Resignationism Follies

The crush of “information” in an age of instant communications would appear to be a leading cause of temporary insanity in the case of many Catholics.

Although some have permitted themselves to wrapped up in the insanity of “resignationism,” which contends that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is without legal force as he was “forced” to resign, the truth of the matter is that the current Antipope Emeritus knew full well what he was doing when he resigned the conciliar “Petrine Ministry” on Monday, October 11, 2013, the Feast of the Apparition of Our Lady of Lourdes, and left the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River on February 28, 2013, at 8:00 p.m., Rome time, as his resignation became effective. Ratzinger/Benedict meant to establish a precedent that would be followed by his successors in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The Liberace Boys

Although this photograph was taken during Ratzinger’s “papacy,” he has had much more time now to tickle the ivories with his brother George, making them the German version of The Liberace Boys

This is what I wrote on February 14, 2013:

Moreover, as noted two days ago in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now, Ratzinger/Benedict’s resignation sets what will be considered as a mandatory precedent for all future executive directors of the Occupy Vatican Movement. And if God does not intervene to put an end the chastisement represented by the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism, the “papal” resignation might even lead to calls for “papal” “term limits” and for “re-election” by the conciliar college of colleges over four or eight years. After all, wouldn’t this be in line with the “episcopal collegiality” that false “pontiff” praised yesterday as he termed this deviation from the Holy Faith to be an essential part of his new ecclesiology? (Living In Fantasyland To The Very End, part one.)

Ratzinger/Benedict has long desired to “reform” what he refers to as the “Petrine ministry” along the lines of how he believes the papacy functioned in the First Millennium. He wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology thirty-two years ago now:

After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as “very Christian and orthodox”, although their concept of the Roman primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)

Perhaps inspired by his handpicked prefect of the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II became the first conciliar “pope” to speak of a “rethinking” of the “Petrine Ministry” after over twenty years of little “papal” acts that whittled away at the notion of the papacy as a monarchy (the taking off the Papal Tiara by Montini/Paul VI, who also genuflected before Athenagoras, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople; “episcopal collegiality” as envisioned by the “Second” Vatican Council and practiced by the conciliar “popes;” Luciani/John Paul I’s “installation” service as opposed to a coronation; endless acts of “papal” inferiority when visiting Talmudic synagogues and Mohammedan mosques and Protestant churches; Ratzinger/Benedict’s removal of the tiara from his “papal” coat of arms, replacing it with a mitre). Wojtyla/John Paul II wrote the following in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, a heretical document that is the antithesis of Pope Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928:

Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God’s faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in “a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life … If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator“.

In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that “for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But … it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry … I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned“.

This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea “that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21)? (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995.)

Leaving aside all of the references to “imperfect communion” that have been discussed on this site before and was assessed years ago by Bishop Donald Sanborn in Communion: Ratzingers’s Ecumenical One-World Church, one can see a close connection between Wojtyla/John Paul II’s revisionist history about how the papacy functioned in the First Millennium and that of the then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Cardinal” Ratzinger.

This revisionist history and heretical view of Papal Primary was also reiterated by the “unofficial” Ravenna Document on October 13, 2007, a document that was cited by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on numerous occasions between that time and the day his resignation became effective a year ago yesterday (so much for the “unofficial” part, huh?):

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI put his “papal” seal of approval on The Ravenna Document just forty-one days after its issuance on the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal:

This year we thank God in particular for the meeting of the Joint Commission which took place in Ravenna, a city whose monuments speak eloquently of the ancient Byzantine heritage handed down to us from the undivided Church of the first millennium. May the splendour of those mosaics inspire all the members of the Joint Commission to pursue their important task with renewed determination, in fidelity to the Gospel and to Tradition, ever alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in the Church today.

While the meeting in Ravenna was not without its difficulties, I pray earnestly that these may soon be clarified and resolved, so that there may be full participation in the Eleventh Plenary Session and in subsequent initiatives aimed at continuing the theological dialogue in mutual charity and understanding. Indeed, our work towards unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction. (Letter to His Holiness Bartholomaios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch, on the occasion of the feast of St. Andrew, November 23, 2007.)

So much for the “unofficial” nature of The Ravenna Document.

Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, then the president of the “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity, had mouthed the same Modernism when he addressed an assembly of the members of the schismatic and heretical Anglican sect in the United Kingdom on May 24, 2003:

It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.

Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.

These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. (A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation.)

One way to effect this “reinterpretation” is to “demythologize” what most people think is the papacy today by an act of “papal” resignation.

As has been noted on this site in the past, however, the Ratzinger-Wojtyla-Kasper contention about how the papacy functioned in the First Millennium in false.

Pope Leo XIII explained this very succinctly in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894:

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.  Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood.  The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known.  Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, “in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report”; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began.  Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.

We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling.  To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.

Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: “What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified?  What will our defense be in the  eyes of posterity?  Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren.”

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.  It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.  May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,” and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki’s Tumultuous Times.)

Hegelian revisionists must deny history and Catholic doctrine both at the same time in an effort to build yet another story to the One World Ecumenical Church.

Yes, the conciliar “popes” have been whittling away at the last great Catholic bastion that they have sought to raze, a supposedly “triumphalistic” notion of Papal Primacy that does not correspond to the conciliar “orientation” in the direction of collegiality and service as opposed to monarchy and rule.

Pope Saint Pius X warned us about such men in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 38)

His “papal” resignation last year proved again that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was and remain truly an Anti-Saint Peter and an Anti-Pope Pius X. He was and remains a figure of Antichrist as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign over us “collegially” and “democratically.” He reigns over us monarchically as Our King and Judge. Any true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter understands this. That the conciliar “popes” reject it is yet just another sign that they are apostates and committed agents of the adversary, deceiving Catholics and non-Catholics alike that almost every aspect of the Catholic Faith is negotiable except, of course, conciliarism itself and its commitment to the Talmudic agenda.

“Pope” Benedict XVI was considering resigning from the conciliar “Petrine Ministry” long before he did so last year.

It was on April 28, 2009, that Ratzinger/Benedict prayed at the tomb of Pope Saint Celestine V, who had resigned from the papacy on December 13, 1294, after a reign of five months, eight days, in the Church of Santa Maria di Collemaggi in Aquila, Italy, after an earthquake had devastated the area and badly damaged the church itself. Ratzinger/Benedict even left his woolen pallium that was placed on his neck during his “installation” as the “Petrine Minister” on Sunday, April 24, 2005, on Saint Celestine’s tomb. This was taken at that very time as a sign that the then eighty-two year German Modernist by way of the “new theology” was considering resigning from his office as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Ratzinger/Benedict returned to Aquila just a year later during the holy year that he had proclaimed in honor of Saint Celestine’s eight hundredth birthday, praying before his relics in Sulmona Cathedral on July 4, 2010. The thought of resigning had long been on the mind of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s successor as the universal public face of apostasy.

Moreover, everything about Ratzinger/Benedict’s “post-‘papacy” has been ad hoc. The whole thing has been a gigantic experiment in conciliar “innovation” and “novelty,” starting with how he was going to be addressed and what he was going to wear:

Pope Benedict XVI will be known as “emeritus pope” in his retirement and will continue to wear a white cassock, the Vatican announced Tuesday, again fueling concerns about potential conflicts arising from having both a reigning and a retired pope.

The pope’s title and what he would wear have been a major source of speculation ever since Benedict stunned the world and announced he would resign on Thursday, the first pontiff to do so in 600 years.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Benedict himself had made the decision in consultation with others, settling on “Your Holiness Benedict XVI” and either emeritus pope or emeritus Roman pontiff.

Lombardi said he didn’t know why Benedict had decided to drop his other main title: bishop of Rome.

In the two weeks since Benedict’s resignation announcement, Vatican officials had suggested that Benedict would likely resume wearing the traditional black garb of a cleric and would use the title “emeritus bishop of Rome” so as to not create confusion with the future pope.

Benedict’s decision to call himself emeritus pope and to keep wearing white is sure to fan concern voiced privately by some cardinals about the awkward reality of having two popes, both living within the Vatican walls.

Adding to the concern is that Benedict’s trusted secretary, Monsignor Georg Gaenswein, will be serving both pontiffs — living with Benedict at the monastery inside the Vatican and keeping his day job as prefect of the new pope’s household.

Asked about the potential conflicts, Lombardi was defensive, saying the decisions had been clearly reasoned and were likely chosen for the sake of simplicity.

“I believe it was well thought out,” he said.

Benedict himself has made clear he is retiring to a lifetime of prayer and meditation “hidden from the world.” However, he still will be very present in the tiny Vatican city-state, where his new home is right next door to the Vatican Radio and has a lovely view of the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica.

While he will no longer wear his trademark red shoes, Benedict has taken a liking to a pair of hand-crafted brown loafers made for him by artisans in Leon, Mexico, and given to him during his 2012 visit. He will wear those in retirement, Lombardi said. (Vatican says retired Pope Benedict XVI will be called ’emeritus pope’.)

Quite unlike Saint Peter Celestine, however, “Pope” Benedict XVI did not resume wearing a black cassock or remain “hidden from the world.” The life of the “two-headed ‘pope'” monster is still evolving as Ratzinger/Benedict makes his way back into public view on a more regular basis, starting with his “surprise” appearance in the Basilica of Saint Peter last Saturday, February 22, 2014, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Antioch, as nineteen apostates were raised to the conciliar college of non-cardinals. As I noted six days ago now in Will “Coercionism” Accompany “Resignationism”?, it would not surprise me in the least if Jorge Mario Bergoglio permitted his predecessor to say a few words at the “canonization” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on Low Sunday, April 27, 2014.

Insofar as Ratzinger/Benedict’s decision to wear a white cassock, suffice it to say that what he wrote recently in a letter to Vaticanologist Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa is not inconsistent with “Father” Federico Lombardi’s announcement about his then-superior’s “post-‘papal” attire and title. This is what Tornielli reported the Antipope Emeritus wrote to him by way of squelching speculation that his resignation last year was invalid:

In the letter he sent to us, the Pope Emeritus answered some questions regarding his decision to keep his papal name and continue dressing in white. “I continue to wear the white cassock and kept the name Benedict for purely practical reasons. At the moment of my resignation there were no other clothes available. In any case, I wear the white cassock in a visibly different way to how the Pope wears it. This is another case of completely unfounded speculations being made,” he wrote. (Vatican Insider, La Stampa)

It must be remembered that Ratzinger/Benedict is a master of self-contradiction and paradox. Federico Lombardi made it clear last year that the now retired universal public face of apostasy had given great thought to his attire and the way in which he would be addressed in retirement. In this regard, you see, readers should recall that Ratzinger/Benedict has been known to contradict himself within the same paragraph:

In Cardinal Ratzinger’s Values in a Time of Upheaval, he muddies up his phrase [the dictatorship of relativism]; indeed, he reverses his position. He says, “The modem concept of democracy seems indissolubly linked to that of relativism.” Well, well! But then he backtracks: “This means that a basic element of truth, namely, ethical truth, is indispensable to democracy.” But then he backtracks again: “We do not want the State to impose one particular idea of the good on us. … Truth is controversial, and the attempt to impose on all persons what one part of the citizenry holds to be true looks like enslavement of people’s consciences.” And he says this on the same page!

Yes, we know: Some of our readers feel that the Pope is above all criticism; he cannot make a mistake, even in his previous writings. But what he has written here is contradictory and inscrutable.

 

Ratzinger says, “The relativists …[are] flirting with totalitarianism even though they seek to establish the primacy of freedom …” Huh?

So, what is he saying? “The State is not itself the source of truth and morality…. Accordingly, the State must receive from outside itself the essential measure of knowledge and truth with regard to that which is good. … The Church remains outside’ the State. … The Church must exert itself with all its vigor so that in it there may shine forth moral truth …”

Then he says, “Conscience is the highest norm [italics in original] and … and one must follow it even against authority. When authority – in this case the Church’s Magisterium – speaks on matters of morality, it supplies the material that helps the conscience form its own judgment, but ultimately it is only conscience that has the last word.” (A Contradictory Definition of Relativism.)

Cardinal Ratzinger’s belief that the conscience can disobey the objective Moral teaching of the Church clearly admits, as did Descartes, that the soul comes first, and God only afterwards.

The error is now within the Church. It is supported even by the highest Catholic authorities. Their current of thought, Progressivism, is nothing more than the exaltation of the self. Its most malicious ingredient is Immanentism, the error that the soul contains a divine immanence: “The principle of immanence essentially states that the first thing we know is ourselves and that all our knowledge of external reality is judged in light of it” (8). Because self has been placed first as “the last word,” at the highest level of the Church, this should be a clarion call to Catholics to pray to Our Lady of Good Success for all who have succumbed to Progressivism, and also for all who are trying to maintain their Catholic faith in the increasingly more dominant Progressivist heresy.  (Cardinal Ratzinger’s Subjectivism)

In other words, don’t try to find any logic, coherency or consistency in the rationale as to why the Antipope Emeritus chose to continue wearing a white cassock and a white zucchetto. Ratzinger/Benedict’s body of written work and his speeches contain multiple contradictions of Catholic truth and of the most basic elements of logic as they cleave to condemned propositions of Modernism and the faulty non-Scholastic “reasoning” contained in the condemned methods of the “new theology.”

Don’t spend a lot of time trying to reconcile anything Ratzinger says at one time as opposed to something he said earlier. Remember, he is the man who said in 2007 that there had been no rupture in the liturgy after having said in 1985 and 1999 that such a rupture had taken place. Contradiction is just part of the Modernist fog in which this blaspheming heretic lives.

Although it is certainly true that Jorge Mario Bergoglio will wear simple priestly garments, if that, once he resigns (if does not die as “Pope” Francis) when he is assured that his Jacobin/Bolshevik agenda is incapable of being reversed, Joseph Alois Ratzinger’s “style,” though innovative (he did remove the miter from the “papal” coat of arms), is one that he considers “dignified” and “proper.”  He is very conscious now of setting a precedent for future retired “popes,” not Bergoglio or anyone else of the “ultra-progressive” ilk will follow the example being set by the resigning trend-setter who was supposed to remain “hidden from the world,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

On matters of substance, however, it must be remembered that there is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, something that I attempted to make clear in my seven part series and in a number of subsequent articles.

Indeed, Ratzinger’s close personal associate and secretary, “Archbishop” George Ganswein has made this point very clear in behalf of the man he still serves while serving as the prefect for the “papal household” under Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

Q. Do the Pope and the Pope emeritus interact frequently?

Ganswein: There is an excellent relationship. The ways in which they interact are various. They telephone, they write, they meet, they eat together. Pope Francis has been a guest for lunch in the monastery several times. Once, after Christmas, the Pope emeritus was also in Santa Marta.

Q. The are some who contrast them.

Ganswein: It is a favorite game, especially for some journalists. Which does not please me. I have the grace of living with one and working with the other. And I can thus allow myself to say that I know both very well. I do not see them as opposed, but as complementary. It is obvious that the style, the gestures, and even the form of government of Pope Francis are different from those of Pope Benedict. But an opposition cannot be established only based on this. Doing things in a different way does not mean doing them in an opposite way. One must always have in mind that which the Pope emeritus wrote to professor Hans Küng and repeated to Andrea Tornielli, when he expressed “identity of views and heartfelt friendship” regarding Pope Francis.

Q. Also in the liturgy the sensibilities are different.

Ganswein: That is true, this is an objective fact, and it is not an offense to say so. But even in this case, I repeat, doing things in a different way does not mean doing them in an opposite way. (Yes, Francis’ and Benedict’s liturgical sensibilities are different, it’s not an offense to say so.)
What is lost on poor Georg Ganswein and on so many “traditionally-minded” Catholics in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is that the man he serves in retirement, though a true priest, never held the papacy of the Catholic Church and the man he serves during his day job, who is neither a priest or a bishop, does not hold it presently. Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church long ago by holding to, no less professing openly and propagating “officially,” beliefs that have been anathematized by the Catholic Church:

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

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

There is no wiggle room here at all.

If one even “privately” dissents from one article contained in the Catholic Faith while holding, however tenuously, to others, he has expelled himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law.

Saint Francis de Sales had noted this same point over two hundred eighty years before:

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this, because everyone must believe all the truths of faith–both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)
Those who have wasted their time speculating about the “validity” of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s resignation as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are laboring under the delusion that the now retired “pope” was Catholic and that his successor, Bergoglio, is not. Both men, however, are apostates, which is why we must pray that they will abjure their errors publicly and return to the Catholic Faith before they die.
Today is the First Saturday of the month of March, the month of Saint Joseph. Lent begins in just four days. We must, therefore, accept the chastisements of the present moment, each of which have been fashioned perfectly for us by the loving hand of God from all eternity.
Remember, we are living at the precise moment that God that chosen for us to serve Him as the consecrated slaves of His Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Now is the time to do penance as we seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, including those of the conciliar revolutionaries. Now is the time to resolve to pray more and more Rosaries each day as we withdraw more and more from the world.
This terrible chastisement will end at a time of God’s choosing, not ours. We must simply carry the crosses required of us with joy and gratitude, knowing that there is no other path to Heaven than the Via Crucis, the Way of the Cross.
Part of this cross involves being estranged from relatives, friends and former associates. We must pay this price as we pray for a good reconciliation in eternity, please God and by the prayers of Our Lady we can save our immortal souls in this time of apostasy and betrayal.
Lift high the Cross.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us

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

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

Ratinzger the “Restorer of Tradition”?

Although I was away from my computer for most of the day yesterday, Monday, February 3, 2014, the Feast of Saint Blaise, I did receive an e-mail from Mr. Mark Stabinski that alerted me to the fact that a German woman, Sigrid Spath, who had worked as a translator at the Jesuit General House in Rome since the days of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI had died. This is a tragedy as she died outside of the bosom of the Catholic Church. This tragedy is further compounded by the fact that she was advised in 1999 to remain a Lutheran so as to serve “both churches” by none other than the then prefect of the conciliar prefect of the Congregation for the Destruction, Deformation and Destruction of the Faith, Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, the alleged “restorer of Tradition.”

Here are the details, which are found, ironically enough, on the Rorate Caeli website that has helped to propagate the myth that the Modernist from Bavaria wanted to “restore” Tradition when all he wanted to do was to “pacify the spirits” of traditionally-minded Catholics in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciiarism so as to keep his “right flank” quiet while he attempted to institutionalize his own particular vision of the “Second” Vatican Council for perpetuity:

Sigrid Spath was the most famous German translator in Rome. She worked in the Jesuit General House, and then in the Vatican, since the days of Paul VI and translated around 70,000 pages of documents from Italian, French, English, Spanish or Polish into German, as well as several texts by Joseph Ratzinger, as Cardinal or Pope, as he also wrote original texts in Italian. The granddaughter of a Lutheran pastor, Spath was born in Villach, Carinthia (Austria), on August 1, 1939 (that is, just one month before the war), and she died this Sunday, February 2, 2014, in Rome.
May she rest in peace.
Now, the information above comes from the Vatican Radio article on Sigrid Spath, from which we have chosen this remarkable excerpt:
Sigrid Spath translated in these cases [documents written by the Pope in Italian] the German Pope into German. One of her favorite books was Ratzinger’s “Introduction to Christianity”, dozens of copies of which she gave to Protestant students visiting Rome.

As Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger charged her personally with the German version of particularly sensitive documents, such as his response to the objections of Protestant theologians to the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification of 1999. It was also Cardinal Ratzinger who, according to her own testimony, advised Sigrid Spath to remain a Protestant, and not to convert to the Catholic Church, as she had considered in a moment of crisis. She could do more for both churches if she remained a Protestant, said the Cardinal. The Carinthian remained in the Protestant Christuskirche in Rome [the Evangelical-Lutheran community of Rome] throughout her life.
Benedict XVI visits Lutheran Christuskirche in Rome, Mar. 14, 2010:
no stand-alone altar in this church!
Note: Life-changing decisions should be avoided, if possible, in moments of distress and personal crisis, when reflection and meditation are impossible. But the justification presented by the Cardinal for why she should permanently remain a Protestant obviously influenced her in a permanent way, so that she felt compelled to declare it to others openly. (She wanted to convert. She listened to Cardinal Ratzinger and died a Lutheran.)
This is just further proof of the simple fact that seems to defy the grasp of those caught up in the delusion of the Motu world, namely, that Joseph Alois Ratzinger is bereft of the Catholic Faith and was never a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.
First, Joseph Ratzinger’s apostasy is such that he believes the Lutheran sect, which was born as a result of a lecherous, drunkard’s revolution against the Divine Plan that Christ the King Himself established to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church, has a mission to serve God, possessing the power to sanctify and save souls. This is false as the Lutheran sect has false doctrines, false sacramental rites and is a creation of the devil, who is honored therein.
Second, Joseph Ratzinger’s apostasy is such that he proved himself to be a wolf masquerading as a shepherd by refusing the entreaty of an earnest soul to be received into what she believed to be the Catholic Church. Ratzinger was content to let Sigrid Spath live and die in a false sect that had no power to save her souls, thus showing once again that this Modernist by way of the “new theology” knows nothing of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.
Third, it should be noted Ratzinger’s disdain for seeking with urgency the conversion of non-Catholics to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, is just part of the “new evangelization” he inherited from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and promoted with great zeal as an important part of the “new ecclesiology” he helped to create by means of suggesting the phrase “the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church” in Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, at the recommendation of a Lutheran “theologian.” Joseph Alois Ratzinger told us as “Pope Benedict XVI” that he rejects what he called disparagingly the “ecumenism of the return” six years after he had discouraged Sigrid Spath’s efforts to convert to what she thought was the Catholic Church:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one’s own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Benedict XVI, Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English.)

So much for the words that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ spoke to the Eleven before He Ascended to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father’s right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday:

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. (Matthew 28: 16-20.)

The work of the “new evangelization” is the work of Antichrist, who seeks to reaffirm Catholics and non-Catholics alike in a material, if not formal, adherence to the heresy of universal salvation, which Joseph Alois Ratzinger learned from his Hegelian mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar.

The teaching and the history of the Catholic Church prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism means nothing to conciliar revolutionaries such as Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which is why there is no space between these two apostates on matters of theological substance. Ratzinger sought to “reconcile” the conciliar revolution with Tradition. For Bergoglio, however, “tradition” is the conciliar revolution.

Thus it is the work of the Apostles and the missionaries of the First Millennium, including Saint Boniface, who converted Ratzinger’s native Germany at the price of the shedding of his own blood, has become “outdated” and has to be “re-imagined” in light of supposedly “changed” circumstances.

Thus it is that work of the Jesuit missionaries who landed in Argentina in 1586 to civilized the savage Indians of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s native land has to become the subject of “apologies” for not understanding the “value” of savagery as a means of creating an “encounter” between cultures and thus coming to an “deeper understanding” of what it means to be a “believer.”

Thus it is that the work of Our Lady herself to convert the likes of Pierre Port-Combet and Alphonse Ratisbonne must be consigned to the Orwellian memory hole as incompatible with the dictates of the “new evangelization:”

Heaven was watching over Pierre and after seven years, on March 25, 1656, Our Lady appeared to him. On that day, Pierre was working in the field and saw a Lady standing far away on a little hill. The Lady wore a white dress, a blue mantle and had a black veil over her head, which partly covered her face. As the Lady came toward Pierre, she suddenly picked up speed and in a flash, she stood beside him. With her beautiful, sweet voice, the Lady spoke to Pierre, “God be with you my friend!”

For a moment, Pierre stood in amazement. The Lady spoke again, “What is being said about this devotion? Do many people come?”

Pierre replied, “Yes many people come,”

Then the Lady said, “Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?”

Pierre mumbled an answer. The Lady became more serious, “Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them.” (See: If You Do Not Return to the True Faith, You Will Be Cast Into Hell!)

“When I traversed the church, I arrived at the spot where they were getting ready for the funeral. Suddenly I felt interiorly disturbed, and saw in front of me something like a veil. It seemed to me that the entire church had been swallowed up in shadow, except one chapel. It was as thought all the light was concentrated in that single place. I looked over towards this chapel whence so much light shone and above the altar I saw a living figure standing, tall, majestic, beautiful and full of mercy. It was the most Holy Virgin Mary, resembling her figure on the Miraculous Medal of the Immaculate. At this sight I fell on my knees right where I stood; several times I attempted to lift my eyes towards the Most Blessed Virgin, but respect and the blinding light forced me to lower my gaze; this, however, did not prevent me from seeing the luminosity of the apparition. I fixed my glance on her hands, and in them I could read the expression of mercy and pardon. In the presence of the most Blessed Virgin, even though she did not speak a word to me, I understood the frightful situation I was in, the heinousness of sin, the beauty of the Catholic religion . . . in a word, I understood everything.

“When he returned, M. de Bussieres found me kneeling, my head resting on the railing of the chapel where the most Blessed Virgin had appeared, and bathed in tears. I do not understand how I managed to get to the railing, because I had fallen to my knees on the other side of the nave, and the catafalque stood between me and the chapel. I must add that the feeling that accompanied my weeping was one of gratitude towards the Blessed Virgin and of pity for my family, buried in the darkness of Judaism, for heretics and for sinners. M. de Bussieres raised me up and, still weeping, I told him, ‘Oh, that person must have prayed very much for me,’ thinking of the deceased Count de Laferronays. [Father Kolbe note: “M. de Bussieres had in fact recommended Ratisbonne to the prayers of M. de Laferronays.”]

“He asked me several questions, but I could not answer, so deeply was I moved. So he took me by the hand, led me out of the church to the carriage and helped me to get in. Then he asked me where I wanted to go.

“Take me wherever you like,” I said, “after what I have seen, I will do anything you want.”

“‘But what did you see?’ he asked me.

“I cannot tell you; but please bring me to a confessor, and I will tell him everything on my knees.”

“He brought me to the church of the Gesu, to a Jesuit, Father Villefort, to whom in the presence of M. de Bussieres, I related all that had happened to me.”

(In his letter he continues.)

All I can say of myself comes down to this: that in an instant a veil fell from my eyes; or rather not a single veil, but many of the veils which surrounded me were dissipated one after the other, like snow, mud and ice under the burning rays of the sun. I felt as though I were emerging from a tomb, from a dark grave; that I was beginning to be a living being, enjoying a real life. And yet I wept. I could see into the depths of my frightful misery, from which infinite mercy had liberated me. My whole being shivered at the sight of my transgressions; I was shaken, overcome by amazement and gratitude. I thought of my brother with indescribable joy; and to my tears of love there were joined tears of compassion. How many persons in this world, alas, are going down unknowingly into the abyss, their eyes shut by pride and indifference!They are being swallowed up alive by those horrifying shadows; and among them are my family, my fiancee, my poor sisters. What a bitter thought! My mind turned to you, whom I love so much; for you I offered my first prayers. Will you some day raise your eyes towards the Savior of the world, whose blood washed away original sin? How monstrous is the stain of that sin, because of which man no longer bears the resemblance to God!

“They asked me now I had come to know these truths, since they all knew that I had never so much as opened a book dealing with religion, head not even read a single page of the Bible, while the dogma of original sin, entirely forgotten or denied by modern Jews, had never occupied my mind for a single instant. I am no sure that I had even heard its name. So how had I come to know these truths? I cannot tell’ all I know is that when I entered the church, I was ignorant of all this, whereas when I left I could see it all with blinding clarity. I cannot explain this change except by comparing myself to a man who suddenly awakens from deep sleep or to someone born blind who suddenly acquires sight. He sees, even though he cannot describe his sensations or pinpoint what enlightens him and makes it possible for him to admire the things around him. If we cannot adequately explain natural light, how can we describe a light the substance of which is truth itself? I think I am expressing myself correctly when I say that I did not have any verbal knowledge, but had come to possess the meaning and spirit of the dogmas, to feel rather than see these things, to experience them with the help of the inexpressible power which was at work within me.

“The love of God had taken the place of all other loves, to such an extent that I loved even my fiancee, but in a different way. I loved her like someone whom God held in his hands, like a precious gift which inspires an even greater love for the giver.”

(As they wanted to delay his Baptism, Ratisbonne pleaded.)

What? The Jews who heard the preaching of the apostles were baptized at once; and you wish to delay Baptism for me who have heard the Queen of the apostles?

My emotion, my ardent desires and my prayers finally induced these good men to fix a date for my Baptism. I awaited the appointed day with impatience, because I realized how displeasing I was in the eyes of God.

(Finally the 31st of January came. He described his Baptism.)

“Immediately after Baptism I felt myself filled with sentiments of veneration and filial love for the Holy Father; I considered myself fortunate when I was told that I would be granted an audience with the Pontiff, accompanied by the General of the Jesuits. In spite of all this I was quite nervous, because I had never frequented the important people of this world; although these important people seemed to me too insignificant when compared to true grandeur. I must confess that I included among these great ones of the world the one who on this earth holds God’s highest power, i.e., the pope, the successor of Jesus Christ himself, whose indestructible chair he occupies.

“Never will I forget my trepidation and the beatings of my heart when I entered the Vatican and traversed the spacious courtyards and majestic halls leading to the sacred premises where the pope resides. When I beheld him, though, my nervousness suddenly gave way to amazement. He was so simple, humble and paternal. This was no monarch, but a father who with unrestrained love treated me like a cherished son.

“O good God! Will it be thus when I appear before you to give you an account of the graces I hare received? Awe fills me at the mere thought of God’s greatness, and I tremble before his justice; but at the sight of his mercy my confidence revives, and with confidence so will my love and unbounded gratitude.

“Yes, gratitude will from now on be my law and my life . I cannot express it in words; so I shall strive to do so in deeds. The letters received from my family give me full liberty; I wish to consecrate this liberty to God, and I offer it to him from this very moment, along with my whole life, to serve the Church and my brothers under the protection of the most Blessed Virgin Mary.” (An account of the miraculous conversion of Alphonse Ratisbonne by Our Lady in the Church of San Andrea delle Fratte on January 20, 1842, as found in: Father Anselm W. Romb, OFM Conv., Commentator and Editor, The Writings of St. Maximilian M. Kolbe, OFM Conv.: The Kolbe Reader, pp. 22-31.)

So many other examples could be given. So many other examples have been given in hundreds of articles on this site since the day Joseph Ratzinger was “elected” as the successor of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on April 19, 2005, to head a sect with false doctrines and false, sacramentally barren liturgical rites that are the work of Antichrist from beginning to end.

Perhaps one more example should be given to remind readers that “Pope” Benedict XVI” placed the Protestant syncretist Roger Schutz in Heaven after he was murdered by one of his devoted followers in August of 2005:

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, AUG. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI expressed his sorrow at the murder of Brother Roger Schutz, saying the founder of the ecumenical Taizé Community is “in the hands of eternal goodness.”

Brother Roger, 90, was stabbed to death by a woman Tuesday at an evening prayer service attended by 2,500 people in the Burgundy region in France, authorities said. A 36-year-old Romanian woman was detained by witnesses and turned over to police, authorities said.

The Pope showed emotion as he expressed his grief, at the end of today’s general audience.

“This news has affected me even more because precisely yesterday I received a very moving, affectionate letter from Frère Roger,” the Pope said, addressing the pilgrims gathered in the patio of the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo.

“In it he wrote that from the depth of his heart he wanted to tell me that ‘we are in communion with you and with those who have gathered in Cologne,'” the Holy Father said.

Hopes for Cologne

Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had known Brother Roger for a long time.

During Pope John Paul II’s funeral, Cardinal Ratzinger, the then dean of the College of Cardinals, surprised observers when he went up to Brother Roger, who was in a wheelchair, to give him Communion. Brother Roger was not Catholic.

In his letter, the founder of the ecumenical community explained to the new Pope that “because of his state of health, unfortunately he would not be able to come personally to Cologne, but that he would be present spiritually with his brothers.”

The letter, written in French, expressed Brother Roger’s desire “to come as soon as possible to Rome to meet with me and to tell me that ‘our Community of Taizé wants to go forward in communion with the Holy Father,'” according to Benedict XVI.

The letter ended with these words in Brother Roger’s own handwriting: “Holy Father, I assure you of my sentiments of profound communion. Frère Roger of Taizé.”

“At this moment of sadness,” the Pope said, “we can only commend to the Lord’s goodness the soul of this faithful servant of his.”

“Frère Schutz is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has attained eternal joy,” the Holy Father added. “He invites and exhorts us to be faithful laborers in the Lord’s vineyard, also in sad situations, certain that the Lord accompanies us and gives us his joy.” (Benedict Mourns Murder of Taizé’s Brother Roger.)

How can a man who never converted to the Catholic Faith “exhort us to be faithful laborers in the Lord’s vineyard”? Do Protestants “follow” Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in all things as He has revealed Himself to men exclusively through His Catholic Church? No one but no one who is not a member of the Catholic Church can teach us how to follow Our Divine Redeemer faithfully. Those who are not Catholics are not members of Our Lord’s vineyard.

Who says so? Let’s try Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XII, all right?

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894.)

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.)

What does Ratzinger/Benedict think of these papal statements. Not much. He believes that they may have had their place in their time but that we have come to a more “mature” understanding of them, at long last (!), in the past fifty years.

It must be remembered also  that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has used his masquerade as “Pope Francis” to teach Catholics that the “new evangelization” does not seek to convert anyone to what is thought to be the Catholic Church and that they must reject what he refers to disparagingly as “proselytism:”

Thank you for listening to me. Thank you for coming here today. Thank you for all that you bear in your heart. Jesus loves you very much. Saint Cajetan loves you very much. He only asks one thing of you: that you come together! That you go out and seek and find one in greater need! But not alone – with Jesus, with Saint Cajetan! Am I going to go out to convince someone to become a Catholic? No, no, no! You are going to meet with him, he is your brother! That’s enough! And you are going to help him, the rest Jesus does, the Holy Spirit does it. Remember well: with Saint Cajetan, we the needy go to meet with those who are in greater need. And, hopefully, Jesus will direct your way so that you will meet with one in greater need. (Francis the Insane Dreamer, Rebel and Miscreant’s Message for the Feast of Saint Cajetan.)

(Vatican Radio) Evangelization is not proselytizing. This was the focus of Pope Francis’ remarks to faithful gathered for Mass on Wednesday morning in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae residence in the Vatican. The Pope reiterated that the Christian who wants to proclaim the Gospel must dialogue with everyone, knowing that no one owns the truth, because the truth is received by the encounter with Jesus.

Pope Francis stressed the courageous attitude of Paul St Paul at the Areopagus, when, in speaking to the Athenian crowd, he sought to build bridges to proclaim the Gospel. The Pope called Paul’s attitude one that “seeks dialogue” and is “closer to the heart” of the listener. The Pope said that this is the reason why St Paul was a real pontifex: a “builder of bridges” and not of walls. The Pope went on to say that this makes us think of the attitude that a Christian ought always to have.

“A Christian,” said Pope Francis, “must proclaim Jesus Christ in such a way that He be accepted: received, not refused – and Paul knows that he has to sow the Gospel message. He knows that the proclamation of Jesus Christ is not easy, but that it does not depend on him. He must do everything possible, but the proclamation of Jesus Christ, the proclamation of the truth, depends on the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter – it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it].

But why did Paul act as he did? First, the Pope said, because “this is the way” of Jesus who “spoke with everyone” with sinners, publicans, teachers of the law. Paul, therefore, “follows the attitude of Jesus”:

“The Christian who would bring the Gospel must go down this road: [must] listen to everyone! But now is a good time in the life of the Church: the last 50 or 60 years have been a good time – for I remember when as a child one would hear in Catholic families, in my family, ‘No, we cannot go to their house, because they are not married in the Church, eh!’. It was as an exclusion. No, you could not go! Neither could we go to [the houses of] socialists or atheists. Now, thank God, people do not says such things, right? [Such an attitude] was a defense of the faith, but it was one of walls: the LORD made bridges. First: Paul has this attitude, because it was the attitude of Jesus. Second, Paul is aware that he must evangelize, not proselytize.

Citing his predecessor, Pope Benedict, Francis went on to say that the Church “does not grow by means of proselytizing,” but “by attraction, by witnessing, by preaching,” and Paul had this attitude: proclamation does not make proselytization – and he succeeds, because, “he did not doubt his Lord.” The Pope warned that, “Christians who are afraid to build bridges and prefer to build walls are Christians who are not sure of their faith, not sure of Jesus Christ.” The Pope exhorted Christians to do as Paul did and begin to “build bridges and to move forward”:

Paul teaches us this journey of evangelization, because Jesus did, because he is well aware that evangelization is not proselytizing: it is because he is sure of Jesus Christ and does not need to justify himself [or] to seek reasons to justify himself. When the Church loses this apostolic courage, she becomes a stalled Church, a tidy Church a nice, a Church that is nice to look at, but that is without fertility, because she has lost the courage to go to the outskirts, where there are many people who are victims of idolatry, worldliness of weak thought, [of] so many things. Let us today ask St Paul to give us this apostolic courage, this spiritual fervor, so that we might be confident. ‘But Father,’ [you might say], ‘we might make mistakes…’ … ‘[Well, what of it,’ I might respond], ‘Get on with you: if you make a mistake, you get up and go forward: that is the way. Those who do not walk in order not to err, make a the more serious mistake. (Miss Frances at Wednesday Liturgical Travesty: build bridges, not walls.)

Anyone who wants to persist in the delusion that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church is free to do so. It remains a fact, however, that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church and that its officials are nothing other than spiritual robber barons whose own words prove themselves to be outside of the pale of the Holy Mother Church as this is what our true popes have taught about the necessity to seek with urgency the conversion of non-Catholics:

“It is for this reason that so many who do not share ‘the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church’ must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

“It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd.” (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, referring to the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894.)

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful – “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment” (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,”[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

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 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.)

Joseph Ratzinger as a “restorer of Tradition?”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio as a “rupture” with Ratzinger?

Delusional thoughts from those desperate to be considered in “good standing” with the likes of apostates, heretics and blasphemers, to say nothing of being in the same “pew” with Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi (see Yet She Will Remain In Good Standing).

We must pray and make many sacrifices during this time of apostasy and betrayal, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We may not live long enough to see the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. However, we must do our parts as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through that same Immaculate Heart to plant seeds for this triumph as we seek to make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Lourdes, 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 Andrew Corsini, pray for us.

Vintage Ratzinger, All Right

Let me get straight to the point

The blindness of those who have been deluded into thinking that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s issuance of Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007, made this apostle Modernism, whose precepts were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, by way of the “new theology” that was condemned by Pope Pius XII, August 12, 1950, and progenitor of the “Second” Vatican Council’s “new ecclesiology” into  a champion of “tradition” is nothing other than astounding.

Yet it is that some of those who have permitted themselves to be blinded by Summorum Pontificum continue to insist that the “Pope Emeritus” was a “merciful father” to those in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism because of his supposed “generosity” both to “tradition” in general and to the four bishops of the Society of Saint Pius X who had been “excommunicated” by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II after their episcopal consecration at the hands of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and those of his co-consecrator, the late Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, on June 30, 1988, in Econe, Switzerland.

Those who have permitted themselves to have Ratzinger/Benedict’s acid-induced blindness take away their ability to see things as they are and not as they want them to be must overlook the plain fact that their believed “pope emeritus” explained in his letter to the world’s conciliar “bishops” in 2009 that he had “lifted” the “excommunications” against the four Society of Saint Pius X bishops precisely to “break down” what he called “one-sided” positions and “rigidity.” Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict, presaging the “flexibility” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, pleaded with the conciliar “bishops” to  accept his own belief that the Society of Saint Pius X could be neutralized and thus brought into “broader vistas” just as effectively as other communities (e.g., Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, Institute of Christ the King, Sovereign Priest, etc.) that were created following Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei Ad Afflicta motu proprio of July 1, 1988.

This is what Ratzinger/Benedict wrote nearly five years ago now as he explained his rationale for “lifting” the “excommunications” that had been imposed upon Bishop Bernard Fellay, who has become the Captain Queeg of the Society of Saint Pius X, and Bishops Bernard Williamson,  Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, and Bernard Tissier de Mallerais:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith – ecumenism – is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light – this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love ‘to the end’ has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity – this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical ‘Deus caritas est’.

“So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church’s real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who ‘has something against you’ and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents – to the extent possible – in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences?Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

“Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things – arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them – in this case the Pope – he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

The “broader vistas” to which Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict was referring are none other than full acceptance of “false ecumenism,” “inter-religious dialogue,” “inter-religious prayer” services, episcopal collegiality, “religious liberty,” “separation of Church and State, “the hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity,” “the new ecclesiology,” and, of course, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. One report from a few years ago indicated that Ratzinger/Benedict personally told a leader of the Society of Saint Pius X that he wanted the “new theologians” (himself, Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Maurice Blondel, Hans Urs von Balthasar) taught in the Society’s seminaries. “Broader vistas”? You decide.

Although Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is indeed hated by the “ultra-progressive” revolutionaries for having made the accommodations that he did to traditionally-minded Catholics even though he told us consistently after he had issued Summorum Pontificum that his rationale was based solely on his desire to “pacify the “spirits” of the poor, misguided souls who had yet come to recognize that the “Second” Vatican Councl and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes” could be “understood” according his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity:”

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the “Motu proprio’ Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this “Motu Proprio’ is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc…. On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Thus it is that those who praise Ratzinger/Benedict’s 2009 explanatory letter to the conciliar “bishops” about the bishops of the Society of Saint Pius are living in a complete and utter fantasy world. Among those who live in this world is Ratzinger/Benedict’s dutifully affectionate secretary and admirer, “Archbishop” Georg Ganswein, who has praised that 2009 letter as “Ratzinger in a pure state” (see RORATE CÆLI).

Alas, “Ratzinger in a pure state” means nothing other than Ratzinger committed to the “pacification” of those he labeled in Principles of Catholic Theology as “integralists” who could not be resisted too firmly:

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Principles of Catholic Theology, 1982, pp. 389-390)

Joseph Ratzinger chose to resist the “integralists” with his supposed kindness, which was designed to purchase silence from traditionally-minded Catholics in exchange for having access to a modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that is staged, at least for the most part, by men who are not truly ordained priests.

It thus very much aside the point for scholars such as Dr. Antonio Socci to argue that the Bergoglians hate the “pope of tradition” (see Ratzinger is the true target of the New Inquisitors) as this hatred is nothing other than that of the Jacobins for the Girondists during the French Revolution of 1789 and of the Bolsheviks for the Mesheviks prior to and during the Russian Revolution of 1917. The hatred of the Bergoglians for Ratzinger and those in the conciliar structures who supported him is based upon the belief that Ratzinger sought to control the path of the conciliar revolution.

To the extent that this is true, however, it is Ratzinger himself who is to blame as that which is false can never be “controlled” from realizing its ultimate end consequences, something that is as true of the false principles of the American founding, of which Barack Hussein Obama/ Barry Soetoro is an ultimate end product, as of conciliarism itself. Revolutionaries always eat their own. Always. Joseph Ratzinger had no more ability to control the path of the conciliar revolution he helped to engineer than Martin Luther could control the path of his diabolical Protestant Revolution that is still unraveling into scores of thousands of disparate sects.

Endless numbers of articles, to be cataloged at some point in the next few weeks in a special “The Ratzinger Files” page on this current home of Christ or Chaos, appeared on what is now the archive home of my work in cyberspace to chronicle Joseph Ratzinger’s career-long defections from the Catholic Faith, including the days when he appeared in a jacket-and-tie as a peritus at the “Second” Vatican Council.

One must culpably blind himself refusing to admit the imple fact that Joseph Ratzinger is a Modernist who is different from Jorge Mario Bergoglio only in terms of personal taste, forms of expression and areas of emphasis. Ratzinger’s revolutionary precepts stem from a mind warped by the Hegelianism of his late mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, whereas Bergoglio’s revolutionary commitment stems from the viscera of slogans he learned during his days as a seminarian in the revolutionized Society of Jesus.

Only the willfully blind in the Motu blogosphere could ignore Ratzinger/Benedict’s frank discussion of the reason he issued Summorum Pontificum. Ratzinger/Benedict was not personally devoted to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as it enshrined a Faith, including an ecclesiology, that was counter to the alleged “needs” of his mythical “modern man.” He desired there to be a “synthesis” between the Missal of Pope Saint Pius V and that of the very unblessed Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick.

 

Yet it is that the “strategists” in the “resist while recognize” movement chose to ignore their “restorer of Tradition’s” multiple defections from the Catholic Faith during his 2,873 days as the universal public face of apostasy that were summarized (mind you, only summarized) eleven and one-half months ago in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now. The omissions of fact from their newspapers and websites are glaring as they knew that their “pope’s” defections from the Faith, which were identical to the ones for which they had criticized Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II with relentless fury, were indefensible.

 

Consider the fact that Ratzinger/Benedict committed Mortal Sins against the First Commandment every time he put into question or has denied a dogma of the Faith or has praised a false religion or has entered a temple of false worship. He has done so every time he has staged the Protestant and Judeo- Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

 

Anyone who denies that entering into and treating with respect places of false worship without seeking the unconditional conversion of those adhere the devils worshiped therein is intellectually dishonest or bereft of the sensus Catholicus (thereby lacking any knowledge of the necessity of defending the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity) or is a coward who is afraid to speak to the truth of the Faith for one reason or another.

 

God will not be mocked. The God of Revelation does not want members of the Catholic Church, no less those who believe themselves to be bishops and priests, to give even the slightest degree of credibility to any false religion. The God of Revelation, which consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition, hates each and every false religion. He has no respect for false religions, which have the power to save no one and are instruments of disorder in souls and thus of disorder and chaos within nations. Those who show respect for false religions by esteeming their symbols and praising their nonexistent “ability” to contribute to the “betterment” of nations and the world are themselves enemies of God as they find themselves condemned by these very words  of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself:

But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh. And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. 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 who is in heaven. (Matthew 18: 6-10.)

We will soon be treated to the spectacle of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the utimate end-product of conciliarism, greeting the ultimate end-product of Americanism, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. Lest the Ratzingerians in the counterfeit church of conciliarism become all uppity about this outrage, it is good to remember that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict not only met with Obama/Soetoro on July 9, 2010, in the Apostolic Palace within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, he wished a “blessing” upon him and “all his work.” Oh, just in case you have not noticed, the word of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro includes making the chemical and surgical slaughter of the preborn a cornerstone of his administration’s takeover of the national health care industry and promoting “marriage equality” for those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Here is just a little reminder:

At the end of the meeting, Pope Benedict told the president: “A blessing on all your work and also for you.” (Benedict XVI meets Obama – Catholic Herald Online; also see A “Blessing” on a Murderer and His Work.)

Two believers in one world governance.

Mind you, the Obama/Soetoro meeting with Ratzinger/Benedict took place less than two months after the former was permitted to speak at the commencement ceremonies of the University of Notre Dame, from which I received a Master of Arts degree in political science on January 10, 1974 (forty years ago now?–how is this possible?), despite his militant stance in support of the slaughter of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law. (See (Our Lady Does Not Honor Pro-Aborts, No “Common Ground” Between Truth and Error and Persecuting Those Who Defended Our Lady’s Honor.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI would have been just as welcoming of the scandalous, pro-abortion, pro-perversity French President Francois Hollande as was Jorge Mario Bergoglio on Friday, January 24, 2014, the Feast of Saint Timothy. For in addition to having greeted pro-abortion, pro-perversity leaders repeatedly during his time as the universal public face of apostasy, Ratzinger/Benedict specifically and categorically reiterated his support for that which Pope Saint Pius X termed a “thesis absolutely false,” the separation of Church and State, going so far as to directly contradict the last true pope to be canonized thus far concerning the evils of such a separation in Portugal.

Here is what Ratzinger/Benedict said in 2010, followed by what Pope Saint Pius X had written ninety-nine years before:

From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.)

2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.

3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation’s greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911.)

What has been the fruit of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “reconciliation” with the thesis deemed “absolutely false” by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906?

 

Portugal, long a bastion of Judeo-Masonry, has enacted legislation to “legalize”  divorce, contraception, sterilization, abortion and, among other evils, perversity as “rights” that must be “recognized” and protected by the civil law. “Gay marriage” and the surgical execution of children were already “legal” in Portugal when Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visit in 2010.

For its part, France, now in the fifty-sixth year of the Fourth Republic, has in Francois Hollande just as much an ultimate expression of its own revolution against Christ the King and His Catholic Church as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is an ultimate expression of the false, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist, naturalistic and Pelagian principles underlying the American founding.

Yet it is that neither Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI or Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis recognizes this as they keep greeting such men with a false spirit of camaraderie based on “shared interests” while overlooking the fact that those who support sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance can never be just instruments in the pursuit of the common temporal good, which must be subordinated to 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.

What Antonio Socci and the pseudonymous bloggers at Rorate Caeli refused to admit, perhaps even to themselves, is that there is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio on matters of theological substance, including that of the separation of Church and State. Neither the Girondist/Menshevk Ratzinger or the Jacobin/Bolshevik Bergoglio accept the following words of Pope Saint Pius X, written at the time that the law of separation was promulgated in France, represent the teaching of the Catholic Church even though our sainted pontiff wrote that our popes had always condemned the separation of Church and State when the cicumstances required them to do so:

Our soul is full of sorrowful solicitude and Our heart overflows with grief, when Our thoughts dwell upon you. How, indeed, could it be otherwise, immediately after the promulgation of that law which, by sundering violently the old ties that linked your nation with the Apostolic See, creates for the Catholic Church in France a situation unworthy of her and ever to be lamented? That is, beyond question, an event of the gravest import, and one that must be deplored by all the right-minded, for it is as disastrous to society as it is to religion; but it is an event which can have surprised nobody who has paid any attention to the religious policy followed in France of late years. For you, Venerable Brethren, it will certainly have been nothing new or strange, witnesses as you have been of the many dreadful blows aimed from time to time by the public authority at religion. You have seen the sanctity and the inviolability of Christian marriage outraged by legislative acts in formal contradiction with them; the schools and hospitals laicized; clerics torn from their studies and from ecclesiastical discipline to be subjected to military service; the religious congregations dispersed and despoiled, and their members for the most part reduced to the last stage of destitution. Other legal measures which you all know have followed: the law ordaining public prayers at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session and of the assizes has been abolished; the signs of mourning traditionally observed on board the ships on Good Friday suppressed; the religious character effaced from the judicial oath; all actions and emblems serving in any way to recall the idea of religion banished from the courts, the schools, the army, the navy, and in a word from all public establishments. These measures and others still which, one after another really separated the Church from the State, were but so many steps designedly made to arrive at complete and official separation, as the authors of them have publicly and frequently admitted.

 

2. On the other hand the Holy See has spared absolutely no means to avert this great calamity. While it was untiring in warning those who were at the head of affairs in France, and in conjuring them over and over again to weigh well the immensity of the evils that would infallibly result from their separatist policy, it at the same time lavished upon France the most striking proofs of indulgent affection. It has then reason to hope that gratitude would have stayed those politicians on their downward path, and brought them at last to relinquish their designs. But all has been in vain-the attentions, good offices, and efforts of Our Predecessor and Ourself. The enemies of religion have succeeded at last in effecting by violence what they have long desired, in defiance of your rights as a Catholic nation and of the wishes of all who think rightly. At a moment of such gravity for the Church, therefore, filled with the sense of Our Apostolic responsibility, We have considered it Our duty to raise Our voice and to open Our heart to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people-to all of you whom We have ever cherished with special affection but whom We now, as is only right, love more tenderly than ever.

3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. “Between them,” he says, “there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-“Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur.” He proceeds: “Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them…. As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. — “Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere…. Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error.”  (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

As was his wont throughout his priestly life of absolute fidelity to Christ the King, Pope Saint Pius X minced no words when addressing himself to the injustice done both to God and to the nation of France itself by the law of separation. Our sainted pontiff decried the effect of French laws on marriage, family and the education, and he stated in no uncertain terms that at the separation of Church and State is a “thesis absolutely false.” Something that is false in 1906 does not become “true” at a later point by the invocation of a “hermeneutic of continuity” (or “living tradition”).

Paragraph Three of Vehementer Nos, which has been cited on these pages so many, many times in the past, makes it clear that the Roman Pontiffs “have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State.” That the conciliar “pontiffs” have embraced and promoted this falsehood is just another proof of the fact that they have not been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter as Vicars of Christ cannot teach that which has been condemned in the past.

Much unlike Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who endorsed state religious “neutrality” when he met with Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre on July 14, 1987 (see Then, Now and Always: Viva Cristo Rey!, part two and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Pope Saint Pius X explained why the law of separation was particularly unjust in France:

4. And if it is true that any Christian State does something eminently disastrous and reprehensible in separating itself from the Church, how much more deplorable is it that France, of all nations in the world, would have entered on this policy; France which has been during the course of centuries the object of such great and special predilection on the part of the Apostolic See whose fortunes and glories have ever been closely bound up with the practice of Christian virtue and respect for religion. Leo XIII had truly good reason to say: “France cannot forget that Providence has united its destiny with the Holy See by ties too strong and too old that she should ever wish to break them. And it is this union that has been the source of her real greatness and her purest glories…. To disturb this traditional union would be to deprive the nation of part of her moral force and great influence in the world.”. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

With prophetic insight, Pope Saint Pius X saw the evil consequences that befall France as a result of the law of separation:

13. Hence, mindful of Our Apostolic charge and conscious of the imperious duty incumbent upon Us of defending and preserving against all assaults the full and absolute integrity of the sacred and inviolable rights of the Church, We do, by virtue of the supreme authority which God has confided to Us, and on the grounds above set forth, reprove and condemn the law voted in France for the separation of Church and State, as deeply unjust to God whom it denies, and as laying down the principle that the Republic recognizes no cult. We reprove and condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations, and fidelity to treaties; as contrary to the Divine constitution of the Church, to her essential rights and to her liberty; as destroying justice and trampling underfoot the rights of property which the Church has acquired by many titles and, in addition, by virtue of the Concordat. We reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of this Apostolic See, to Our own person, to the Episcopacy, and to the clergy and all the Catholics of France. Therefore, We protest solemnly and with all Our strength against the introduction, the voting and the promulgation of this law, declaring that it can never be alleged against the imprescriptible rights of the Church.

14. We had to address these grave words to you, Venerable Brethren, to the people of France and of the whole Christian world, in order to make known in its true light what has been done. Deep indeed is Our distress when We look into the future and see there the evils that this law is about to bring upon a people so tenderly loved by Us. And We are still more grievously affected by the thought of the trials, sufferings and tribulations of all kinds that are to be visited on you, Venerable Brethren, and on all your clergy. Yet, in the midst of these crushing cares, We are saved from excessive affliction and discouragement when Our mind turns to Divine Providence, so rich in mercies, and to the hope, a thousand times verified, that Jesus Christ will not abandon His Church or ever deprive her of His unfailing support. We are, then, far from feeling any fear for the Church. Her strength and her stability are Divine, as the experience of ages triumphantly proves. The world knows of the endless calamities, each more terrible than the last, that have fallen upon her during this long course of time — but where all purely human institutions must inevitably have succumbed, the Church has drawn from her trials only fresh strength and richer fruitfulness. As to the persecuting laws passed against her, history teaches, even in recent times, and France itself confirms the lesson, that though forged by hatred, they are always at last wisely abrogated, when they are found to be prejudicial to the interests of the State. God grant those who are at present in power in France may soon follow the example set for them in this matter by their predecessors. God grant that they may, amid the applause of all good people, make haste to restore to religion, the source of civilization and prosperity, the honor which is due to her together with her liberty. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

This is how true popes wrote. This is how true popes governed. There was not an ounce of “diplomacy” within the episcopal soul of Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto. The farm boy from Riese, Italy, was direct and to the point. No compromise with evil. No “understanding” of the “circumstances of the moment. No “nuances.” No thought of teaching a doctrine that was “time-conditioned.” Not a hint of any assertion that the formulation of doctrines is so fraught with complexity that it can never be expressed adequately at any one time. No surrender to the supposed “impossibility” of converting men such Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro or Francois Hollande.

No, Pope Saint Pius X explained himself directly. Readers can judge for themselves that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI Jorge Mario Bergoglio have been antipopes because they are figures of Antichrist, men who have followed the paths of  their predecessors by daring to endorse and promote propositions that have been condemned by the Catholic Church and that even history itself has shown to be detrimental to men and their nations.

Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X stated in Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907, that he would leave it to history to decide how damaging the law of separation of Church and State would be to France over time:

17. The vague and ambiguous-wording of some of its articles places the end pursued by our enemies in a new light. Their object is, as we have already pointed out, the destruction of the Church and the dechristianization of France, but without people’s attending to it or even noticing it. If their enterprise had been really popular, as they pretend it to be, they would not have hesitated to pursue it with visor raised and to take the whole responsibility. But instead of assuming that responsibility, they try to clear themselves of it and deny it, and in order to succeed the better, fling it upon the Church their victim. This is the most striking of all the proofs that their evil work does not respond to the wishes of the country.

18. It is in vain that after driving Us to the cruel necessity of rejecting the laws that have been made — seeing the evils they have drawn down upon the country, and feeling the universal reprobation which, like a slow tide, is rising round them — they seek to lead public opinion astray and to make the responsibility for these evils fall upon Us. Their attempt will not succeed.

19. As for Ourselves, We have accomplished Our duty, as every other Roman Pontiff would have done. The high charge with which it has pleased Heaven to invest Us, in spite of Our unworthiness, as also the Christian faith itself, which you profess with Us, dictated to Us Our conduct. We could not have acted otherwise without trampling under foot Our conscience, without being false to the oath which We took on mounting the chair of Peter, and without violating the Catholic hierarchy, the foundation given to the Church by our Savior Jesus Christ.

We await, then, without fear, the verdict of history. History will tell how We, with Our eyes fixed immutably upon the defense of the higher rights of God, have neither wished to humiliate the civil power, nor to combat a form of government, but to safeguard the inviolable work of Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. It will say that We have defended you, Our beloved sons, with all the strength of Our great love; that what We have demanded and now demand for the Church, of which the French Church is the elder daughter and an integral part, is respect for its hierarchy and inviolability of its property and liberty; that if Our demand had been granted religious peace would not have been troubled in France, and that, the day it is listened to that peace so much desired will be restored in the country.

20. And, lastly, history will say, that if, sure beforehand of your magnanimous generosity. We have not hesitated to tell you that the hour for sacrifice had struck, it is to remind the world, in the name of the Master of all things, that men here below should feed their minds upon thoughts of a higher sort than those of the perishable contingencies of life, and that the supreme and intangible joy of the human soul on earth is that of duty supernaturally carried out, cost what it may and so God honored, served and loved, in spite of all. (Pope Saint Pius X, Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907.)

The verdict of history is clearly on the side of the great Pope Saint Pius X, and no amount of rhetorical tricks from defenders of the alleged “orthodoxy” of Joseph Ratzinger can change that verdict. Pope Saint Pius X manfully defended the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been abandoned and flushed down the Orwellian memory hole by the conciliar revolutionaries. All that Ratzinger/Benedict did from April 19, 2005, to February 28, 2013, and that Bergoglio has been doing since March 13, 2013, is to celebrate the “victory” of what they think has been “progress” in the world even though the world is collapsing all around them.

Giuseppe Cardinal Sarto said the following when he became the Patriarch of Venice in 1893,  a year before he could take canonical possession of this see:

Three days later, on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin, Cardinal Sarto addressed his first pastoral letter to the clergy of Venice; the letter was also addressed to the clergy of Mantua as a kind of pastoral last testament. Since he had many weeks to prepare it, it was not an occasional writing but a long exhortation, as well as a warning against Catholic liberalism which seemed, to the Patriarch of Venice, to be spreading more and  more at the heart of the Church. In it, the new Patriarch of Venice called priests to be united in fidelity to the Holy See: “…the Bishop alone is the guardian and interpreter of the Sovereign Pontiff’s commands, and the priests must be intimately united to the Bishop…” This unity is more indispensable than ever, because, in our days, the Church “practically at every moment has to fight to defend her liberty, her dignity and her rights.” The Church’s enemies are “the baneful sects” and “rotten materialism,” but they would not have so much success if certain people, under the cover of the glorious name of Catholic, did not come to their aid.” These “liberal Catholics” (cattolici-liberali) “dream of a kind of peace, or rather, a conciliation between light and darkness”: they stigmatize “all Catholics who think differently from them as ‘the clerical party,'” and they say that “in all things that concern the State, the civil authority ought to have the pre-eminence over the authority of the Church” and “under the pretext of liberty they permit the license of irreligion and insult.” These liberal Catholics, wrote Cardinal Sarto again, “always preach charity and prudence, as if it were charitable to let the wolf devour the lam, and as if it were a virtue to cultivate this prudence of the flesh, which God has condemned, as it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the prudence of the prudent I will thwart (1 Cor 1:19).” Liberal Catholics are “wolves in sheep’s clothing; it is more important than anything else that murky designs should be exposed to the light and denounced.” (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, pp. 87-88.)

Thus stands condemned Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “official reconciliation” with the principles “inaugurated” with the shedding of Catholic blood at the beginning of the French Revolution on July 14, 1789.

Thus stands condemned Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s attacks on the “clerical party.”

Indeed, Pope Leo XIII wrote the following about such reconciling with the principles of the revolution just ten months before he promoted the Bishop of Mantua, Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto, to be the Patriarch of Venice:

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.)

We must use the spiritual weapon that Our Lord has given us through His Most Blessed Mother to defeat the enemies of our salvation at the very gates of our soul this day and every day our lives as we lift high the standard of His Most Holy Cross, which is adorned to every Rosary of His Most Blessed Mother, as we seek to spread devotion to this paramount weapon against all sin and heresy.

The world is in the state that it is because of the infidelity of men.

We must beseech Our Lady to help us remain faithful to the point of our dying breaths, especially by beseeching her through her Most Holy Rosary and by making sure that we offer our daily penances and prayers to her Divine Son’s Most Sacred Heart through her own Immaculate Heart. She will help us to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith as we exclaim with love the great words that bespeak of our allegiance to her Divine Son, the King of our hearts, the King of the world that is now very much in the grip of those who advance evil after evil as they give professional courtesy to each other.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flexible Enough To Go To Hell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other points of view?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God is not given praise by means of formulaic prayer?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Peter Nolasco, pray for us.

Saint Agnes, pray for us.

Saint Francis de Sales, pray for us.