Incarnational premises of Modernity, which are so celebrated by the lords of conciliarism, that have enslaved them to the civil state and to the wiles of those in the synagogue and the lodges who have converted them to being, no matter their particular religious creed, if any, utter naturalists who shudder at any and all talk of the true Faith, the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Modernism’s “god of progress” must be opposed as it is the exact same “god” as Judeo-Masonry, something that can be seen very clearly by the following passage from Pope Saint Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

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.)

Our Lady is the great foe of all heresies, including Modernism, whose rise was made possible by Protestantism and its alliance with Judeo-Masonry.

May we ever have recourse to her, especially during the next few days under her title as Our Lady Help of Christian and through her Most Holy Rosary, to pray for he conversion of all of those who are attacking the true Faith, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, and as we continue to pray each day for our own conversion away from our sins as we seek to offer up reparation for them to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own most Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

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 John Baptist de Rossi, pray for us.

 

To Blot Out The Holy Name Forever, part one

One of the many ways in which the adversary has used the events of World War II to seek to intimidate Catholics from writing or speaking about the organized efforts of Judeo-Masonry to blot out the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is to have purported officials of the Catholic Church to teach them that the events of what is called “The Shoah” has caused a “reevaluation” of the Church’s relationship to the “faith of Israel.” 

The now retired “Benedict XVI” said precisely this in his infamous Christmas address to the conciliar curia on December 22, 2005:

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. . .

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance – a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005. See also Rabbis, Rabbis, Get a Grip.)

In other words, what is claimed to be, albeit falsely, the Catholic Church is said to teach that any criticism of Judaism as a false religion is (a) factually erroneous and (b) an exercise in “anti-Semitism” of the sort that led up to the crimes of Adolph Hitler against the Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Those Catholics who continue to insist that New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and thus believe, no less proclaim publicly, that Jews must convert to the Faith unconditionally before they did to save souls are said to be “insensitive” to the Jews, who are said to have suffered so much.

As has been noted on this site in the past, however, the crimes of the Third Reich were exploited by Talmudic propagandists in order to advance the efforts of Judeo-Masonry to de-Christianize the remnants of Christendom so that the Holy Name of Jesus could be blotted out from public view once and for all as every aspect of social life, including that of what passes for the Catholic Church but is really the counterfeit church of conciliarism, could be thoroughly Judaized. What belonged to Christ the King is now the provenance of the devil and his minions.

The devil thus reigns as king of this world, which is only the logical consequence of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King in the Sixteenth Century. Talmudic Jews exploited this overthrow to advance their own position in the regions under “evangelical” control, thus losing their own true protectors, our true popes, and paving the way for a world that spat on Christ the King as one sterile “philosophical” or ideological substitute after another became the means to organize social life.

As noted in many articles on this site, including Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part one and Meet Some Catholics Truly Worth Admiring, part two,  Adolph Hitler rose to power in Germany of the Weimar Republic precisely as a result of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic efforts to eliminate the influence of the Catholic Church on public life. The Nazis were racialists who hated the Catholic Church, gripped as many of them were by the devil’s occult practices and all manner of unspeakably morbid perversity. The Catholic Church was not responsible for the crimes, no matter their extent and nature, against the Jews committed by agents of the Third Reich, and the devil has used the professional propagandizing about these crimes to prevent the souls of Jews from being converted to the true Faith. The conciliarists are thus responsible for a genocide against souls that far exceeds the carnage wrought by the Nazi regime.

The lords of conciliarism have celebrated what they call “healthy secularity” and the “diversity” brought about by the heresy of “freedom of religion,” which is said to be the “path to peace, cowing down to the professional Talmudic lobbyists at almost every turn.

Each of the conciliar “popes” have been Judaizers.

“Saint John XXIII” paved the way for Nostra Aetate that was promulgated at the “Second” Vatican Council on October 28, 1965, by the soon-to-be “Blessed Paul the Sick,” who included Talmudic table prayers in the place of the traditional Offertory in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

“Saint John Paul II” declared the Old Testament was never revoked and “knighted” several pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic rabbis.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI personally visited four Talmudic synagogues and had said as “Cardinal” Ratzinger that “It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ,” thus blaspheming God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired each of the pages of Sacred Scripture.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, however, is the first fully Judaized conciliar “pope.” As noted six days ago now, his pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic pal, Rabbi Abraham Skorka, who is about to accompany him to Jordan and Israel (some four hundred American Talmudic rabbis are going to Israel to see the Jorge, Abe and Omar Show come to town), speculated that Jorge reads rabbinical writings. Well, we know for sure that he reads prayers from the blasphemous Talmud, and has been noted many times on this site in the past six months now, he wrote in an official document of what those in the “resist while recognize” movement believe is the Catholic Church that the Old Covenant has never been revoked.

Also known is the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s favorite painting is the late Marc Chagall’s blasphemous “White Crucifixion” that is a mockery of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Christ, His Sacred Divinity, His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross and the entirety of Christianity What kind of believing “Catholic” finds anything in a grotesque painting whose principal message that the Jewish suffering during World War II was the greatest crime in human history, surpassing that of Deicide itself?

Call Me Jorge posted a story on Bergoglio’s admiration of Chagall’s “White Crucifixion” that is most telling in its details, some of which are drawn from a National Catholic Reporter story that is referenced therein:

The best source on Francis’ favorite piece of art, the White Crucifixion, is the excellent Maurice Pinay Blog.  Some of his most interesting posts on this topic are linked to at the bottom of this entry.

Now onto the reveals from the National Catholic Reporter article by Menachem Wecker. (Click here to read full article)  As usual, the underlines and bold are ours.

…Under newly consistent light and amid the slick renovation, Chagall’s Jesus wears a sort of turban on his head, and instead of a loincloth he dons a Jewish prayer shawl, or a tallit. Surrounding the central crucifixion scene, a synagogue burns to the right, rabbis fly in the air above (where one might expect angels), and a pogrom ensues to the left. Above Jesus’ head, on the titulus, Chagall writes the Latin acronym “INRI” and, in jumbled Hebrew and Aramaic, “Jesus the Nazarene, king of the Jews.”

Whether Chagall, who grew up with extensive Jewish instruction despite the multitude of errors in many of his Hebrew inscriptions, knew that the way he spelled Jesus’ name in Hebrew also doubled as the rabbinic acronym “May his name and his memory be wiped out” is debatable. But it’s certainly clear that the work “owns” Jesus as a Jew. And as the Art Institute website observes, it aims to “dramatically call attention to the persecution and suffering of the Jews in 1930s Germany.”

…”In this painting, Jesus is at the center of some of the most horrific suffering Chagall can imagine,” she said. “And he is not just among the suffering, but truly identified as one of the suffering.

…”The appropriation of Jesus as a Jew is an implicit criticism of Catholicism for viewing the Jew as other, for not recognizing one’s own suffering in that of the Jews. Taking over Christian iconography is a critical move,” she said. “For the pope, the Jewish Christ may be enough to make the point about the failure of the church, and this might well speak to him.”

…”The painting comes out of the movement, particularly among Yiddish-speaking, nonreligious Jews, to see Jesus as sharing in the sufferings of Jews at the hands of Christians. However, few, if any, Christians are really aware of this movement,” he said.

Most Christians will interpret the painting as displaying a direct link between Jesus’ suffering and Jewish persecution during the Holocaust, according to Pawlikowski. But that can lead Christians to identify “themselves as victims, especially of the Nazis, rather than as a community of faith that contributed to Jewish suffering over the centuries,” he said. “The painting, as moving as it is, can send an inaccurate message.”

Dear reader, did you catch all that?

Marc Chagall grew up in the Hasidic community of Liozna near Vitebsk.  His family was ultra religious and Vitebsk was a Hasidic center which derived its culture from the esoteric Kabbalah.  Throughout his life, Chagall sought out the advice of Lubutavicher rabbis.  Here in this work, Chagall writes the rabbinic acronym found in the Talmud for Christ which means,

May his name and his memory be wiped out”

It is fitting Francis has said this is his favorite painting as everything Francis says he is doing for Christ turns in the end to result in the denigration of Christ.  It is just like the White Crucifixion.

The rabbis that visited Francis on 13 February 2014 as part of the American Jewish Committee are in on this.  As Rabbi Noam E. Marans recollects,

“When representatives of the American Jewish Committee met recently with Pope Francis at the Vatican, we presented him a copy of the Jewish Museum exhibit book inside an artistic and inscribed box. We showed him page 105, where a print of “White Crucifixion” is included because of its relevance to the exhibit.The pope was moved by our recognition of his emotional connection to the painting, and responded with a joyous smile.”

Chagall through the White Crucifixion is performing alchemy.  Swapping Christ for the counterfeit jewish people and the counterfeit jewish people for Christ.  Not only does Chagall do this but he also substitutes the degenerate hasidic values for catholic values.  A feat any Renaissance era alchemist would have been proud to have performed.  This is the same level of alchemy practiced by Freud and his fellow compatriots with the then new field of psychotherapy.

Don’t think the Novus Ordo church is ignorant of this.  It has adopted the rabbinical sorcery and the saintings of John Paul II and John XXIII are the most recent practice of this magic.  With a sleight of hand and an assist from the rabbis, the Vatican hierarchy has made the Novus Ordo church’s faith start with the poisonous Second Vatican Council.  Now through this infallible act catholics throughout the world are commanded to pray to two heretical saints.

By the time Francis gets finished with his reign in the Vatican, the Novus Ordo church will resemble a synagogue and the Vatican a shtetl. (Call Me Jorge.)

Obviously, the path to the Judaization of formerly Catholic Europe and the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic United States of America did not begin at the “Second” Vatican Council, which was only the culmination of close to six hundred years’ worth of revolutionary planning and activity that was designed to do one thing: to prepare the world for the acceptance of Antichrist and the reign of a fully mature, fully formed and fully brutal One World Ecumenical Church.

Writing in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record eighty-five years ago now, that is, in 1929, the late Father Edward Cahill, S.J., the great champion of the Social Reign of Christ the King who wrote The Framework of the Christian State and was a contemporary of Father Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., provided a good history of the influence of Talmudic influence in Freemasonry. Father Cahill’s series of articles in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record were subsequently published as a book under the title of Freemasonry and the anti-Christian Movement. (I am indebted to Mr. Juan Carlos Araneta for providing me a photocopy of the article on the Talmudic influence in Freemasonry, which led me, after transcribing several pages on Tuesday night, May 20, 2013, to a online source for it. As my own copy of the book with the collected articles has not surface lately, Mr. Araneta has done me a great service to provide me with this material of great educational interest.)

What I want to do, therefore, is to provide some selected passages from Father Cahill’s article in order to provide commentary on each by way of demonstrating that conciliarism’s reconciliation with the “world” is but the triumph of the anti-Catholic spirit of Judaizing that was noticeable during some aspects of the Renaissance but was able to come to full flower over the course of time as a result of Martin Luther’s revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through the Catholic Church:

On March 28, 1928, the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued an important decision of the Holy See on ‘the nature and purpose of the Association called Friends of Irsael and on the pamphlet entitled Pax super Israel, edited by the directors of the Association. Although ‘many priests, bishops and even cardinal gave their adhesion to this association,’ the Sacred Congregation condemns and completely suppresses it, by reason of ‘its mode of acting and speaking which is out of harmony with the traditional sense of the Church, the mind of the Fathers and even the Sacred liturgy itself.

The secularist Press, which is mostly controlled by the great Jewish financiers, immediately showed its appreciation for the importance of the decree by striving in the decree by striving to misrepresent it as a gesture of disapproval on the part of the Holy See of Catholic anti-masonic writes, whereas the contrary is the case. The decree is an authoritative reassertion of the traditional attitude of the Church towards the Jewish people. The Church desires sincerely the conversion of the Jews to the true Faith. But she cannot compromise with them any more than she can with the Modernists or even with the so-called Anglo-Catholics. Hence, in the present decree, the Holy See takes measures against the Masonic and Jewish infiltrations into the Church, which were being attempted through the medium of the condemned association and pamphlet. On the other hand she also reprobates as contrary to the Christian spirit and teaching Anti-Semitism, properly so-called, just as she reprobates anti-Germanism or any other similar anti-ism that would imply ‘racial or national hatred.’ But to follow the direction of Leo XIII and ‘tear away the mask from Freemasonry and let it be seen as it really is,’ is not anti-Semitism even when Freemasons in question are Jews; and needless to say, the Holy See does not follow the example of the Masonic sectaries in misapplying the term. (Father E. Cahill, S.J., “Freemasonry: VI: The Jewish Element in Freemasonry, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1929.)

These first two passages have direct relevance to Jorge  Mario Bergoglio’s forthcoming visit to Jordan and Israel.

First, Father Cahill pointed out Holy Office had suppressed the “Friends of Israel” association because it had a “mode of acting and speaking which is out of harmony with the traditional sense of the Church, the mind of the Fathers and even the Sacred liturgy itself.” Yet it is that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has adopted this very mode of “acting and speaking” in a manner that is “out of harmony with the traditional sense of the Church, the mind of the Fathers and even the Sacred liturgy.” Father Cahill defended Catholic doctrine. The conciliarists promote that which is anti-Christ, placing them in league with the Talmudists, who have long sought to eradicate all mention of the Holy Name of Jesus from public life.

Second, Father Cahill pointed out that the decree of the Holy Office against the Friends of Israel association defended Catholic doctrine concerning the Jews that has been abandoned by the conciliarists, who have termed it “anti-Semitic” even to speak about any necessity of seeking the conversion of the Jews to the true Faith before they die or to oppose their schemes for the further de-Christianization.

Consider the following words once again:

The decree is an authoritative reassertion of the traditional attitude of the Church towards the Jewish people. The Church desires sincerely the conversion of the Jews to the true Faith. But she cannot compromise with them any more than she can with the Modernists or even with the so-called Anglo-Catholics. Hence, in the present decree, the Holy See takes measures against the Masonic and Jewish infiltrations into the Church, which were being attempted through the medium of the condemned association and pamphlet.  (Father E. Cahill, S.J., “Freemasonry: VI: The Jewish Element in Freemasonry, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1929.)

Have the conciliar “popes” sought the conversion of the Jews?

Indeed, we have been by the likes of conciliar revolutionaries that the Catholic Church has no “organized mission” to convert the Jews, who somehow get “saved” all on their own. Putative “popes” have gone into Talmudic synagogues content to be treated as inferiors as they have treated this false religion with respect and esteemed its symbols that belong to the devil himself (see Saint Peter and Anti-Peter.)

Moreover, the conciliar “popes” have indeed compromised with Talmudism and Anglicanism as they have promoted one Modernist precept after another, something that Father Cahill notes is impossible for the Catholic Church to do of her very Divine Constitution.

Why is it so difficult for those in the “resist while recognize” movement to understand and accept these truths.

Third, Father Cahill’s reminder that it is not anti-Semitic to seek the conversion of the Jews or to oppose the schemes of some of their number to blot out the Holy Name of our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and spit on His Sacred Deposit Faith and His Holy Church herself is very similar to one provided by Father Denis Fahey in 1949, eight years after his, Father Cahill’s, death:

As I was not able to bring out this book when it was originally written, it has been laid aside for years. In the meantime, the need for setting forth the full doctrine of the Kingship of Christ has been forcibly brought home to me by the confusion created in minds owing to the use of the term “Anti-Semitism.” The Hitlerite naturalistic or anti-supernatural régime in Germany gave to the world the odious spectacle of a display of Anti-Semitism, that is, of hatred of the Jewish Nation. Yet all the propaganda about that display of Anti-Semitism should not have made Catholics forget the existence of age-long Jewish Naturalism or Anti-Supernaturalism. Forgetfulness of the disorder of Jewish Naturalistic opposition to Christ the King is keeping Catholics blind to the danger that is arising from the clever extension of the term “Anti-Semitism,” with all its war-connotation in the minds of the unthinking, to include any form of opposition to the Jewish Nation’s naturalistic aims. For the leaders of the Jewish Nation, to stand for the rights of Christ the King is logically to be “anti-Semitic.”

In March, 1917, Pope Benedict XV wrote to the Archbishop of Tours: “In the midst of the present upheavals, it is important to repeat to men that by her divine institution the Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation for the human race . . . . Accordingly, it is more seasonable than ever to teach . . . that the truth which liberates, not only individuals, but societies, is supernatural truth in all its fulness and in all its purity, without attenuation, diminution or compromise: in a word, exactly as Our Lord Jesus Christ delivered it to the world.” These sublime words of the Vicar of Christ have nerved me to do all in my power to set forth the opposition of every form of Naturalism, including Jewish Naturalism, to the supernatural Reign of Christ the King. In addition, for over twenty years I have been offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every year, on the Feasts of the Resurrection, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul and the Assumption of Our Blessed Mother, for the acceptance by the Jewish Nation of the Divine Plan for order. Thus I have been striving to follow the example of our Divine Master. Blessed Pius X insists that “though Jesus was kind to those who had gone astray, and to sinners, He did not respect their erroneous convictions, however sincere they appeared to be.”the need of combining firmness in the proclamation of the integral truth with loving charity towards those in error is insisted on, even more emphatically, by Pope Pius XI: “Comprehending and merciful charity towards the erring,” he writes, “and even towards the contemptuous, does not mean and can not mean that you renounce in any way the proclaiming of, the insisting on, and the courageous defence of the truth and its free and unhindered application to the realities about you. The first and obvious duty the priest owes to the world about him is service to the truth, the whole truth, the unmasking and refutation of error in whatever form or disguise it conceals itself.”

A day will come when the Jewish Nation will cease to oppose order and will turn in sorrow and repentance to Him Whom they rejected before Pilate. That will be a glorious triumph for the Immaculate Heart of Our Blessed Mother. Until that day dawns, however, their naturalistic opposition to the True Supernatural Order of the world must be exposed and combated. (Father Denis Fahey, Foreword, The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation.)

It is not to “hate” anyone to seek their unconditional conversion to the true Faith or to oppose their schemes to undermine It and to persecute those who defend It despite their own sins and failings. Indeed, it is a Spiritual Work of Mercy to seek with urgency the unconditional of non-Catholics to the true Faith (see (see Chopped Liver No More, To Advocate Christ The King, Nothing Else and Chopped Liver No More Update).

The next passage from Father Cahill’s article in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record provided a history of the Jewish role in Freemasonry in summary form. Although there are contemporary writers who have specialized in matters pertaining to the Talmud and have  more expertise in the field than did Father Cahill, it is nevertheless the case that the late Jesuit’s historical summary is very good, providing as it does a readable means to put our current situation in its proper historical frame of reference:

Although the Jewish role in Freemasonry is for many reasons difficult to deal with, some acquaintance with that aspect of the subject is essential for an intelligent grasp of the whole. Hence, anyone that undertakes to convey even a summary idea of Freemasonry cannot afford to omit it. The present writer has made no study of the Jewish colony in Dublin or in Ireland. He knows, however, that the Jews in Ireland are a comparatively small body, although increasing considerably in recent years; and that the old resident Jews have the reputation of being, on the whole, industrious, law-abiding and charitable. He has not had them in mind when writing the present sketch.

It is, however, a common belief among Catholics and others that Freemasonry is somehow associated with modern Judaism. Our present purpose is to discuss how far such a belief is well-founded, an what is the nature between the two. We may say at once that the available evidence points to the following general conclusions:–

(1) That much of the external trappings of Freemasonry, such as its ritual, its terminology, its legends, etc., are of Jewish origin;

(2) that the philosophy or religion of esoteric Freemasonry (that is, of the inner circle and controlling power) is practically identical with the doctrines of the Jewish Cabala, which is the religion or the philosophy of a certain section of the Jews;

(3) that a certain group of Jews, probably very few in number, but of immense influence and power, are leading Freemasons; and

(4) that a somewhat larger group of very influential Jews pursue the same ends as Freemasons, and use similar means, and are at least in close alliance with them.

Hence, although the Jewish element in Freemasonry is of predominant influence, and although it is true that the Masonic Jewish leaders do often exploit for their own evil purposes Jewish solidarity an internationalism, and the age-long antipathy between Judaism and Christianity one cannot on that account justly accuse or condemn the Jewish people as a whole. Indeed, the facts of the case point to the conclusion that the rank and file of the Jews suffer no less, possibly even more, than the Christians from the unscrupulous and altogether wicked activities of its ruling Masonic junta.

A few words on modern Judaism by way of preliminary explanation will be acceptable to those of our readers who are not familiar with the subject. The two main sources of the religious system of modern Judaism are the Talmud and the Cabala (Kabalah). The former, which is founded upon the religious and moral teaching of the Pharisees of Our Lord’s time, is made up principally of the rabbinical interpretations of the law of Moses, and the traditions that have gathered round it. With the vast majority of modern orthodox Jews the Talmud has almost entirely supplanted the Old Testament. B. Lazare, the Jewish apologist, refers to the Talmud as the creator of the Jewish nation, and the mould of the Jewish soul. The Talmud has, in fact, been the principal factor in forming the national character of the modern Jewish nation, an of holding the Jews together as one people.

The Talmudic compilation is deeply impregnated with opposition to Christianity. In medieval times not only was the Talmud forbidden to all Catholics, but the possession of Talmudic books was regarded, before the Protestant revolt, as a criminal offense in most of the States of Europe. The most offending and anti-Christian passages passages of the Talmud are, however, apparently omitted in the ordinary English translations and hand-books; and, probably, are unknown to most Jews brought up and educated in these countries, just as the esoteric teachings and real objects of Freemasonry are unknown to the vast majority of those that adhere to the Masonic sect or lend it their support. (Father E. Cahill, S.J., “Freemasonry: VI: The Jewish Element in Freemasonry, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1929.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio reads prayers from the Talmud. He has participated in Talmudic liturgical rites in Jewish synagogues, thus giving his endorsement of a book that his blasphemous of its nature and opposed to the Faith and thus to eternal good of souls and to the right ordering of men in their nations, whose civil leaders are supposed to pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s 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 in Heaven.

Even the words of the Old Testament, written in the Divine inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, matter less than those of he blasphemous Talmud to those who adhere to this false religion that is admired and endorsed by none other than “Pope” Francis” himself.

The following passage is length as it provides a summary of the Cabala influences on modern Judaism and the association of it with Freemasonry. The passage concludes with a paragraph that will serve as the basis of the final commentary for part one of this two-part series as the hour is approaching 3:00 a.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time:

The second main source of the religion of modern Judaism, or at least of a certain section of modern Jews, is the Cabala. The term Cabala (Kabalah) was originally used to indicate that portion of the Mosaic Law which was handed down by tradition, and consigned to writing b the Jewish prophets and others. Since the thirteenth century, however, this ancient use of the term has fallen into desuetude, so that in modern times the Cabala means the colonization of the esoteric or occult doctrines of Judaism. These latter are mainly founded on the Neo-Platonic philosophy and the doctrines of the early Gnostics, and are closely connected with the occult worship of the Eastern sectaries of both ancient and modern times, which have continued since the the early ages of the Christian era and even before that period, to infiltrate through the medium of the rabbinical writings of the Jewish religious system. The philosophic and religious teachings of the Cabala illustrate and explain the strong tendency to occultism and false mysticism, which a section of the Jews have always manifested, and which they and the Freemasons have helped so much to propagate in the modern world.

The whole system of occultism, which is so elusive and difficult to define, is sometimes called Hermeticism, from Hermes, the Greek name of the go of wisdom–partially corresponding to the Latin god Mercury–to whom was ascribed the authorship of the sacred books of Eastern occultism. Hermeticism is commonly taken to include Theosophism, Christian Scientism, Neo-Platonism, Philonic Judaism and Jewish and pagan Cabalism. It is in a large part a revival of the heresies of of the Gnostics, Maniceans, Albigenses, Waldenses, etc., and aims at providing the modern European race with some acceptable substitute for Christianity.

The evidence of a connexion between Freemasonry and certain aspects of Judaism, refer principally to the Calabla and the Cabalistic section of the Jews. That there exists a close affinity between the Cabala and the doctrines and practices of esoteric Freemasonry is clear form what we have written in a previous article of the nature of the latter. One school of writers indeed maintains that Freemasonry is an instrument invented and utilized by the Jewish leaders for the destruction of Christianity. This view of anti-Jewish writers, and many Catholic apologists, hardly accords with well-known facts, and is almost certainly false as regards the origin of Freemasonry. For a long time the Jews were excluded from most of the German, English, and French lodges; and up to the end of the eighteenth century the total number of Jewish Freemasons was quite inconsiderable. Again, the assertion that the real founders of German Illuminism and French Martinism, which are the sources of the worst and most destructive elements in Freemasonry, has not been and, probably, cannot be proved. Elias Ashmole (1617-1646), the celebrated English antiquarian, and the founder of the Oxford Museum to whom is probably due the first introduction of Hermeticism into the English lodges in the seventeenth century, long before the formal inauguration of speculative Freemasonry was not a Jew. Again, it cannot be proved that Weishaupt, or Martinez, Pasqualis, or Joseph Balsamo, commonly known as Cagilostro, were Jews, although to these were large due the Illuminist and Martinist influences in the Freemasonry of the eighteenth century. Even at the present day it is well-known (although the fact does not prove much) that many Masonic lodges refuse to admit Jews, as they fear their dominating influence, and find by experience that Jews, once admitted, soon acquire the mastery of the lodge.

On the other hand, it is certain that the Jewish Cabalistic tradition was one of the principal mediums through which Eastern occultism (which has so many times come to the surface in European history) has been transmitted to modern Europe; and that many, if not all, of the recognized founders of the eighteenth-century Illuminism (including Weishaupt, Pasqualis, and Cagliostro) were initiated into its secrets by Jewish Cabalists or drew their inspiration and their methods from the Jewish esoteric writings. The Jewish apologist, Bernard Lazare, states that ‘there were Cabalistic Jews around the cradle of Freemasonry, as certain rites still in existence conclusively show.’

From Pike’s Morals and Dogma of Freemasonry, which we have already referred to as one of the most authoritative works on Masonic teaching, it is clear that the doctrines of esoteric Freemasonry, on such subjects as the nature of God, and his supposed identity with the universe, the nature of the human soul, the true interpretation of the these subjects contained in the Jewish Cabala. The authoritative works of Ragon, ‘the sacred author’ of Masonry, who was himself a Jew, illustrate the same theme. So do many other Jewish writings.

Are Ave to wonder [writes the pious Jewish rabbin, Benamozegh] that Judaism has been accused of forming a branch of Freemasonry? It is quite certain that Masonic theology is at root nothing else than Theosophy, and that it corresponds to the theology of the Cabala. Besides, a deep study of the rabbinical movements of the early ages of the Christian era supply numerous proofs that the aggada was the popular form of an esoteric science, which presents, in its methods of initiation, the most striking resemblance to the Masonic system. Those willing to go to the trouble of carefully examining the question of the relations between Judaism and philosophic Freemasonry, Theosophy, and occultism in general, will, we are convinced, lose their superb disdain for the Cabala. They will no longer smile in pity at the suggestion that the Cabalistic theology may have a role to play in the religious transformation of the future.

Besides the existence of the Cabalistic element in Masonic morals and dogma there are numerous other indications which point to the important influence of Judaism on the early formation and development of Freemasonry. We mention a few. The Masonic coat-of-arms still used by the Grand Lodge of England is of Jewish design. Some of the more important legends of Freemasonry, especially the Legend of Hiram, on which much of Masonic rite is founded, are Jewish.’ The technical language, symbolism, and rites of Masonry are full of Jewish ideas and terms. . . . In the Scottish rite, the dates of all the official documents are given according to the Hebrew month and the Jewish era ; and use is made of the older forms of the Jewish alphabet.’ Hence, approved Jewish writers generally recognize that the Masonic ritual is of Jewish origin.

Although during the eighteenth century the number of Jews in the Masonic lodges were few, the prejudice against them was lessened or eliminated as a result of the movement towards Jewish emancipation, which was itself largely due to Liberal and Masonic influence; and since the middle of the nineteenth century the Cabalistic Jewish element has become predominant at least in Continental Freemasonry. Thus, while Jews are still excluded from the so-called ‘Christian’ lodges of Germany, the influence of the latter is now overshadowed by those lodges which admit Jews, and in which the Jewish element more or less prevails. Even in 1900 there were at least 800 such lodges in the German Empire exclusive of the B’ne Berith lodges, which are entirely Jewish. So marked, indeed, is the dominance of the Jewish element in German Freemasonry that the Masonic Journal Latomia (February, 1928) quotes a saying of Ludendorf: ‘The Freemasons are the henchmen of the Jews.’

It was Jews that introduced Freemasonry into the United States of America; and Jews have always been a powerful influence in the American Masonic organizations. Again, the Masonic rite of Mizraim which includes no less than ninety degrees and is, perhaps, the most esoteric and highly elaborated of all the Masonic rites, has been founded by Jews. So also has been the order of B’ne Berith (‘Sons of the Alliance ‘), and several other organizations of a similar type. The Masonic rite of Mizraim belongs mainly to Europe, and some of its lodges are exclusively Jewish. The order of B’ne Berith, which is altogether Jewish, is (or rather was up to some twenty years ago) mainly American, and if not formally and professedly Masonic, bears a striking resemblance to Freemasonry, in its organization and avowed objects, and is in intimate alliance with Masonry.

The indications of a close connexion or working alliance between Freemasonry and important sections of the Jews are innumerable.

Masonry [writes the Jewish Chronicle (October 29, 1889) ] tolerates everything except a narrow clericalism [viz. Catholicisim] and it possesses a special attraction for the Jews. . . . Clericalism has always persecuted Masonry everywhere it can . . . and the spirit of persecution has attracted the Jews towards Masonry by an invisible but potent bond of sympathy. There exists between them a natural alliance against a common enemy, . . . Together they fight, oftentimes with success, against religious fanaticism and racial antipathies. In London there are no less than five Jewish lodges. There are some also at Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester.

It is nearly half a century ago since a well-known British review called attention to the dominant influence of the Jews, not only in politics, the press, and international finance, but also in the revolutionary outbreaks of the century.

The influence of the Jews at the present time is more noticeable than ever. That they are at the head of European capitalism, we are all aware. … In politics many of the Jews are in the front rank. . . . That their excessive wealth, used as it has been, acts as a solvent influence in modern society cannot be questioned. . . . But while on the one hand the Jews are thus beyond dispute the leaders of the autocracy of Europe . . . another section of the same race form the leaders of that revolutionary propaganda which is making way against that very capitalist class, representing their own fellow Jews. Jews, more than any other men . . . are acting as the leaders in the revolutionary movement which I have endeavoured to trace. (Father E. Cahill, S.J., “Freemasonry: VI: The Jewish Element in Freemasonry, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, 1929.)

Father Cahill was merely echoing in the highlighted material at the end of this lengthy passage what others had said before him. Among those who were astute enough and courageous enough to point out the role of the Universal Israelite Alliance to shape electoral politics, public policy, civil law, education and culture in the United States of America were two French clerics, Louis Edouard “Cardinal” Pie, who was the Bishop of Poitiers, France from from May 23, 1849, to the time of his death on May 18, 1880, and Monsignor Henri Delassus.

To Cardinal Pie first as quoted in Father Théotimede Saint Just’s book that was translated from French into English by Mr. Daniel Leonardi and published by the Catholic Action Center:

Accordingly, the Bishop of Poitiers had always fought against THE SEPARATION OF Church and State. Moreover, he opposed all separations, that of reason and faith, of nature and grace, of natural religion and revealed religion, the separation of the philosopher and the Christian, of private man and public man. He saw in all these [separations] a resurgence of Manichean dualism and he had fought all these with, the supreme argument, the law formed by Christ. Therefore, it is in all truth, writing to [Minister of the Interior] the Count of Presigny, that he could render this testimony:

‘We have nothing in common with the theorists of disunion and opposition of two orders, temporal and spiritual, natural and supernatural. We struggle, on the contrary, with all our strength against these doctrines of separation which is leading to the denial of religion itself and of revealed religion.'”

Fr. de St. Just returns at this point and introduces us to what is perhaps Msgr. Pie’s strongest language, with regard to this entire subject:

“To this doctrine of the Church, which Msgr. Pie brought to the mind of the rulers of nations, the liberals would oppose acts favoring separation.

Certain countries, Belgium and America, for example, haven’t they proclaimed the separation of Church and State, and doesn’t the Church enjoy a more complete liberty under such a system?”

Cardinal Pie responded firmly to this question:

‘THE AMERICAN AND BELGIUM SYSTEM, this system of philosophical-political indifference, shall eternally be a bastard system” (pp. 122-124 in Fr. de St. Just’s book) (Selected Writings of Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 21-23.)

As I have note so many times before, Barack Hussein Obama is but the ultimate end product of Americanism, which is itself an expression of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry.

Echoing Cardinal Pie and anticipating the work of Fathers Cahill and Fahey in Ireland, Monsignor Henri Delassus saw the direction connection between Talmudism and the rot the modern religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity that has been embraced with such zeal by the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

As Monsignor Delassus demonstrated, the spirit of Father Isaac Thomas Hecker, the founder of the Society of Saint Paul, and other Americanists fit very well into the goals of Talmudic Judaism to undermine the Faith of individual Catholics so that their first loyalties would be to the false concepts of Modernity, including Americanism, and then to their Church, which, if all went according to the plan, would itself one day “adopt” the false concepts of Modernity and make its “peace” with the revolutions of 1776 and 1789:

How so? Fr. Hecker tells us: “A call is made to men who possess this new synthesis of truth who are able to solve the problems of eliminating antagonisms, of being reconciled with the need of our era; of men who will take hold of all the aspirations of modern genius effected by science, of social activity, of politics, of spirituality (accordingly, spirituality itself would be called upon to defend the Church and to procure her universal triumph), of religion, and of the transformation of everything by means of the defense and universal triumph for the Church” (The Life of Fr. Hecker.)

Those who are not made aware of the world’s current direction by the information that they derive from the newspaper–and this is the vast majority–will undoubtedly be surprised, in speaking to them of “Americanism” and of an “American Catholicism,” we begin by calling their attention to the “Universal Israelite Alliance,” entering through there upon a question, the Jewish Question, that presently fascinates the world and that is studied under every point of view, but which does not take into account, appears to be removed from, American Catholicism. This is nevertheless not imaginary on our part. The Universal Israelite Alliance is the center, the home, the bond of the antichristian conspiracy, by which Americanism seems to us to provide a support that it is not aware of which would not be given if it were understood and upon which this book is determined to direct its attention

One of the most malicious men of this [19th] century, the Jew [Jules Isaac] Cremieux, who was made grand Master of the French Grand Orient, who profited by the Revolution of 1848 [in France] by being raised to the Ministry of Justice, and by the disasters of 1870 which gave French citizenship to all the Jews of Algeria, founded in 1860 a cosmopolitan society which he endowed with the name of Universal Israelite Alliance. This association is not, as its name would have one believe, one of international Jewry, a bond to better facilitate links between Jews scattered around the surface of the globe; its aims bear upon something much more higher. It is an association open to all men without distinction of nationality nor of religion, under the high direction of Israel.

In order to be convinced of this, it is sufficient to open the publication that represents it, The Israelite Archives. “The Universal Israelite Alliance,” it says there (xxx, pp. 514-515, for the year 1861), “must enter into all religions as it has penetrated all countries. I call to our association the brothers of every religion, that they would come to us! … That enlightened men of all cults will unite themselves with this Universal Israelite Alliance” (ibid.) And why? “To break down the barriers which separate that which ONE DAY MUST BE UNITED. See there, Messieurs, the beauty, the great mission of Our Universal Israelite Alliance (ibid.)

Profiting from their dispersion over every point of the globe, the Jews wish to be in humanity as a sort of leaven, in order to make of human society, presently divided into nations and various religions, “one sole and solid fraternity,”–the Israelite Archives say it less hypocritically: “A Jerusalem of new order, a holy extension from the East to the West, that must EXIT IN ITSELF in the double city of the Caesars and the Popes” (XXV, PP. 600-651, 1861) …

The Jewish race “Jerusalem” intends to establish its reign over the entire world. “East and West,” by establishing its authority upon the ruins of all existing powers. “Caesars and Popes.” All authority must disappear in order to make way for the domination of Juda, which “will take the place” of all the existing powers in the spiritual order as well as in the temporal order  …

We see here that other idea advanced, the idea of the United States of Europe, parallel to the United States of America 

Here again, one could compare a strange accord between the ideas of the Americanists and the tendencies of those who obey the promptings given by the Universal Israelite Alliance. A most ardent promoter of Americanism, in a discourse given in 1894 to the International Scientific Congress of Catholics at Brussels, had this to say:

“We have thought that the opportunity has been provided us of giving to the ENTIRE WORLD a great lesson. When we study the map of Europe, we see there, marks of small divisions. Lines traversing these maps in every sense. They do not indicate only territorial divisions, they signify also: jealousy, hatred, hostility, divisions of hearts, that commits God knows how many millions of armed men for the destruction of the world. Thus, from all these nations, Providence has allowed immigration among us. All nations find themselves at home here [in the USA]; they have been living among themselves, fraternally, without any hostility. This is the privilege that God has granted to America, that of destroying the traditions of national jealousies that of that you have perpetuated in Europe, by melting them down in America unity.”

Read on: “Americanism” [this pompous Americanist continues] “has received from God the mission of giving to the entire world this lesson: the time has come to put an end to the past: abolish frontiers, place all the people in the melting pot of the rights of man by the molding of united humanity, as we [in America] have been founded, we emigrants from all countries, in American unity. And peace shall reign in the world.”

Yes, the peace of the slave under the tyranny of one man or of one race.

As of all the other ideas of the Americanists, that of he abolition of frontiers seems to appeal to our Christian democrats. . . .

So then, if the Talmudists [Orthodox Jews] differ from the liberals [Reform Jews], it is only upon knowing which is the better means to employ in order to accomplish the mission that Israel claims to have received … The Talmudists continue to await a messiah of flesh and bone, who will make them masters of the universe; the liberals say that they do not have any other messiah to expect than the Revolution, “the principles” of which are dissolving of all society and preparing it for their rule. In order to spread these modern “principles,” in order to have them bring about the fruits that they are awaiting, they deem it necessary to separate themselves from those observances to which their fathers had been attached, when they believed that their fidelity would hasten the coming of the personal messiah. This is a cumbersome burden, and what’s more the Jew of this old way could not “make himself acceptable.” He would nevertheless make himself acceptable in the eyes of the people among whom he wished to exercise a “proselytization.”

And in what does this conversion consist? Is it to encourage the faithful of various religions to enter into Judaism? The Jews have never had the thought of making a conversion of this sort; they are a people a race apart, “the premier aristocracy of the world,” the only ones who are truly men; they would never hear of elevating beings such as those who are human only in appearance …

In the first place [The Universal Israelite Alliance] acts upon kings and parliaments in order to apply pressure on them, “this singular, indefatigable influence” that [Gourgenot] des Mousseaux already noted in 1869 [see, The Jew, Judaism and The Judaization of the Christian People, by Mousseaux].

What over and above does it demand? LAICIZATION.

There is no person, who is not blind, who cannot fail to see the prodigious efforts that are being made over the last century towards secularization, that is to say, efforts to remove all religious character from everywhere and everyone. Already, on the very origin of the Revolution, [Count Joseph] de Maistre, had remarked that his had been its essential character. “Examine,” he said, “all the enterprises of this century, you have to see (these men of the Revolution) constantly occupied in the separation from divinity.” It would take too long to show here the many aspects under which the question of laicization or secularization is presented: it spreads itself among all, and in every governmental organ, accordingly, all the forces of society are employed in the success of this work …

Could Americanism, itself also, have come to lend itself to this work that is certainly not intentional? This is what we have already said is to be feared. It is well to examine this thing more closely.

What is certain, what is incontestable, is that between the Jewish spirit and the Americanist spirit there is a point of contact with the principles of ’89 [i.e., the principles of the French Revolution].

We have heard the Jews proclaim and declare the course they are drawing. For the Americans their social and even religious state rests entirely upon these principles; they highly praise them, and the Americanists themselves would have us that “American ideas are those in which GOD wants all the civilized people of our time to be at home.” So they conscientiously make of themselves evangelists.” ( Monsignor Henri Delassus, Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy, translated by Mr. Daniel Leonardi and published by Mr. Hugh Akins of Catholic Action Resources Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007–first printing in France, 1899, pp. 2-8.)

No, the path to the travesties that will take place in the Holy Land did not just kind of “happen” at the “Second” Vatican Council. Anyone who believes that this is so is utterly blind to history as there were numerous, interrelated factors, each born of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, that made possible the infiltration of the Catholic hierarchy under our true popes with scores of “sleeper agents,” if you will, whose agenda of spiritual destruction was to make itself manifest over the course of time.

Moreover, those who deny the role of the “American experience” in serving as an essential building block of conciliarism’s “reconciliation” with a “new world order” is choosing to believe in nationalistic myths rather than the cold, hard facts as brought out by the likes of Fathers Edward Cahill and Denis Fahey in Ireland and Louis Edouard “Cardinal” Pie, Monsignor Henri Delassus and Father Theotime de Just in France. Anyone who does this is also turning a blind eye to the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as much as an end product of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic spirit of Americanism that he will be celebrating in just two days in Jordan and Israel.

Part two of this commentary will appear tomorrow, Friday, May 23, 2014, which is the Feast of Saint John Baptist de Rossi in some places (otherwise a Paschaltide ferial day).

Continue to offer up the sufferings of the moment to the throne of the Most Blessed Trinity through as the consecrated slaves of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, also begging Saint Rita, the Patron of Impossible Cases, to pray for what seems in human terms to be “impossible,” the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in fulfillment of her Fatima Message.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Rita, pray for us.

How Can Any Believing Catholic Accept Apostates as Catholics?, part two

The sacrilege that took place in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela in Spain one week ago today, that is, 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 Francisco Marto and their cousin Lucia dos Santos in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, involved Buddhist “monks,” as well as Shinto “priests.” Indeed, the Buddhists and the Shintoists did a little dance together.

In truth, of course, the conciliar revolutionaries have been doing a little dance with the clergy of false religions for the past fifty years now, a fact that was celebrated yesterday by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the future “Pope Saint Francis the Merciful,” as he addressed a message to the “Pontifical” Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue” (which was named the “Secretariat for Non-Christians” until “Saint John Paul II” changed it to its present name on June 28, 1988, two days before Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre consecrated four priests of the Society of Saint Pius X as bishops) on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary of denying the Catholic Faith while affirming the “goodness” of false religions, other than Talmudism, which has been given a special “commission” on the authority of “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity and its prefect, currently Kurt “Cardinal” Koch (who has been in office since July 1, 2010, following the retirement of Walter “Cardinal” Kasper), that deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Here is a brief report about the congratulatory message that Bergoglio to his fellow apostate, Jean-Louis “Cardinal” Tauran:

The institution of the [Dialogue Council’s predecessor department], the Secretariat for non-Christians,” writes Pope Francis in the Message, “represented one of the important decisions, which, with ponderous reflection, the Servant of God Paul VI put into action during the II Vatican Ecumenical Council,” in order to begin to translate the Council’s orientations into concrete terms, “and direct the universal Church on the path of the hoped-for renewal.”

The Holy Father goes on to say, “In joining myself to the giving of thanks to God for the work accomplished in these 50 years, it is my hope that the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue might continue its mission with renewed vigor, which might greatly help the cause of peace and of the authentic progress of peoples.” (50th anniversary Message to Dialogue Council.)

Given the sacrilege that took place a week ago today, which involved Buddhists and Shintoists, perhaps the best way to review Jean-Louis “Cardinal” Tauran’s own tenure as the “president” of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue, which began on June 25, 2007, when he succeeded another Frenchman, “Paul “Cardinal Poupard, who had helped to reaffirm false religions between 1980 an 2007, is to review of few of this apostate’s “Happy Vesakh” messages to the Buddhists:

Dear Buddhist friends,

1. The forthcoming feast of Vesakh/Hanamatsuri offers a welcome occasion to send you, on behalf of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, our sincere congratulations and cordial best wishes: may this feast once again bring joy and serenity to the hearts of all Buddhists throughout the world. This annual celebration offers Catholics an opportunity to exchange greetings with our Buddhist friends and neighbours, and in this way to strengthen the existing bonds of friendship and to create new ones. These ties of cordiality allow us to share with each other our joys, hopes and spiritual treasures.

2. While renewing our sense of closeness to you, Buddhists, in this period, it becomes clearer and clearer that together we are able not only to contribute, in fidelity to our respective spiritual traditions, to the well-being of our own communities, but also to the human community of the world. We keenly feel the challenge before us all represented, on the one hand, by the ever more extensive phenomenon of poverty in its various forms and, on the other hand, by the unbridled pursuit of material possessions and the pervasive shadow of consumerism.

3. As recently stated by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, poverty can be of two very different types, namely, a poverty “to be chosen” and a poverty “to be fought” (Homily, 1st January 2009). For a Christian, the poverty to be chosen is that which allows one to tread in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. By doing so a Christian becomes disposed to receive the graces of Christ, who for our sake became poor although he was rich, so that by his poverty we might become rich (Cf. 2 Corinthians 8, 9). We understand this poverty to mean above all an emptying of self, but we also see it as an acceptance of ourselves as we are, with our talents and our limitations. Such poverty creates in us a willingness to listen to God and to our brothers and sisters, being open to them, and respecting them as individuals. We value all creation, including the accomplishments of human work, but we are directed to do so in freedom and with gratitude, care and respect, enjoining a spirit of detachment which allows us to use the goods of this world as though we had nothing and yet possessed all things (Cf. 2 Corinthians 6, 10).

4. At the same time, as Pope Benedict noted, “there is a poverty, a deprivation, which God does not desire and which should be fought; a poverty that prevents people and families from living as befits their dignity; a poverty that offends justice and equality and that, as such, threatens peaceful co-existence (l.c.).” Furthermore, “in advanced wealthy societies, there is evidence of marginalization, as well as affective, moral, and spiritual poverty, seen in people whose interior lives are disoriented and who experience various forms of malaise despite their economic prosperity” (Message for World Day of Peace 2009, n. 2).

5. Whereas we as Catholics reflect in this way on the meaning of poverty, we are also attentive to your spiritual experience, dear Buddhist friends. We wish to thank you for your inspiring witness of non-attachment and contentment. Monks, nuns, and many lay devotees among you embrace a poverty “to be chosen” that spiritually nourishes the human heart, substantially enriching life with a deeper insight into the meaning of existence, and sustaining commitment to promoting the goodwill of the whole human community. Once again allow us to express our heartfelt greetings and to wish all of you a Happy Feast of Vesakh/Hanamatsuri. (Message to Buddhists for the Feast of Vesakh/Hanamatsuri 2009, April 3, 2009.)

The life of a Buddhist monk “spiritually enriching life with a deeper insight into the meaning of existence, and substantially enriching life with a deeper insight into the meaning of existence, and sustaining commitment to promoting the goodwill of the whole human community”?

Isn’t the the true God of Divine Revelation offended by this just a little bit?

Where is the concern for Divine Truth, for the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity?

This was all suborned during the “pontificate” of the now-retired “Pope” Benedict XVI, the man never uttered one word of public correction about “Archbishop” Robert Zollitsch’s denial that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins. Perhaps more to the point now, of course, is that the message of syncretism that was conveyed on May 13, 2014, in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, Spain, was suborned by the future “Saint Benedict XVI’s” succecessor, the future “Saint Francis the Merciful,” who would not dare to raise any objection to such a sacrilege as he is a grand champion of religious syncretism, which he will display with great zeal and sanctimony during his visit to Jordan and Israel that starts in four days, that is, on Saturday, May 23, 2014.

For his own part, the future “Saint Benedict XVI” praised a Japanese mountain upon which the Tendei sect of Buddhism took root in the Land of the Rising Sun, Mount Hiei, as “sacred” in a letter that was read in his behalf by Jean-Louis “Cardinal” Tauran, who is still now what he was then, namely, the president of the “Pontifical” Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue”:

I am glad to greet you and all the religious leaders gathered on the occasion of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Religious Summit Meeting on Mount Hiei. I wish also to convey my best wishes to Venerable Eshin Watanabe, and to recall your distinguished predecessor as Supreme Head of the Tendai Buddhist Denomination, Venerable Etai Yamada. It was he who, having participated in the Day of Prayer for Peace in Assisi on that memorable day of 27 October 1986, initiated the “Religious Summit Meeting” on Mount Hiei in Kyoto in order to keep the flame of the spirit of Assisi burning. I am also happy that Cardinal Paul Poupard, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, is able to take part in this meeting.

From the supernatural perspective we come to understand that peace is both a gift from God and an obligation for every individual. Indeed the world’s cry for peace, echoed by families and communities throughout the globe, is at once both a prayer to God and an appeal to every brother and sister of our human family. As you assemble on the sacred Mount Hiei, representing different religions, I assure you of my spiritual closeness. May your prayers and cooperation fill you with God’s peace and strengthen your resolve to witness to the reason of peace which overcomes the irrationality of violence!

Upon you all I invoke an abundance of divine blessings of inspiration, harmony and joy. (This used to be found on the DICI site of the Society of Saint Pius X; it is no longer there.)

To whom is Mount Hiei “sacred”? Not to the true God of Divine Revelation. To the devil, that’s who.

Ratzinger/Benedict’s warm words of praise for the “sacred” Mount Hiei came two years, three months after he made a special effort to recognize a group of Buddhists who attended his general audience address of Wednesday, May 18, 2005, the Feast of Saint Venantius. We were there, way, way in the rear of the Piazza di San Pietro:

In a special way I greet the Risho Kosei-kai Buddhist group from Gunmaota, Japan. (18 May 2005, Psalm 113[112] – Praise the name of the Lord!.)

Appointed and empowered by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jean-Louis Tauran’s 2010 message to the devil-worshipers of Buddhism was an exercise in complete pantheism:

Dear Buddhist friends,

1. On the occasion of your feast of Vesakh, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue extends congratulations and heartfelt best wishes for peace and joy to all of you around the world. May this message help strengthen our existing bonds of friendship and collaboration in service to humanity.

2. Let us take this opportunity to reflect together on a theme of particular relevance today, namely, the environmental crisis that has already caused notable hardship and suffering throughout the world. The efforts of both of our communities to engage in interreligious dialogue have brought about a new awareness of the social and spiritual importance of our respective religious traditions in this area. We recognize that we hold in common a regard for values like respect for the nature of all things, contemplation, humility, simplicity, compassion, and generosity. These values contribute to a life of nonviolence, equilibrium, and contentment with sufficiency.

3. Pope Benedict XVI, has noted that “the various phenomena of environmental degradation and natural disasters… remind us of the urgent need to respect nature as we should, and to recover and value a correct relationship with the environment in everyday life” (General Audience, 26 August 2009). The Catholic Church considers the protection of the environment as intimately linked to the theme of integral human development; and for her part, she is committed not only to promoting the protection of land, water and air as gifts destined for everyone, but also to encouraging others to join the efforts to protect mankind from self-destruction. Our responsibility to protect nature springs, in fact, from our respect for one another; it comes from the law inscribed in the hearts of all men and women. Consequently, when human ecology is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits (cf. Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, n. 51).

4. Both Christians and Buddhists have a profound respect for human life. It is crucial therefore that we encourage efforts to create a sense of ecological responsibility, while at the same time reaffirming our shared convictions about the inviolability of human life at every stage and in every condition, the dignity of the person and the unique mission of the family, where one learns to love one’s neighbour and to respect nature.

5. May we together promote a healthy relationship between human beings and the environment. By enhancing our efforts to promote ecological consciousness for serenity and peaceful coexistence, we can give witness to a respectful way of life that finds meaning not in having more, but in being more. By sharing the insights and commitments of our respective religious traditions, we can contribute to the well- being of our world.

Dear Buddhist friends, once again allow us to express our sincere greetings and to wish all of you a Happy Feast of Vesakh. Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran. (Message to Buddhists for the Feast of Vesakh/Hanamatsuri 2010.)

Pantheists of the world unite! We are eyewitnesses to natural disasters that should serve as a clear sign to Catholics that God is chastising us at the present moment, and the conciliarists pat the Buddhists on the back for sharing their concern for “improving” the environment? How are the Buddhists going to “improve” the physical environment of the earth?

Moreover, it is a lie to contend that “Christians and Buddhists have a profound respect for human life.” Most sects of Buddhism support baby-killing in at least some circumstances. No less than a Buddhist authority than the Dalai Lama himself believes that each individual circumstance is different, providing women with an opportunity to use their “conscience” to determine how to act:

The current Dalai Lama of Tibetan Buddhism, Tenzin Gyatso, has referred to abortion as a sin against “non-violence to all sentient beings”. However, he has also stated that abortion might be permissible in specific, limited circumstances, “Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.” (Dalai Lama and Abortion.)

Other sects are almost openly permissive of abortion. “Christians and Buddhists” have a profound respect for human life”? This is a lie from the liars in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Buddhists have a profound respect for human life?

Go tell that to the Catholic Martyrs of Thailand, who were killed by those “peace loving” friends of the environment, the Buddhists:

Our thrilling story begins in Songkhon, a Catholic village on the Thai side of the mighty Maekhong River as it flows along the North Eastern border. The people of Songkhon were all Catholics and since the beginning they have always been in the Archdiocese of Thare-Nongseng.

The year 1940 was a time of fear and uncertainty in many areas of the world. Nazism was on the march in Europe and in Asia, imperialism was spreading rapidly. In Thailand, people felt fearful and threatened and a foreign faith was an obvious scapegoat, although Catholicism had already been in Thailand over three hundred and fifty years. In this tense atmosphere the usually tolerant Thais forsook their normal friendliness and began a religious persecution.

So it happened that in the winter of 1940, the police moved into Songkhon. Their first hostile act was to banish and then deport the parish priest. With guns in their hands, they then went from door to door intimidating the good simple people of the village and ordering them to abandon their faith in Christ. Naturally the people were nervous and frightened by they remained quiet and steadfast.

Living in Songkhon were two Sisters of the Congregation of the Lovers of the Holy Cross: Sister Agnes and Sister Lucia. There was also an excellent catechist, Mr. Philip Siphong. Since their pastor had been deported, these three good people felt responsible for the Catholic community and were in charge of the village school.

Mr. Siphong gave both moral and physical support to the worried people by visiting each house, praying with each family and speaking words of encouragement and strengthening their faith. The police were naturally furious at this act of rebelliousness and decided to get rid of Mr. Philip Siphong.

So in early December 1940 the police sent a letter to Philip supposedly from the Sheriff of Mukdahan requesting him to go to Mukdahan to meet the Sheriff. The people were suspicious and they warned Philip about the false letter and not to trust the police. They also told Philip that the police had every intention of killing him. However this good man told the people that if that was the case, then he, Philip Siphong was prepared to die for his Faith. Eventually he set out with the police for Mukdahan. Actually when they got the poor man into the forest the police shot him dead. So on December the 16th 1940 Mr. Philip Siphong died for his Faith and became the first of the Seven Holy martyrs of Thailand.

When the two Sisters Agnes and Lucia heard the news of the death of their faithful catechist, they were both saddened and very frightened. Nevertheless they continued their care of the school and their guidance of the community. Each day the children of the village came to the convent to be taught and catechised.

The police on their part kept up their pressure on the Sister and the local community. They tried to frighten everyone by firing their rifles in the air and by shouting at the people. They kept reminding the villagers of the murder of Philip by warning the people. “We’ll get rid of all of you.”

The children like everyone else were terrified of the police but the Sisters encouraged the children and themselves by saying that if the police killed them, they would be martyrs for Jesus.

On the Christmas Day. Mr. Lue, the police officer in charge of Songkhon, came to the Sister’ house. On arrival he discovered the Sisters were instructing the children in their Catholic Faith. The officer was furious and berated the Sisters: “I’ve told you many times not to speak about Jesus. You must not mention god in Thailand, otherwise I’ll kill you all.” Sister Agnes who was the elder Sister, conscious of her role, in turn became indignant. She confronted the police officer saying: “Mr. Policeman, do you mean to say that you will kill us all because we are Catholics and loyal to our Catholic Faith. Do you really mean that, Mr. Policeman?”

Mr. Lue replied: “Yes I do, I will kill all of you if you continue to talk about God like this.”

Sister Agnes with rising indignation and raised her voice saying to the officer: “Be sure you have sufficient guns and bullets.” “Oh yes, we have enough guns and bullets to kill all of you.” Mr. Lue retorted.

“Then be sure you polish the barrels of your guns lest the bullets get stuck.” Countered the brave Sister Agnes. “Yes, we will.” concluded the policeman.

On the evening of that same Christmas Day, the Sister prepared some coconut oil and sent a small bottle of it to the police so that they could clean and polish their gun barrels. Then the brave Sisters began preparing themselves and their companions for their coming martyrdom, by prayers and hymns’ singing throughout the night.

Late that same night, our inspired Sister Agnes sat down and wrote a letter to the police. It is a document of utter simplicity and of a lively faith.

“To the Chief Police in Songkhon

“Yesterday evening you received your order to wipe out, definitely, the Name of God, the Only Lord of our lives and minds. We adore Him only, Sir. A few days earlier, you had mentioned to us that you would not wipe out the Name of God and we were rather pleased with that in such a way that we put away our religious habits which showed that we were His handmaids. But it not so today. We do profess that the religion of Christ is the only true religion. Therefore, we would like to give our answer to your question, asked yesterday evening which we did not have a chance to respond because we were unprepared for it. Now we would like to give you our answer. We are asking you to carry out your order with us. Please do not delay any longer. Please carry out your order. Please open the door of heaven to us so that we can confirm that outside the Religion of Christ no none can go to heaven. Please do it. We are well prepared. When we will be gone we will remember you. Please take pity on our souls. We will be thankful to you and will be grateful to you for it. And on the last day we will see each other face to face.

“Do wait and see, please. We keep your commands, oh God, we wish to be witnesses to You, dear God. We are: Agnes, Lucia, Phuttha, Budsi, Buakhai, Suwan. We would like to bring little Phuma along with us because we love her so much. We have already made up our minds, dear Sir.”

This letter is such a simple yet moving and powerful Gospel of faith that reminds us that the faith witnessed in the early church in roman times is still alive and potent in Thailand in our own time. The diocesan archives now have Sister Agnes’s wonderful profession of faith statement.

The police reacted quickly. On the following afternoon of the 26th of December 1940 on the feast of St. Stephen the first martyr, they arrived at the convent and shouted: “Are you ready, Sisters? If you are, go straight to the bank of the Maekhong.” But Sister Agnes objected, “No, that is not the place for us to die for Christ. We must go the cemetery, the holy place.”

In line they walked to the cemetery singing hymns and calling to the people.

“Good-bye, we are going to Heaven, we are going to become martyrs for Christ.” How these brave and noble women remind us once again of the martyrs of ancient Rome, joyfully entering the arena for the love of Jesus Christ.

Seeing the police marching the children and Sisters to the cemetery, the people of the village realized that the police were going to kill them there. They too followed the Sisters and their companions wishing to die with them. However the policed brushed the people aside with their rifles saying angrily: “We only intend to kill those in the line.”

A young girl named Suwan was one of those in the line. She was willing to become one of Christ’s Martyrs but her father upon hearing what was happening rushed to the scent to rescue his little daughter. Suwan on her part clung to Sister Agnes begging him: “Mother Agnes, help me please, I want to die with you and go to Heaven.” “But you are too young to die” said her father and he snatched her away and carried her back home where he locked her in a room.

On arrival at the cemetery the brave women knelt down beside a fallen tree trunk. They continued praying and hymn-singing fervently in that crucial atmosphere.

Sister Agnes turned and addressed the police: “You may kill us but you cannot kill the Church and you cannot kill God. One day the Church will return to Thailand and will flourish more than ever. You will see with your own eyes that what I am now saying, will come true. So we thank you from our hearts for killing us and sending us to Heaven. From there we will pray for you.” Once again her words echoed those of many great martyrs before her.

Then turning to her companions, Sister Agnes said, “My dear friends, we will soon be in Heaven.”

On the cross, Jesus said to the thief, “This day you will e with me in Paradise,” (Lk.23:43) When all were ready, Sister once more addressed the police saying: “Mr. Policeman, we are ready, please do your duty.”

Immediately the police opened fire and left the cemetery shouting to the people, “Bury them like dogs, for they are bad people.” The poor villagers who were watching the scene from behind nearby bushes, rushed forward and began to shake the bodies to see who was alive or dead. They found that both Sister Agnes and Phorn were still alive but badly wounded.

Looking around, Phorn asked: “Where is heaven?” She understood from the Sisters’ teaching that if one died a martyr one went straight to Heaven, but looking around Phorn saw not Heaven but a crowd of villagers. Sister Agnes on her part enquired: “where are the police?” They’ve left already.” someone spoke out. “Then you better call them back I’m not dead yet:’ said the brave sister Agnes. So one of the villagers returned to the village to inform the police that Sister Agnes and Phorn although badly wounded were still alive.

In the meantime another girl called Sorn who hand knelt at the end of the line stood up and looking around exclaimed: “Where is heaven?” Seeing that her clothes were spattered with blood the people enquired if she was hurt. “I’m afraid not, I don’t feel any pain,” Sorn replied. She then examined herself more closely but found no bullet wounds. “You’d better run home,” she was advised: “as the police will soon be back here.” So the little girl ran home. (She is still alive, healthy and living in Songkhon. She is also an excellent catechist.) In a short time the police returned to the cemetery and killed the wounded Sister Agnes and Phorn.

In all, six good and holy women were dead and the villagers buried them hurriedly, placing two bodies in each grave for they had not the time to make coffins. Thus were these brave and noble women of Songkhon laid to rest.

Many eye witnesses including those who took part in the burial of our brave martyrs are still alive. They are proud and grateful to recall, the bravery, the loyalty to Christ and the wonderful faith displayed on that momentous day, the 26th December 1940 by the Holy martyrs of Songkhon  (The Martyrs of Thailand)

The year 1940 was just sevent-three years ago.

The Buddhists have changed in the past seventy years?

Go tell that to the Catholics in parts of India and Sri Lanka today who are suffering at their hands .

Buddhists have a profound “respect” for human life? Go tell that to the Catholic Martyrs of Kyoto, Japan, among whom is counted a married woman, Tecla Hashimoto, who was martyred while carrying her preborn child:

The location, about three hundred meters from Hokoji Temple, was the busiest place in the city. The temple, affectionately called the “Big Kyoto Buddha,” was modeled after the “Big Buddha” temple in Nara. Years later, in 1798, the “Big Kyoto Buddha” was struck by lightning and completely destroyed. All that remains today is a huge temple bell, bearing silent witness to the events narrated below.

On the river bank was a plot of land 50 meters long and 25 meters wide where a huge pile of kindling, wood beams and trash taken from the condemned Christians’ homes, was piled high around 27 large cross-like stakes.

The official in charge, Katsushige Itakura, was the governor of Kyoto. As a young man, he had been a Buddhist priest. Itakura knew that in executions by fire, the kindling was set away from the victims, allowing the flames to prolong the suffering. This special torture could cause some to give up their faith and recant. But Itakura also realized that with these faithful Christians, there was little hope of recanting. For this reason he had pity on the victims, and ordered the kindling placed as close as possible to them, so their sufferings would be brief.

The victims were bound two to each cross, back-to-back. The leader of the martyrs was John Hashimoto, who, with his wife Tecla and their five children, drew sympathetic glances from the bystanders. Tecla was expecting her seventh child.

To celebrate her martyrdom, she wore a stately, white silk veil that reached to her feet. The sight of this young mother and her five children as they walked to their crosses brought tears to the eyes of many. She clutched her three-year-old daughter Luisa, as her 12-year-old son Toma was tied to her cross at her right side. Eight-year-old Francisco was tied to her left. Her six-year-old Pedro and 13-year-old Katarina were tied together to another cross close by.

When the fires were lit, the night sky shone brilliantly with flames leaping from the ghastly funeral pyre. All of the martyrs began praying and singing hymns. When Katarina cried that she could no longer see because of the smoke, her mother shouted, “Sing out the names of Jesus and Mary.”

The raging flames soon brought an early end, leaving onlookers stunned by the sublime sacrifice of the parents and the heroic bravery of the children. That evening, the Catholics secretly buried about 30 bodies found in the ashes. The location of this mass grave, somewhere in Kyoto, remains unknown to the present day.

The eldest child of the Hashimoto family, Miguel, was not home when the rest of the family was arrested. Later he appeared at the prison declaring his intention to join his family as a martyr too, but he was turned away, since his name was not on the list of the condemned. Instead, he was admonished by the prison officials to return home and think about carrying on the family name.

The pastor, Father Diego Ryosetsu Yuki, had been hearing confessions when the Christians were arrested. He and a foreign priest witnessed the martyrdoms, and provided what remains one of the most detailed accounts in the history of martyrdoms in Japan. Several years later, Father Yuki himself was martyred and is among the 188 beatified.

Those early Christians, all spiritual children of Saint Francis Xavier, died in the early years of the 17th century. They will join 42 canonized saints and 205 other “blesseds” who adorn the pages of Japan’s 400 years of Christian history. (The Great Kyoto Martyrdom. This article is written by a priest in the conciliar structures; thus the reference to “canonization” of these martyrs. There are, however, other excellent articles maintained on the site where this article was found. The site is Tecla Hashimoto..)

Ah, yes, those “peace loving,” planet-caring Buddhists. Happy Vesakh? I don’t think so. For to do wish a “Happy Vesakh” to those steeped in the false religion of Buddhism would be to violate the First Commandment.

The paradoxes of conciliarism are such that the Thai martyrs, whose story was recounted earlier in this article, who professed the true Faith and would give the idolatry of Buddhism no quarter whatsoever, were “beatified” by “Saint John Paul II” in 1989 while the conciliar authorities in the Vatican continue to wish the devil-worshiping Buddhists a happy “feast of Vesakh” each and every year without fail. The Buddhists worship devils. Devils.

How can any right-thinking Catholic express “best wishes” to devil worshiping pantheists on their diabolical “feasts”?

The three phases of Buddha indeed. The three phases of Buddha’s life were fat, fatter and fattest.

Yet it is that the world will be subjected to more and more syncretism starting in four days as the future “Pope Saint Francis the Merciful” travels to the Kingdom of Jordan and to the Zionist State of Israel along with his favorite pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic rabbi, Abraham Skorka, and another pal from Argentina, Omar Abboud, a Mohammedan imam there. Also accompanying Jorge Mario Bergogio on the flight to Jordan in four days is oneo of his “brother” bishops, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. Just a little something for everyone:

(Buenos Aires / Jerusalem) Will Pope Francis meet the “mother of his personal faith” in Judaism?  That, at least is what   his Argentine friend Rabbi Abraham Skorka in an interview with the Jesuit magazine Civilta Cattolica. Pope Francis arrives in a few days with a colorful entourage to the Holy Land.
The Catholic Church leader is not only accompanied, as usual, by cardinals and bishops of the Catholic Church, but this time also the honorary chairman of the Orthodox Churches, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople,   Bartholomew I. However, the most importantly will be  a personal friend of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Argentine Rabbi Abraham Skorka. The Vatican soon made ​​aware of a risk. The very obvious presence of a Jewish representative in the entourage of the Pope, who has   direct access to the Pope, boasting numerous interviews, could trigger irritation in the Muslim world in the Middle East.   Above all, the Muslim Palestinians could feel resentment . So there was a search  for an additional, Muslim travel companion. It is Omar Abboud, who will be the representative of the Islamic community in Argentina. Abboud is a former Secretary General of the Islamic Center of Argentina .
Vatican spokesman Father Lombardi said the Pope was accompanied by a Jewish and a Muslim agent with whom he is already in “a friendly dialogue” in Argentina .  In fact, Archbishop Bergoglio, Rabbi Skorka and Abboud took part as head of the Islamic Centre in the last ten years prior, as  the Pope’s choice in numerous joint events part that stood as a  sign of inter-religious dialogue and were largely initiated by Cardinal Bergoglio.
While Abboud was invited in April to come along on the trip has so far refrained from publicity, Rabbi Skorka has engaged in intense media activism since the election of Pope Francis.  In his recent interview for the Jesuit magazine Civilta Cattolica (Volume 3934 v. May 17, 2914: the Pope, the Rabbi and the Holy Land ), he said: “Since the election of Francis we have met three times in Rome.”  In one of these meetings, “we began to dream of standing together in front of the Wailing Wall, embracing, to give you a sign despite the two thousand years of disagreements between Jews and Christians, and that I accompany him to Bethlehem to be close to  his mind in such an important moment,  as a gesture of friendship and respect, to give all peoples and nations of this region an indelible sign of peace.”
The interview with Rabbi Skorka led chief editor Father Antonio Spadaro, who led a now famous, but also controversial interview with Pope Francis last fall. Skorka also spoke of how Pope Francis see Judaism: “At the first meeting he said, pointing to me and pointed with his hand up: ‘Our friendship and dialogue is the sign that it is’. And I added: ‘You can create the path that leads to peace and the Rome and Jerusalem brings together more closely.’ “
In a conversation between Father Spadaro and the rabbi several names are called as witnesses for the Jewish-Christian dialogue, including the retired Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Lustiger. There are also  publications mentioned considered  by the Pope as  fundamental to the Jewish-Christian dialogue.  According Skorka prevails in Pope Francis especially “an expectation of the church to a Jewish response to the document Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council, an adopted by the majority of the Jewish people manifesto, which answers the question: What does a Christian for a Jew ? “
When asked Spadaros, as Pope Francis see the Jewish religion, Skorka replied: “The many things that I have seen and experienced around Bergolio additionally prompted me to say that he sees Judaism as a mother of his faith. This is not merely an intellectual exercise, but a feeling, which is an important component in his personal faith.”   This statement is in need of explanation. according to the Catholic understanding of  pre-Christian Judaism (Israel) has risen in Christianity and found its completion. Post-Christian Judaism, however, is that Pharisaic cleavage of the original Judaism that rejects Christ as the Messiah. But what Judaism did  Skorka mean?
The Rabbi pointed at the same time then that “some viewpoints and findings of Bergoglio” obviously agree with rabbinical writings, which he wants to suggest that Pope Francis has read rabbinic or is reading and was influenced by them.
Other parts of the conversation related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Of this Skorka said: “I do not expect that Pope Francis will solve all problems between Palestinians and Israelis, nor all the conflicts of the Middle East and the world.” The “true power of the Pope is the credibility that he  has in  his family and the understanding of this awakened in others.” (Skorka: My Pal Jorge and Judaism.)
Which type of Judaism is acceptable to Jorge Mario Bergolio?
The answer is quite obvious: Abraham Skorka’s “reform” Judaism, which has nothing at all to do with Abraham Judaism, which was superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Holy Cross on Good Friday as the earth shook and the curtain in the Temple in Jerusalem was torn in two from top to bottom, thus signifying the end of the Old Covenant.
Bergoglio has told us very specifically in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, that he does not believe that the Old Covenant has been revoked, thus proving to the world that he is a blaspheming heretic, a man who is certainly capable of reading “rabbinical” literature in order to “learn” something “new” that is not contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Lord has entrusted solely to His Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Well, I suppose that rabbinical writing is more to his liking than say, the Sunday sermons of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori.
Bergoglio will also lay a wreath at the Israeli national cemetery, Mount Herzl, signifying that the souls of the bodies, buried in a cemetery named in honor of the founder of International Zionism, Theodore Hezl, there are at “rest” with God in Heaven. Blasphemer. Heretic. Apostate.
Once again, good readers, is how a Catholic pope, Pope Saint Pius X, the last non-diplomat to serve in the papacy prior to the death of Pope Pius XII, on October 9, 1958, spoke to Theodore Herzl personally on January 25, 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle:

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you. (Marvin Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodore Herzl.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not traveling with Abraham Skorka and Omar Abboud to convert anyone to anything, no less the true religion. He is going to the Holy Land to further the sycretist goals of the One World Ecumenical Church, which he believes is the “path to peace” when it is a means of chaos in the world and that of eternal ruin to the souls of men.

The very words of Holy Writ, inspired by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, teaches how the Prophet Elias dealt with the false gods of Baal atop Mount Carmel:

“‘Nevertheless send now, and gather unto me all Israel, unto Mount Carmel, and the prophets of Baal four hundred and fifty, and the prophets of the groves four hundred, who eat at Jezebel’s table.’

“Achab sent to all the children of Israel, and gathered together the prophets unto Mount Carmel.

“And Elias coming to all the people, said: ‘How long do you halt between two sides? If the Lord be God, follow Him: but if Baal, follow him.’ And the people did not answer him a word.

“And Elias said again to the people: ‘I only remain a prophet of the Lord: but the prophets of Baal are four hundred and fifty men. Let two bullocks be given us, and let them choose one bullock and cut it in pieces and lay it upon wood, but put no fire under: and I will dress the other bullock, and lay it on wood, and put no fire under it. Call ye the names of your gods, and I will call on the name of my Lord; and the God that shall answer by fire, let him be God.’ And all of the people answering said: ‘A very good proposal.’

“Then Elias said to the prophets of Baal: ‘Choose you one bullock and dress it first, because you are many; and call on the names of your gods, but put no fire under.’

“And they took the bullock which he gave them, and dressed it; and they called on the name of Baal from morning even till noon, saying: ‘O Baal, hear us.’ But there was no voice, nor any that answered: and they leaped over the altar that they had made.

“And when it was now noon, Elias jested at them, saying: ‘Cry with a louder voice: for he is a God, and perhaps he is talking, or he is in an inn, or on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep, and must be awaked.’

“So they cried with a loud voice, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till they were covered with blood. And after midday was past, and while they were prophesying, the time was come of offering sacrifice, and there was no voice heard, nor did any one answer, nor regard them as they prayed: Elias said to the people: ‘Come ye unto me.’ And the people coming near unto him, he repaired the altar of the Lord, that was broken down:

“And he took twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, to whom the word of the Lord came, saying: ‘Israel shall be thy name.’ And he built with the stones an altar to the name of the Lord: and he made a trench for water, of the breadth of two furrows round about the altar. And he laid the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, and laid it upon the wood.

“And he said: “Fill four buckets with water, and pour it upon the burnt offering, and upon the wood.’ And again he said: ‘Do the same the second time.’ And when they had done it the second time, he said: ‘Do the same also the third time.’ And they did so the third time. And the water run about the altar, and the trench was filled with water.

“And when it was now time to offer the holocaust, Elias the prophet came near and said: ‘O Lord God of Abraham and Isaac, and Israel, show this day that thou art the God of Israel, and I thy servant, and that according to they commandment I have done all these things. Hear me, O Lord, hear me: that this people may learn, that thou art the Lord God, and that thou hast turned their heart again.’

“Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the holocaust, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up the water that was in the trench. And when all the people saw this, they fell on their faces, and they said: ‘The Lord he is God, the Lord he is God.’ And Elias said to them: ‘Take the prophets of Baal, and let not one of them escape.’ And when they had taken them, Elias brought them down to the torrent Cison, and killed them there” (3 Kings 18:19-40)

Catholics seek to convert those steeped in the worship of false gods. The concilarists seek to show these false gods “respect” for the sake of bringing their adherents into the path of a false “peace” that is premised upon bold and direct violations of the First and Second Commandment.

The Catholic Church has condemned actions such as those that took place in the Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela one week ago today and those that the conciliar revolutionaries, including the conciliar “popes,” have undertaken with representatives of one false religion after another, even daring to enter temples of false worship to permit themselves, putative Successors of Saint Peter, as inferiors who have shown marks of great respect to the devil and his idols:

St. Paul also exhorts us to “give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son.” (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and “departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils”. (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they “have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts”. (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. “Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light,

. . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness“. (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.

(3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent”. (Rom. 16:17)

See here whom we are to avoid — “those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine“; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by “pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent” — that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.

(4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, “having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;” then he immediately gives this command: “Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires”; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, “ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth“; because, as he adds, “they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith”. (2 Tim. 3:5)

 Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, “Now these avoid”, though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

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.)

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The conciliar revolutionaries believe, speak and act in ways that prove themselves to be servants of Antichrist, not Christ the King. Why is this so very difficult for so many Catholics to understand and to accept? Saint Paul’s admonition to bear no fellowship with unbelievers applies just as much to the conciliar revolutionaries as it did to those who are openly outside of the Catholic Church. What more and more Catholics need to do is to recognize that the conciliar officials are just as much outside of the Catholic Faith as were the Buddhists and Shintoists in Santiago de Compostela, Spain, a week to day, and as are the likes of Abraham Skorka and Omar Abboud.

Indeed, Pope Pius XI, writing in Ad Salutem, August 30, 1930, noted the views of the son of Saint Monica, on false religions:

Let us add a word further. Augustine set the mark, or more truly, the fiery brand of his condemnation on the moral infamy of Greek and Roman paganism. And yet yearning for such a religion has been seen to infatuate, even in our day, certain writers, shallow and even licentious, who extol such a cult for its beauty and fitness and attractiveness. Again, knowing thoroughly his contemporaries and their unhappy forgetfulness of God, with a pen at one time caustic, at another indignant, he scored in his pages all the compulsion and folly, all the outrages and lust, introduced into man’s life by the demons through the worship of false gods. There can be no salvation in the ideal of the earthly City, as it sets before its eyes a vain picture- of completeness and perfection. For scarcely anyone will take such an ideal seriously or, if he does, the prize he wins will be only the satisfaction of empty and fleeting glory. (Pope Pius XI, Ad Salutem, August 30 1930.)

Thi is a perfect–and I mean absolutely perfectly–description of our times today and o the counterfeit church of conciliarism celebration of contemporary paganism, especially by means of honoring the demons through their esteems of the false gods and false religions.

Today is the feast of Saint Bernardine of Siena, the great apostle of the Holy Name of Jesus. It is, of course, the Holy Name of Jesus that we proclaim one hundred fifty-three times every day when we pray all fifteen mysteries of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary.

Saint Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444) spent his life promoting devotion to the Most Holy Name of Jesus to make reparation for blasphemies against the Holy Name. It was raised to a Feast of the Universal Church in 1721 by Pope Innocent XIII. Saint Bernardine of Siena took seriously the words of the first Pope to the Jews as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles:

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people, and ancients, hear: If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole: Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him this man standeth here before you whole. This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4: 8-12)

If the proclamation of the Holy Name was good enough for Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s parents and for the Apostles, then it is good enough for us. We must never fear the consequences of proclaiming His Holy Name, especially in “mixed company.” Remember Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s own words:

For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. (Mk. 8: 38)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ used the occasion of the discourse at the Last Supper to remind the Apostles that the world would hate them on account of His Name, but that they had to rely upon the help of the Holy Ghost to remain steadfast in loyalty to Him:

If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.

But all these things they will do to you for my name’s sake: because they know not him who sent me. If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin. He that hateth me, hateth my Father also. If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father. But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause.

But when the Paraclete cometh, whom I will send you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father, he shall give testimony of me.And you shall give testimony, because you are with me from the beginning. (Jn. 15: 18-27)

Do not be surprised, therefore, that the world will hate us as much as it hated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who told us in the Sermon of the Mount that those who were persecuted for His Name’s sake would have a blessed reward:

Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you. (Mt. 5: 11-12)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ repeated this in the Sermon on the Plain as recorded in the Gospel of Saint Luke:

Blessed shall you be when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. Be glad in that day and rejoice; for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For according to these things did their fathers to the prophets. (Lk. 6: 22-23)

The first Pope wrote the following in his first Epistle to instruct us to be ready to suffer for the sake of the Holy Name of Jesus:

If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory, and power of God, and that which is his Spirit, resteth upon you. (1 Pt. 4: 14)

The readings for Matins in today’s Divine Office provide us with rich food for meditation on the holy life of Saint Bernardine of Siena, a life dedicated to what the world, steeped in the anti-Incarnational errors of Judeo-Masonry, is so dedicated to blot out: the Holy Name of Jesus:

This Bernardine was born of the noble family of the Albizeschi, in the Republic of Sienna, on the 8th of September, in the year 1380. His saintliness began to manifest itself from his earliest years. He was well brought up by a godly father and mother, and even when he was being taught the first rudiments of worldly learning, he used to give up his play-time to occupy himself with devout works, being much drawn to fasting, prayer, and the devotion to the most Blessed Virgin. He abounded likewise in tenderness for the poor. As time went on, that he might the more entirely do these things, it was his will to enroll himself among those who work in the Hospital of Blessed Mary, called “of the Ladder,” at Sienna. There, during the raging of an horrible distemper, he laboured with marvellous charity and great bodily suffering, in serving the sick. In bodily presence he was a very goodly person, but, with all his other virtues, he kept ever so holy a guard over his purity, that it soon came to pass that no one, however shameless, dared to say an unseemly word in his presence.

He suffered a severe sickness, and when, after bearing it with the utmost patience, he recovered his health, he began to think of embracing some institute of the religious life. To make his way sure, he built a little hut in the outskirts of the city, where he hid himself and led a life of hardships of all kinds, continuing instant in prayer to God that He would be pleased to make clear to him what path he should follow. And so it came to pass by God’s will that he chose the Order of Blessed Francis. In that Order he shone a bright instance of lowliness, long-suffering, and every other grace of a religious man. When the superior of his convent saw this, and had already considered what his teaching and knowledge of sacred learning were, he laid on Bernardine the duty of preaching. This the Saint humbly accepted, and finding that his usefulness was much impaired by his having a shrill, harsh voice, he betook him to implore the help of God, Who was pleased, not without a miracle, to free him from this drawback.

Those were times fruitful in vices and crimes and the bloody civil wars which raged in Italy confounded all things Divine and human. Bernardine went through the cities and towns, and, in the Name of Jesus, that Name which he ever bore upon his lips and in his heart, he prevailed in great measure by his word and example, in setting up falling godliness and morality. Illustrious cities demanded him from the Pope as their Bishop, but this was an honour which his unconquerable humility caused him always steadily to refuse. At last the man of God, after untold labours, the working of many and great miracles, and the writing of godly and learned books, in the 67th year of his age, at Aquila in the Abruzzi, rested in a blessed death, upon the 20th day of May 1444. As the fame of new signs and wonders increased day by day, Pope Nicholas V., in the sixth year after his death, added his name to the roll of the Saints. (Matins, The Divine Office, May 20, Feast of Saint Bernardine of Siena.)

No one has suffered  for the Holy Name of Jesus the way that Our Lady did in her Seven Sorrows during the life of the Son to Whom she gave birth eight days before His Circumcision, eight days before the world heard for the first time the Holy Name that forces men to choose whether they are for Him or for the devil He came to vanquish by His redemptive act on the wood of the Holy Cross, extended to us in an unbloody manner in each and every offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Our Lady stood with her Divine Son as His Blood was shed for the first time. She would stand beneath the foot of the Holy Cross as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood for our redemption. May we give her our thanks and love on during this Paschaltidem especially through her Most Holy Rosary, by having nothing to do with those who blaspheme he Divine Son and make a mockery of His Sacred Deposit of Faith and of the witness given by countless millions of martyrs who preferred death by the most cruel means imaginable than to given even a hit of esteeming the symbols of false religions, no less entering peaceably into temples of false worship as though these were dens of anything other than the devil himself.

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 Bernardine of Siena, pray for us.

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)

THE PUBLIC VENERATION OF OUR LADY FORLORN AND LESSENED

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.

 

 

 

Rabbis, Rabbis, Get a Grip

We are surrounded by veritable Mister Magoos. That is, we live in a world of near-sighted people who cannot see far enough in front of their noses to recognize the truth when it is right in front of them.

Obviously, there are many Catholics all up and down and right straight across the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide who get immersed in the minutiae of current events in the world as to become indignant when anyone might suggest that their efforts to “solve” problems, no matter how well-meaning those efforts may be, will always come to naught as they do not take account of remote and proximate root causes and neglect the supernatural almost entirely. This is a point that was made by Pope Pius XI in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.

Several passages from Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio were contained in the expanded version of American Pots and Russian Kettles that was posted late yesterday afternoon. Here is the paragraph that is most pertinent to the point made just above:

Because men have forsaken God and Jesus Christ, they have sunk to the depths of evil. They waste their energies and consume their time and efforts in vain sterile attempts to find a remedy for these ills, but without even being successful in saving what little remains from the existing ruin. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Thus it is that many Catholics believe that they can salvage what remains from the exist ruins of what has been wrought the false, naturalistic, Pelagian, anti-Incarnational and religiously indifferentist premises of the modern civil state, including here in the United States of America, hoping against hope that the “next” election will “bring results” even though the only thing that will happen after the “next” election is that the naturalists who get elected will exercise caution for two years to help them get re-elected two years thereafter.

I know that no one wants to believe that this is so. I know. I know. I might as well beat my head into brick wall repeatedly that write this over and over again with all manner of empirical proof that this has been the case from the beginning of this nation and is one of the reasons why our social problems multiply. A world awash in the falsehoods of “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” winds up being the slave of its own blind passions while those who contradict the prevailing ethos are considered to “intolerant” and “bigoted” “haters.” The number of Catholics who understand that there can be no “improvement” in a world of naturalism absent the conversion of souls to the Catholic Faith is miniscule to the point of being almost entirely invisible.

Similarly, “conservative,” “Motu-oriented” and “resist while recognize” Catholics who as of yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the false belief that they represent the Catholic Church cling to the hope that they can “work from within” to “save the Church” from the ruins of conciliarism. This ignores the simple fact that one can no more work to “save” the counterfeit church of conciliarism from its false premises that he can to work within the Anglican sect to “save” it from its own heresies, blasphemies, sacrileges and apostasies, which must perforce increase over time as this sect is an instrument of the devil to deceive souls that it is a legitimate representative of a Christian “tradition.” The counterfeit church of conciliarism is just another false religious sect that is being used by the devil to deceive “Mister Magoo” Catholics into thinking that “things are not that bad” or that “they will just get better over time.” That which is false, that which is evil can never bring forth good fruit. Never.

Well-meaning Catholics in the conciliar structures are not alone in believing in things that are simply not true.

There are a substantial number of Talmudic rabbis who, despite all of the evidence provided by “Saint John Paul II,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis that they have been their best friends and enablers, especially by stating that the Old Covenant God made with Moses remains perfectly valid and has not been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, remain suspicious of the “true” intentions of the men who they believe to be representatives of the Catholic Church.

Consider the following report, written for Haertz newspaper by a relative of Mister Magoo, a woman who is clueless as to how Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI catered to the needs of the Talmudists at every turn, including justifying what he called was “defining” the Church’s relationship with the “faith of Israel in a new way”:

MILAN – As the pope was preparing for his trip to Israel this week, Italy’s rabbis seemed to agree about the importance of carrying on a dialogue with Catholics, but not as much about what “dialogue” means.
 
Francis I, who is traveling to Israel, Jordan and the West Bank in the company of a rabbi and a Muslim community leader – Abraham Skorka and Omar Abboud, both fellow Argentinians – has described his trip as a pilgrimage of “communion, hope and peace.”
When hosting a delegation of American Jewish Committee leaders in the Vatican in February, the pontiff praised interfaith ties, and “the heritage of our mutual knowledge, esteem and friendship.”
 
Rome’s chief rabbi, Riccardo Di Segni, says he is “cautiously optimistic” about the visit, but warns that interfaith dialogue is a delicate issue “that should always be approached with caution.”
 
Since there is no chief rabbi of all of Italy, and Rome has by far the largest Jewish community, Di Segni is de facto the country’s most prominent Jewish leader. He has met Francis on several occasions.
 
“There’s room [for Catholic and Jews] to discuss important issues,” the rabbi told Haaretz in a phone interview. However, he added, while he is more than keen “on good neighborly relations” with the Vatican, located just blocks away from Rome’s historical Jewish ghetto, “from the theological point of view, there is nothing to discuss.”
 
This is no minor issue. Indeed, “theological dialogue” – a term that refers to a range of subjects, and potentially involves a confrontation on faith-based morality and a joint discussion of the Torah – is precisely what the Vatican seems interested in.
 
In truth, there are different ways to see interfaith dialogue.
 
On the one hand, there are “secular” ties and conversations between two or more religious communities – which, in the case of Catholics and Jews, entail joining forces against anti-Semitism or discussing the historical role of the Vatican during the Holocaust.
 
On the other hand, there are quintessentially “religious” topics, such as the Bible, which is of great importance to both Jews and Christians; the way the Catholic Church sees the fact that Jews do not accept Jesus as their messiah; and whether Jewish scholars perceive Jesus’ teachings as at all compatible with halakha, traditional Jewish law.
 
The previous pope, Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), a guardian of Catholic orthodoxy, was believed to be ill-disposed toward extending interfaith dialogue to the realm of doctrine.
 
But his successor is perceived as being more open-minded theologically.
 
Francis himself has said the dialogue between Christians and Jews must have “a theological foundation” and go “beyond mutual respect and appreciation.”
 
For his part, Cardinal Kurt Koch, who heads the Vatican’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, said earlier this year that he aims to “expand the theological dialogue,” which he described as “the [main] challenge for the future.”
 
Jewish views
 
On the Jewish side, some American rabbis are vocal supporters of discussing doctrinal issues – among them David Rosen, the American Jewish Committee’s international director of interreligious affairs.
 
When it comes to Italian rabbis, though, few are open to discussing such matters – at least in depth or in public.
 
Recently, Pagine Ebraiche, an Italian Jewish monthly, published a survey conducted among leading local rabbis, concerning their expectations of the new pope. Most preferred to focus on good relations and coexistence, rather than on religion per se.
 
Only Milan’s chief rabbi, Alfonso Arbib, mentioned theology. Arbib said he appreciated Francis’ implication that so-called substitution theology – the long-held Catholic belief that the New Testament in some way “replaced” the Torah – “is to be overcome and that coexistence without expectations of conversion is possible.”
 
The dominant perception, a few scholars acknowledge privately, is that discussion with gentiles of religious issues, such as Torah and Jewish law, makes Jewish Italy uncomfortable these days. There are a few scholars and rabbis who support such discourse, but they prefer to conduct it quietly.
 
Haaretz has talked with two such figures, both of whom asked to remain anonymous due to the controversy over the issue.
 
They agree to some extent that discussing certain aspects of halakha with Catholics is necessary (for instance, as part of an effort to show them that Jesus did not reject its precepts), but they also say that whenever the topic comes up in Jewish circles, it raises eyebrows.
 
Despite the current climate, it was in Italy that the dialogue between Orthodox Jewry and the Catholic Church – including on doctrinal issues, as well – first began to gain momentum in recent years.
 
John Paul II’s visit to Rome’s main synagogue in 1986 – the first visit of a modern pope to a Jewish house of worship – was perhaps the most iconic moment.
 
What is less known, perhaps, is that the diplomatic work – and theological dialogue – that helped to pave the way for that breakthrough visit had started a few years earlier, in Milan.
 
In the early 1980s, Giuseppe Laras, who was the city’s chief rabbi at the time, and (the late) Archbishop Carlo Maria Martini laid the groundwork for an era of unprecedented good relations between Catholics and Jews under Pope John Paul II’s pontificate. Since both of them were sophisticated biblical scholars and liberal-minded, they didn’t shy away from broaching theological issues.
 
Since then, however, both the Jewish and the Catholic landscapes in Italy have changed a lot.
 
The older generation of rabbis, including Laras, has been replaced by younger and stricter ones, with closer ties to Israel’s Chief Rabbinate.
 
Furthermore, some aspects of Benedict XVI’s pontificate sparked concern among Jews – for instance, when the pope re-introduced a prayer for the conversion of Jews in 2009.
 
That move prompted some of the most “dialogue-oriented” rabbis to protest publicly: Elia Richetti, the chief rabbi of Venice then, wrote an open letter, accusing the pope of setting interfaith dialogue back 50 years.
 
Interestingly enough, he chose to publish his letter in Popoli, the magazine of the Jesuits, the Catholic order to which Archbishop Martini belonged. While in that same letter Richetti announced that formal meetings between Catholic figures and Italian rabbis would be temporarily suspended in protest, the rumor was that a channel of communication was kept open with the archdiocese in Milan.
 
That incident was only partially forgotten when Di Segni invited Benedict XVI to visit Rome’s synagogue in 2010, after the Vatican made it clear that its official policy involved converting Jews to Christianity – but only at the end of days.
 
Di Segni’s view was that, as long as Catholics did not actively try to convert Jews, a prayer about converting them at the end of time posed no major obstacle.
 
“We have our own views about the end of times, they have theirs,” he says.
 
But it seems that after re-introduction of the controversial prayer, the decision to host the pope at the synagogue raised even the ire of rabbis keen on theological dialogue.
 
The truth is that, in an apparent paradox, Ratzinger’s hard line on doctrine made Jews who were skeptical to begin with about religious dialogue relatively comfortable, while those supporting such theological discourse were at odds with it.
 
Now, with Francis, the situation may be reversed.
 
The new pope hasn’t spoken much about doctrine yet.
 
But the fact that he is a Jesuit, and was the late Archbishop Martini’s favored candidate at the 2005 papal conclave, make some think his views will be more in line with Martini’s than Ratzinger’s.
The question is: Will Italy’s rabbis ready to answer the call? (No Warm and Fuzzies From Rabbi Riccardo di Segni.)
Rabbis, Rabbis, get a grip on reality, will you?
Efforts to make a Talmudic punching bag out of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI do this eighty-seven year-old Modernist grave injustices. Indeed, rabbis, you have calumniated Father Ratzinger, who has long been one of your best friends.
Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict revised the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews in early-2008 precisely because Talmudic rabbis had pleaded with him to change or eliminate the prayer as found in the “Saint John XXIII” modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, referred to commonly as the “1962 Missal,” almost immediately after the false “pontiff” had issued Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007. It was to appease the Talmudists who had lobbied him personally that Ratzinger the Hegelian Contortionist rewrote the prayer himself. When released, however, the revised prayer caused a controversy of its very own, prompting Walter “Cardinal” Kasper and “Archbishop” Gianfranco Ravasi to explain it with the “pope’s” full knowledge and approval.Here is a little trip down memory lane:

The reformulated text no longer speaks about the conversion of the Jews as some Jewish critics wrongly affirm. The text is a prayer inspired by Saint Paul’s letter to the Romans, chapter 11, which is the very text that speaks also of the unbroken covenant. It takes up Paul’s eschatological hope that in the end of time all Israel will be saved. As a prayer the text lays all in the hands of God and not in ours. It says nothing about the how and when. Therefore there is nothing about missionary activities by which we may take Israel’s salvation in our hands. (“Cardinal” Kasper’s Letter to Rabbi Rosen)

We repeat: this is the Christian vision, and it is the hope of the Church that prays. It is not a programmatic proposal of theoretical adherence, nor is it a missionary strategy of conversion. It is the attitude characteristic of the prayerful invocation according to which one hopes also for the persons considered near to oneself, those dear and important, a reality that one maintains is precious and salvific. An important exponent of French culture in the 20th century, Julien Green, wrote that “it is always beautiful and legitimate to wish for the other what is for you a good or a joy: if you think you are offering a true gift, do not hold back your hand.” Of course, this must always take place in respect for freedom and for the different paths that the other adopts. But it is an expression of affection to wish for your brother what you consider a horizon of light and life. (“Archbishop” Gianfranco Ravasi, A Bishop and a Rabbi Defend the Prayer for the Salvation of the Jews.)

This means that the first pope, Saint Peter, was wrong to seek the conversion of the Jews as he preached on Pentecost Sunday following the descent of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, upon the Apostles and our dear Blessed Mother and others gathered in the same Upper Room in Jerusalem where Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had instituted the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist fifty-three days before.

This means that Our Lord was wrong to have sought the conversion of Saul of Tarsus while he was on the road to Damascus to persecute more Christians there after presiding over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr.

This means that Saint Vincent Ferrer was wrong to have sought the conversion of thousands upon thousands of Jews in the Iberian Peninsula and southern France in the early Fifteenth Century.

This means that Our Lady was wrong to have sought the conversion of the Catholic-hating Jew, Alphonse Ratisbonne, as she appeared to him as she does on the Miraculous Medal while Ratisbonne visited the Church of San Adrea delle Fratte on January 20, 1842.

This means that Pope Pius IX was wrong to have approved the plans of Father Maria-Alphonse Ratisbonne to leave the Society of Jesus to establish a mission in Palestine to seek the conversion of Jews.

Finally, this means that the Jews complaining about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict having been a “hard liner” on Catholic doctrine as much infected with intellectual near-sightedness as are “conservatives,” Motumaniacs and “resist while recognize” adherents in the conciliar structures continue to be about the supposed “Pope of Tradition.”

For the record yet again, let it be stated that there is no room whatsoever between Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio concerning the Talmudists.

Both believe that the Old Covenant is valid.

Both believe that what they think is the Catholic Church has no mission to convert Jews.

Both have entered into synagogues and praise Talmudic Judaism.

Here are some concrete examples:

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.(Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

In its work, the Biblical Commission could not ignore the contemporary context, where the shock of the Shoah has put the whole question under a new light. Two main problems are posed: Can Christians, after all that has happened, still claim in good conscience to be the legitimate heirs of Israel’s Bible? Have they the right to propose a Christian interpretation of this Bible, or should they not instead, respectfully and humbly, renounce any claim that, in the light of what has happened, must look like a usurpation? The second question follows from the first: In its presentation of the Jews and the Jewish people, has not the New Testament itself contributed to creating a hostility towards the Jewish people that provided a support for the ideology of those who wished to destroy Israel? The Commission set about addressing those two questions. It is clear that a Christian rejection of the Old Testament would not only put an end to Christianity itself as indicated above, but, in addition, would prevent the fostering of positive relations between Christians and Jews, precisely because they would lack common ground. In the light of what has happened, what ought to emerge now is a new respect for the Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament. On this subject, the Document says two things. First it declares that “the Jewish reading of the Bible is a possible one, in continuity with the Jewish Scriptures of the Second Temple period, a reading analogous to the Christian reading, which developed in parallel fashion” (no. 22). It adds that Christians can learn a great deal from a Jewish exegesis practised for more than 2000 years; in return, Christians may hope that Jews can profit from Christian exegetical research (ibid.). I think this analysis will prove useful for the pursuit of Judeo-Christian dialogue, as well as for the interior formation of Christian consciousness. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Preface to The Jewish People and Their Scriptures in the Christian Bible.)

It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ.  And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus.  Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance.  There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said.  And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, God and the World, p. 209.)

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. . .

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance – a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005)

To the religious leaders present this afternoon, I wish to say that the particular contribution of religions to the quest for peace lies primarily in the wholehearted, united search for God.  Ours is the task of proclaiming and witnessing that the Almighty is present and knowable even when he seems hidden from our sight, that he acts in our world for our good, and that a society’s future is marked with hope when it resonates in harmony with his divine order.  It is God’s dynamic presence that draws hearts together and ensures unity.  In fact, the ultimate foundation of unity among persons lies in the perfect oneness and universality of God, who created man and woman in his image and likeness in order to draw us into his own divine life so that all may be one. (“Pope” Benedict XVI, Courtesy visit to the President of the State of Israel at the presidential palace in Jerusalem, May 11, 2009.)

When he came among you for the first time, as a Christian and as Pope, my Venerable Predecessor John Paul II, almost 24 years ago, wanted to make a decisive contribution to strengthening the good relations between our two communities, so as to overcome every misconception and prejudice.  My visit forms a part of the journey already begun, to confirm and deepen it.  With sentiments of heartfelt appreciation, I come among you to express to you the esteem and the affection which the Bishop and the Church of Rome, as well as the entire Catholic Church, have towards this Community and all Jewish communities around the world.

2. The teaching of the Second Vatican Council has represented for Catholics a clear landmark to which constant reference is made in our attitude and our relations with the Jewish people, marking a new and significant stage.  The Council gave a strong impetus to our irrevocable commitment to pursue the path of dialogue, fraternity and friendship, a journey which has been deepened and developed in the last forty years, through important steps and significant gestures.  Among them, I should mention once again the historic visit by my Venerable Predecessor to this Synagogue on 13 April 1986, the numerous meetings he had with Jewish representatives, both here in Rome and during his Apostolic Visits throughout the world, the Jubilee Pilgrimage which he made to the Holy Land in the year 2000, the various documents of the Holy See which, following the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration Nostra Aetate, have made helpful contributions to the increasingly close relations between  Catholics and Jews.  I too, in the course of my Pontificate, have wanted to demonstrate my closeness to and my affection for the people of the Covenant.  I cherish in my heart each moment of the pilgrimage that I had the joy of making to the Holy Land in May of last year, along with the memories of numerous meetings with Jewish Communities and Organizations, in particular my visits to the Synagogues of Cologne and New York.

Furthermore, the Church has not failed to deplore the failings of her sons and daughters, begging forgiveness for all that could in any way have contributed to the scourge of anti-Semitism and anti-Judaism (cf. Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, 16 March 1998).  May these wounds be healed forever!  The heartfelt prayer which Pope John Paul II offered at the Western Wall on 26 March 2000 comes back to my mind, and it calls forth a profound echo in our hearts: “God of our Fathers, you chose Abraham and his descendants to bring your Name to the nations: we are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood with the people of the Covenant.” (Ratzinger at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )

9. Christians and Jews share to a great extent a common spiritual patrimony, they pray to the same Lord, they have the same roots, and yet they often remain unknown to each other.  It is our duty, in response to God’s call, to strive to keep open the space for dialogue, for reciprocal respect, for growth in friendship, for a common witness in the face of the challenges of our time, which invite us to cooperate for the good of humanity in this world created by God, the Omnipotent and Merciful. (Ratzinger/Benedict at Rome synagogue: ‘May these wounds be healed forever!’ )

Ratzinger the “hard liner” on Catholic doctrine?

Ratzinger the hard-core heretic is more like it.

In complete defiance of the teaching of the Catholic Church from the time that Saint Peter preached his first Urbi et Orbi address on Pentecost Sunday, both Ratzinger and Bergoglio reaffirm, as noted above, the “enduring validity” of the Mosaic Covenant.

Bergoglio, who has even coauthored a book his pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic rabbi pal from Argentina, Abraham Skorka, who is accompanying the false “pontiff” on his upcoming visit to the Holy Land, clearly stated a heretical proposition when he wrote the following in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

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. See Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part one.)

Both Ratzinger and Bergoglio thus reject the following dogmatic pronouncement, Cantate Domino, made at the Council of Florence, which met under the infallible guidance and protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, on February 4, 1442, and the reiteration thereof by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 28, 1943:

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.)

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.)

While some of the Talmudic rabbis quoted in the Haaretz article play the part of Mister Magoos by refusing to see what a good friend Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict has always been to them, the truth of the matter is that the conciiar “popes,” including Ratzinger and Bergoglio, have actually been their worst enemies as these heretics have refused to seek with urgency the conversion of those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This why men such as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio are the biggest anti-Semites on the face of this earth as they refuse to do what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself did when seeking the conversion of the fire-breathing anti-Catholic zealot, Saul of Tarsus, whilst He was on the road to Damascus after having presiding over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, whose prayers at the time of his martyrdom and from Heaven won the conversion of his blaspheming muderer.

The Catholic Church wills the good of all people, including the Jews, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of their immortal souls. She does, however, hate all false religions, and in this sense she is indeed and must ever be “anti-Jewish” as she is anti-Protestant and anti-Mohammedan and anti-Buddhist and anti-Hindu and anti-every other false religion.

Harsh?

Get over the squeamishness and sentimentality born of Judeo-Masonic naturalism.

It is, of course, a very telling commentary that some of the rabbis quoted in Haaretz report care more about fidelity to their false religion than the conciliarists care about fidelity to the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church.

God hates all false religions. He loathes them. He wants them eradicated from the face of this earth as their adherents are converted to the true Faith. The Catholic Church, ever faithful to Him as she is guided by Him infallibly, must hate what he hates: sin and error and falsehood. This is not an option for a Catholic. We must hate sin in our own lives. We must seek to root it out as we cooperate with the graces won for us by Our Lord on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must hate the spread of sin in the world under cover of the civil law and in the midst of popular culture. We must make no conscious compromise with error or falsehood. We must be earnest about planting seeds for the conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without with there can be no true social order.

This is, of course, a chastisement for our sins, for our own infidelities, for our own lukewarmness, for our own lack of steadfastness in prayer, especially to the Mother of God, who has been, of course, blasphemed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio. We need to pray many Rosaries of reparation, especially as we approach Bergolgio’s trip to the Holy Land in just eight day.

We need, therefore, to make much reparation for these sins as we seek always to make reparation for our own sins as we entrust to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary the need of the present moment.

We must, of course, continue to remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to be alive. He has work for us to do. Let us do this work with courage and valor as we never count the cost of being humiliated for the sake of defending the integrity of Faith, as we never cease our prayers for the conversion of all people, including those who adhere to the Talmud and Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his fellow conciliarists, to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

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 Ubaldus, 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:

Annoyance?

Inconvenience?

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.

Why?

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.

Behold.

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.