Archive for April, 2019

The Synagogue Of Satan

April 30th, 2019 by Vigilo

from Introibo Ad Altare Dei

One of the most overlooked and underrated popes in the history of the Church was His Holiness Pope Leo XIII (reigned 1878-1903). He had the “misfortune” (if you can call it that), to have his papacy overshadowed by both his immediate predecessor (Pope Pius IX) and his immediate successor (Pope St. Pius X). Pope Pius IX had presided over the Vatican Ecumenical Council from 1869-1870, defined the dogma of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception in 1854, and condemned many propositions in his famous Syllabus of Errors. Pope St. Pius X was the quintessential “Foe of Modernism,” and beat back the most deadly partisans of evil and error ever unleashed by Hell.

In between these two giants was Vincenzo Cardinal Pecci, an approved theologian and canonist with a double doctorate, whose brilliance was exceeded only by his piety. He was elected pope on the third ballot of the conclave after the death of Pope Pius IX. As Pope Leo XIII, he accomplished much good. The true social teaching of the Churchwas magnificently expounded upon in Leo’s famous encyclical Rerum Novarum. With Aeterni Patris, he revived Thomism and enthusiastically ordered it promoted in all Catholic universities and seminaries. His tender devotion to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary produced no less than eleven (11) encyclicals on the Rosary, and he approved the Scapular of Our Lady of Good Counsel. The ecclesiology in his encyclical Satis Cognitum is so clear, precise, and orthodox, it is (in my opinion) one of the greatest encyclicals of all time. He composed two of the prayers after Low Mass which he ordered to be instituted in 1884. Much more could be said of this illustrious pope, who was not expected to have a long reign. He was elected at the age of 68 (old for the time period), and was of slight stature, looking quite frail. Only God knows a life expectancy, and his pontificate lasted twenty-five (25) years until his death on July 20, 1903 at the age of 93. He was the last pope of the nineteenth century, as well as the first pope of the twentieth century, and his reign is the third longest behind Pope Pius IX at 32 years, and St. Peter at 34 years.

With all he did for the One True Church, Leo nevertheless did something most special, for which we all owe him a great debt of gratitude; he exposed the most wicked aims of Satan’s greatest allies–the Freemasons. To be certain, Leo was not the first pope to unambiguously condemn Freemasonry, the Church hurled anathemas against that wicked organization that plots against the Church many times before. Yet Pope Leo’s encyclical Humanum Genus, lays out the nefarious plot of Satan’s kingdom on Earth with a surgical precision one could only expect from a Vicar of Christ who was both a theologian and canonist. In this post, the truths about Masons will be set forth, as well as the most popular misconception in our day; that sacraments conferred by Masons are to be considered “dubious.”

The “Kingdom of Satan” On April 20, 1884, Pope Leo penned Humanum Genus, and compared the Masonic sect founded in 1717 to the “kingdom of Satan:”
The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, “through the envy of the devil,” separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth.The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God. (para. #1; Emphasis mine)
The pontiff goes on to tell us that the Masonic Lodge tries hard to conceal itself. Most low ranking Freemasons think they belong to a charitable organization which is a good place to play cards with the guys once a week and leave the wives at home. 
There are several organized bodies which, though differing in name, in ceremonial, in form and origin, are nevertheless so bound together by community of purpose and by the similarity of their main opinions, as to make in fact one thing with the sect of the Freemasons, which is a kind of center whence they all go forth, and whither they all return. Now, these no longer show a desire to remain concealed; for they hold their meetings in the daylight and before the public eye, and publish their own newspaper organs; and yet, when thoroughly understood, they are found still to retain the nature and the habits of secret societies. There are many things like mysteries which it is the fixed rule to hide with extreme care, not only from strangers, but from very many members, also; such as their secret and final designs, the names of the chief leaders, and certain secret and inner meetings, as well as their decisions, and the ways and means of carrying them out. This is, no doubt, the object of the manifold difference among the members as to right, office, and privilege, of the received distinction of orders and grades, and of that severe discipline which is maintained.

Candidates are generally commanded to promise – nay, with a special oath, to swear – that they will never, to any person, at any time or in any way, make known the members, the passes, or the subjects discussed. Thus, with a fraudulent external appearance, and with a style of simulation which is always the same, the Freemasons, like the Manichees of old, strive, as far as possible, to conceal themselves, and to admit no witnesses but their own members…Moreover, to be enrolled, it is necessary that the candidates promise and undertake to be thenceforward strictly obedient to their leaders and masters with the utmost submission and fidelity, and to be in readiness to do their bidding upon the slightest expression of their will; or, if disobedient, to submit to the direst penalties and death itself. As a fact, if any are judged to have betrayed the doings of the sect or to have resisted commands given, punishment is inflicted on them not infrequently, and with so much audacity and dexterity that the assassin very often escapes the detection and penalty of his crime. (para. #9; Emphasis mine)

Interestingly, while I conceal my identity to prevent any negative repercussions to my family and friends for speaking out about the Faith, John Salza, who claims to have been a 32nd degree Mason (ruling class elite), has had no major setbacks to the best of my knowledge and belief. He even goes about “exposing” Masonry and profits off the sale of his books. Am I the only one who thinks Salza may not be an “EX-Mason”?

Masonry: Founded Upon NaturalismNaturalism is the philosophy that human reason is supreme and nothing exists beyond nature; therefore there is no supernatural order. It is upon this false system that Masonry was developed. From this flows grave heresy. One consequence is the idea of separation of Church and State, the ideal in the United States, since the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution were mostly Masons and Deists (those who believe in an impersonal “god” who started the universe, but does not care about it, nor intervene in it).
 In those matters which regard religion let it be seen how the sect of the Freemasons acts, especially where it is more free to act without restraint, and then let any one judge whether in fact it does not wish to carry out the policy of the naturalists. By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result – namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited. By this means they reject from the laws and from the commonwealth the wholesome influence of the Catholic religion; and they consequently imagine that States ought to be constituted without any regard for the laws and precepts of the Church. (para. #13; Emphasis mine)
Another serious evil Naturalism engenders is Indifferentism. This is the heretical idea that one religion is as good as another (positive indifference) or the idea that one religion is just as bad as another (negative indifference). As Masons eschew the supernatural, they believe there is no true religion.
If those who are admitted as members[to the Masonic Lodge] are not commanded to abjure by any form of words the Catholic doctrines, this omission, so far from being adverse to the designs of the Freemasons, is more useful for their purposes. First, in this way they easily deceive the simple-minded and the heedless, and can induce a far greater number to become members. Again, as all who offer themselves are received whatever may be their form of religion, they thereby teach the great error of this age-that a regard for religion should be held as an indifferent matter, and that all religions are alike. This manner of reasoning is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions. (para. #16; Emphasis mine)
Masonry Seeks to Corrupt Morality and Enslave Humanity As Fyodor Dostoyevsky astutely observed, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” By banishing the supernatural order and giving people a false confidence in fallen human nature, immorality of the worst kind surely follows, just as it did in godless Communist governments. 
Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions…For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. (para. #20; Emphasis mine)
With God forsaken, and the State made secular, it will be easy to control the masses when the State takes over education and marriage.
 What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract – that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (para. #21; Emphasis mine)
Masonic Ties to Other Evils Masons are “fellow-travelers” with Socialists and Communists (as well as Modernists). 
Now, from the disturbing errors which We have described the greatest dangers to States are to be feared. For, the fear of God and reverence for divine laws being taken away, the authority of rulers despised, sedition permitted and approved, and the popular passions urged on to lawlessness, with no restraint save that of punishment, a change and overthrow of all things will necessarily follow. Yea, this change and overthrow is deliberately planned and put forward by many associations of communists and socialists; and to their undertakings the sect of Freemasons is not hostile, but greatly favors their designs, and holds in common with them their chief opinions. And if these men do not at once and everywhere endeavor to carry out their extreme views, it is not to be attributed to their teaching and their will, but to the virtue of that divine religion which cannot be destroyed; and also because the sounder part of men, refusing to be enslaved to secret societies, vigorously resist their insane attempts. (para #27; Emphasis mine)
Does Masonic Membership = Dubious Sacraments?Having shown the evil of Masonry, some wrongfully assert that if a clergyman is a Freemason (like Bugnini), the sacraments he attempts to confer must be considered dubious at best. This is because they allegedly “withhold their intention” when performing the sacraments. Having the intention to “do what the Church does” in administering the Sacraments is necessary for validity. Since Cardinal Lienart, the prelate who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest, and later consecrated him a bishop, is rumored to have been a Mason, Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders are called into doubt–and with him all the Traditionalist clergy he ordained. Assuming, ad arguendo, Lienart was a Freemason, it does nothing to impugn the validity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s orders.

I have written on this topic in depth, and I invite all interested readers who want to know the reasons Masonic membership does nothing to cast doubt on the validity of the sacraments, to read my post:

The Vatican II Sect: Promoting the Masonic Ideals of Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity The Masonic inspired French Revolution had as its motto, “Equality, Liberty, Fraternity.” It sounds good until you realized they corrupted the meaning of the words. Equality came to mean an absolute equality wherein there is no rightful authority appointed by God over men; all people being “equal” in all aspects. Liberty now meant the “right to do wrong and believe in anything.” Fraternity devolved into unity between believers and unbelievers, as God is not acknowledged. A perfect example is the heretical Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes (hereinafter GS),the “Constitution of the Church (sic) in the Modern World.” While the True Church always acknowledged the world (along with the devil and the flesh) to be Her enemies, the Vatican II sect seeks to unite itself with it. While not all Modernists are Masons, all Masons are Modernists. They were working together for the destruction of the True Church and society.

On Equality:
GS, Ch. II, para. 29: Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God’s intent. (Emphasis mine)
The True Religion cannot be given preference over false sects. That would be “discrimination.” 
On Liberty:

GS, Ch. I, para. 21: Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person.(Emphasis mine).What “fundamental rights of the person” prevents the State from making distinctions between those who profess the Truth, and those who are partisans of error?
On Fraternity:

GS, Ch. V, para. 91: Drawn from the treasures of Church teaching, the proposals of this sacred synod look to the assistance of every man of our time, whether he believes in God, or does not explicitly recognize Him. If adopted, they will promote among men a sharper insight into their full destiny, and thereby lead them to fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity, to search for a brotherhood which is universal and more deeply rooted, and to meet the urgencies of our ages with a gallant and unified effort born of love. (Emphasis mine)
Atheists, agnostics, and members of the Church can “fashion the world more to man’s surpassing dignity” and achieve “universal brotherhood” in which God is irrelevant at best. Pure Masonic poison. 
ConclusionMasonry continues to be one of the deadliest foes of God and humanity. Working with the other enemies of the Church, they engineered the creation of the Vatican II sect, a counterfeit Catholicism based on Modernism. As Pope Leo advised, we must expose these enemies, and seek the supernatural aids (which Traditionalists still possess) to combat them (e.g., Mass, sacraments, true doctrine,etc.) Many Masonic ideals are identical to the ideology of the Modernists. Naturalism seeks to banish God from society and deify humans with false and exaggerated claims of “human dignity” and “human rights.” Pope Leo XIII said it best, “About the ‘rights of man,’ as they are called, the people have heard enough; it is time they should hear of the rights of God.” (See Tametsi November 1, 1900). 

Opposing False Ecumenism With His Very Life

April 29th, 2019 by Vigilo

from Christ or Chaos

Standing quite in contrast to the false ecumenism of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is one of its fundamental “counter-marks,” if you will, of its apostate nature, is the genuine apostolic zeal for the conversion of those steeped in the heresies and errors of Protestantism that was displayed by the great saint we commemorate today, Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who was put to death this day by those wretched creatures called Calvinists in the year 1622.

Saint Fidelis was a member of the Capuchin branch of the Order of Friars Minor. As a true son of Saint Francis of Assisi, who sought the conversion of the Muslims (see Frank Rega’s Saint Francis of the Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, published by TAN Books and Publishers), Saint Fidelis was zealous for the salvation of the souls of those whose immediate ancestors had defected from the Faith and unleashed a bloody reign of terror against those who adhered to the true Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to the teaching authority and the sanctifying offices of the true Church that He Himself founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Here is an account of this faithful Catholic priest’s great zeal for souls as found in Dom Prosper Gueranger’s The Liturgical Year

Our Risen Lord would have around him a bright phalanx of martyrs. Its privileged members belong to the different centuries of the Church’s existence. Its ranks open to-day to give welcome to a brave combatant, who won his palm, not in a contest with paganism, as those did whose feasts we have thus far kept, but in defending his mother, the Church, against her own rebellious children. They were heretics that slew this day’s martyr, and the century that was honoured with this triumph as the seventeenth.

Fidelis was worthy of his beautiful name. Neither difficulty nor menace could make him fail in his duty. During his whole life, he had but the glory and service of his divine Lord in view: and when the time came for him to face the fatal danger, he did so, calmly but fearlessly, as behooved a disciple of that Jesus who went forth to meet his enemies. Honour, then, be to-day to the brave son of St. Francis ! truly he is worthy of his seraphic Patriarch, who confronted the Saracens, was a martyr in desire !

Protestantism was established and rooted by the shedding of torrents of blood; and yet Protestants count it as a great crime that, here and there, the children of the true Church made an armed resistance against them. The heresy of the sixteenth century was the cruel and untiring persecutor of men, whose only crime was their adhesion to the old faith–the faith that had civilized the world. The so-called Reformation proclaimed liberty in matters of religion, and massacred Catholics who exercised this liberty, and prayed and believed as their ancestors had done for long ages before Luther and Calvin were born. A Catholic who gives heretics credit for sincerity when they talk about religious toleration proves the he knows nothing about the past or the present. There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children. Heresy starts with an attempt to annihilate them that remain faithful; when it has grown tired of open persecution it vents its spleen in insults and calumnies; and when these do not produce the desired effect, hypocrisy comes in with its assurances of friendly forbearance. The history of Protestant Europe, during the last three centuries, confirms these statements; it also justifies us in honouring those courageous servants of God who, during that same period, have died for the ancient faith. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

Readers should take special note of this last quoted paragraph in order to be reminded of the fact that Protestantism was a bloody revolution against the truth that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ revealed and entrusted His Sacred Deposit of Faith exclusively to the Catholic Church. The Protestant Revolution was relentlesss in its bloody assault against those who refused to compromise, which is why it is an offense against Truth Himself, Our Crucified and Risen Redeemer, to make it appear that Protestantism is a legitimate expression of Christianity. It is no such thing. It is of the devil. There is no middle ground between truth and error, between Our Lord’s teaching and its corruption by heretics and schismatics.

The readings for Matins appointed for the Feast of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, the protomartyr of the Capuchin Franciscans, teaches us that he was very devoted to Our Lady and her Most Holy Rosary:

Faithful [Fidelis] was born of the respectable family of Rey in the town of Sigmaringen in Swabia, in the year of our Lord 1577. From his childhood he was adorned with many bright gifts of nature and grace. Intellectually distinguished, and assisted by all the advantages of education, he took at Fribourg the degrees of Philosophy and of Civil and Canon Law, and it was while engaged in these studies, that he began to strive after the height of perfection in the school of Christ, to which end he earnestly trained himself in all the exercises of godliness. He ceased not to exhort to Christian godliness, both by his words and works, the noblemen who made him their companion, and who were drawn from the chief families of divers parts of Europe. While on his travels, he was careful to mortify the lusts of the flesh by frequent austerities, and so to get the command of himself, that he was never seen under any circumstances to be moved to anger. He was a zealous champion of law and justice, and when he returned into Germany, he won a most distinguished name in his profession as an advocate. After a while, however, in view of the dangers which beset him at the Bar, he determined to enter on a path safer as regarded his eternal salvation, and, in obedience to an inward call from above, he sought admission into the Seraphic Order, among the Capuchin Friars Minor, in the year 1612.

After he had obtained his holy wish, he showed himself even in his noviceship a singular despiser of the world and of himself, and still more so when with great spiritual joy he had made his solemn profession to the Lord. By his observance of the Rule, he became the wonder and the example of all. He gave himself chiefly to prayer and sacred learning, but he excelled, by a remarkable grace, in the ministry of the Word, and thereby not only stirred up the Catholics to bring forth more fruit, but also drew misbelievers to the knowledge of the truth. He was set at the head of communities of Friars in divers places, and discharged the duty so laid upon him with great praise for prudence, justice, meekness, wisdom, and lowliness. He was animated by a vehement love of the strictest poverty, and cleansed the convent of whatever was not altogether needful. While he pursued himself with an healthy hatred, and most stern fastings, watchings, and scourgings, he showed to all others a love like the love of a mother for her sons. When a contagious fever made horrid ravages among the Austrian soldiers, he gave himself up with his whole soul to unwearied offices of tenderness toward the helpless sick. In allaying quarrels and relieving the temporal distress of his neighbour, he bore himself with such wisdom and zeal as to earn the name of Father of his country.

Tenderly and warmly loved the maiden Mother of God and her Rosary, and he besought God under the patronage of many of His holy servants, but especially under that of the same blessed Mother, to vouchsafe to let him offer his life and his blood together for the sake of the Catholic faith. This burning desire came upon him more and more, day by day, as he celebrated with great ardour of spirit the Holy Liturgy and by the unexpected Providence of God it came to pass that this brave He was a travelling tutor. soldier of Christ was chosen President of the Missions which the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith had at that time just founded for the Grisons. He accepted this hard task with a willing and joyful heart, and discharged it with such zeal, that many heretics were turned to the orthodox faith, and great hope was engendered that the whole of that people would return to the peace of Christ and His Church. Faithful, who was gifted with the spirit of Prophecy, often foretold the great woes which afterwards came upon the Grisons, and that he himself would be murdered by the heretics. At last, on a certain 23rd of April, some of the heretics, who pretended to be converted, entreated him to come and preach the following day at the Church of a place which is called Sevis. He complied with the treacherous invitation, but, as he knew that plots were being laid against him, he had made himself ready beforehand for the last conflict. On the 24th day of April, in the year 1622, he went to Sevis, and began to preach, but his discourse was interrupted by a riot, and on his way back, he was [met by a party of Calvinists, and) brutally murdered. By this glorious death, which he suffered with a willing and cheerful heart, he offered to God in his own blood the first-fruits of martyrdom from the above – mentioned Congregation. God hath since glorified him by many signs and wonders, especially at Coire and Feldkirchen, where his reliques are kept with much popular veneration. (Matins, The Divine Office, April 24, Feast of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen.)

The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia contains a stirring account of Saint Fidelis’s apostolic work for the conversion of the Calvinists and of his martyrdom:  

From the beginning of his apostolic career he was untiring in his efforts to convert heretics nor did he confine his efforts in this direction to thepulpit, but also used his pen. He wrote many pamphlets against Calvinism and Zwinglianism though he would never put his name to his writings. Unfortunately these publications have long been lost. Fidelis was still guardian of the community at Feldkirch when in 1621 he was appointed to undertake a mission in the country of the Grisons with the purpose of bringing back that district to the CatholicFaith. The people there had almost all gone over to Calvinism, owing partly to the ignorance of the priests and their lack of zeal. In 1614 the Bishop of Coire had requested theCapuchins to undertake missions amongst the heretics in his diocese, but it was not until 1621 that the general of the order was able to send friarsthere. In that year Father Ignatius of sergamo was commissioned with several other friars to place himself at the disposal of this bishop for missionary work, and a similar commission was given to Fidelis who however still remained guardian of Feldkirche. Before setting out on this mission Fidelis was appointed by authority of the papal nuncio to reform the Benedictinemonastery at Pfafers. He entered upon his new labours in the trueapostolic spirit. Since he first entered the order he had constantly prayed, as he confided to a fellow-friar, for two favours: one, that he might never fall into mortal sin; the other, that he might die for the Faith. In this Spirit he now set out, ready to give his life in preaching the Faith. He took with him his crucifix, Bible, Breviary, and the book of the rule of his order; for the rest, he went in absolute poverty, trusting to Divine Providence for his daily sustenance. He arrived in Mayenfeld in time for Advent and began at once preaching and catechizing; often preaching in several places the same day. His coming aroused strong opposition and he was frequently threatened and insulted. He not only preached in theCatholic churches and in the public streets, but occasionally in the conventicles of the heretics. At Zizers one of the principal centres of his activity, he held conferences with the magistrates and chief townsmen, often far into the night. They resulted in the conversion of Rudolph de Salis, the most influential man in the town, whose public recantation was followed by many conversions.  

Throughout the winter Fidelis laboured indefatigably and with such success that the heretic preachers were seriously alarmed and set themselves to inflame the people against him by representing that his mission was political rather than religious and that he was preparing the way for the subjugation of the country by the Austrians. During the Lent of 1622 he preached with especial fervour. At Easter he returned to Feldkirch to attend a chapter of the order and settle some affairs of his community. By this time the Congregation of the Propaganda had been established inRome, and Fidelis was formally constituted by the Congregation, superior of the mission in the Grisons. He had, however, a presentiment that his laborers would shortly be brought to a close by a martyr’s death. Preaching a farewell sermon at Feldkirch he said as much. On re-entering the country of the Grisons he was met everywhere with the cry: “Death to the Capuchins!” On 24 April, being then at Grusch, he made his confession and afterwards celebrated Mass and preached. Then he set out for Sevis. On the way his companions noticed that he was particularly cheerful. At Sevis he entered the church and began to preach, but was interrupted by a sudden tumult both within and without the church. Several Austriansoldiers who were guarding the doors of the church were killed and Fidelis himself was struck. A Calvinist present offered to lead him to a place of security. Fidelis thanked the man but said his life was in the hands of God. 0utside the church he was surrounded by a crowd led by the preachers who offered to save his life if he would apostatize. Fidelis replied: “I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it”, whereupon he was struck down. He was the first martyr of the Congregation of Propaganda. His body was afterwards taken to Feldkirch and buried in the church of his order, except his head and left arm, which were placed in the cathedral at Coire. He was beatified in 1729, and canonized in 1745. St. Fidelis is usually represented in art with a crucifix and with a wound in the head; his emblem is a bludgeon. His feast is kept on 24 April. (CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: StFidelis of Sigmaringen.)

I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it.”

Ah, what a contrast between Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen and the faithless ones of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who embrace heresy and the false religions of idolaters and who do not seek to extirpate these things. “God bless the Methodists, “God bless the Baptists, “…on the sacred Mount Hiei.” These are the sorts of words such as those  issued from the mouth of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and that ever being mouthed by his successor, the Argentine Apostate, not the fidelity of the faithful Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who opposed false ecumenism with his very life.

Ratzinger’s successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is constantly speaking against seeking converts to what he thinks is the Catholic Church as he reaffirms Protestants and the Orthodox and Talmudists and Mohammedans in their false religions, going so far as to reassure atheists that all who “do good” will “meet” us in some undefined “there.” (See Francis Do-Right.)

Bergoglio has been very bold in his embrace of heresy as he has attacked those who remain faithful to the teaching of the Catholic Church without making any concessions to the falsehood of conciliarism. Very bold. Exceedingly bold. His fury and his mocking scorn of believing Catholics is nothing other than diabolically inspired and driven (for a terrific post about the work of Antichrist in these times, please see Novus Ordo Watch Wire Blog.)

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.)

When one walks in God’s presence, there is this fraternity. When, instead, we are still, when we look too much to one another, there is another way … which is bad, bad!  — the way of gossip. And we begin to say, “but you, don’t you know?” “No, no, I’m not for you. I’m for this and that …” “I am for Paul,” “I am for Appollos,” “I am for Peter.” And so we begin, and so from the first moment division began in the Church. And it isn’t the Holy Spirit who creates division! He does something that is quite similar to it, but not division. It’s not the Lord Jesus who creates division! He who creates division is in fact the Envious One, the king of envy, the father of envy: the sower of darnel, Satan. He interferes in communities and creates divisions, always! From the first moment, from the first moment of Christianity, this temptation was in the Christian community. “I belong to this one,” I belong to that one.” “No! I am the Church, you are a sect.” And so the one who wins over us is him, the father of division – not the Lord Jesus who prayed for unity (John 17), he prayed! (Address to Pentecostal Community in Caserta.)

What does the Holy Spirit do? I said he does something else, which perhaps one might think is division, but it isn’t. The Holy Spirit creates “diversity” in the Church. The First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 12. He creates diversity! And this diversity is truly very rich, very beautiful. But then, the Holy Spirit himself creates unity, and so the Church is one in diversity. And, to use the word of an Evangelical whom I love very much, a “reconciled diversity” by the Holy Spirit. He creates both things: He creates the diversity of charisms and then He creates the harmony of charisms. Therefore, the early theologians of the Church, the early Fathers – I am speaking of the 3rdor 4thcentury – said: “The Holy Spirit is harmony,” because He creates this harmonious unity in diversity.

We are in the age of globalization, and we wonder what globalization is and what the unity of the Church would be: perhaps a sphere, where all points are equidistant from the center, all are equal? No! This is uniformity. And the Holy Spirit does not create uniformity! What figure can we find? We think of the polyhedron: the polyhedron is a unity, but with all different parts; each one has its peculiarity, its charism. This is unity in diversity. It is on this path that we, Christians, do what we call with the theological name of ecumenism. We try to have this diversity become more harmonized by the Holy Spirit and become unity. We seek to walk in the presence of God to be irreproachable. We seek to find the nourishment of which we are in need to find our brother. This is our way, this is our Christian beauty! I refer to what my beloved brother said at the beginning.  (Address to Pentecostal Community in Caserta.)

Here are just a few antidotes to such apostasy, the likes of which Saint Fidelis of Sigmarigen shed his blood to avoid even the appearance of giving:

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. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

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,” 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 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.)

To characterize the relation between Catholics and Protestants as ‘unity-in-diversity’ is misleading, inasmuch as it implies that essentially Catholics are one with heretics, and that their diversities are only accidental. Actually, the very opposite is the true situation. For, however near an heretical sect may seem to be to the Catholic Church in its particular beliefs, a wide gulf separates them, insofar as the divinely established means whereby the message of God is to be communicated to souls–the infallible Magisterium of the Church–is rejected by every heretical sect. By telling Protestants that they are one with us in certain beliefs, in such wise as to give the impression that we regard this unity as the predominant feature of our relation with them, we are actually misleading them regarding the true attitude of the Catholic Church toward those who do not acknowledge Her teaching authority. (Father Francis Connell, Father Connell Answers Moral Questions, published in 1959 by Catholic University of America Press, p. 11; quoted in Fathers Dominic and Francisco Radecki, CMRI, TUMULTUOUS TIMES, p. 348.)

Yes, far from representing an approach of Catholic “apologetics” that can be dismissed as determined by the historical circumstances in which the Counter-Reformation missionaries to the Protestants sought to convert heretics and schismatics to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation, the efforts of the likes of Saints Francis de Sales and Peter Canisius and Robert Bellarmine and others, such as Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, the Martyrs of Gorkum and Saint Josephat, in the Sixteenth Century and thereafter were founded in the immutable doctrine of the Catholic Church, from which no Catholic may dissent and remain a member in good standing of the Catholic Church.  

Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen did not believe in “inter-religious” dialogue. He sought with urgency the unconditional conversion of the Calvinists to the true Faith, the Catholic Faith. He did not mince words. He was entirely devoted to Our Lady. Saint Fidelis did what Catholics had done for nearly sixteen centuries before him: seek out the lost sheep while being willing to lay down his own life in behalf of their salvation in imitation of the Good Shepherd Himself, Who gave this injunction to the Eleven before He Ascended to the Father’s right hand in glory on Pentecost Sunday:  

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 28:19-20)

Saint Fidelis’s martyrdom came some eighteen and one-half months before that of Saint Josaphat Kuncevyc on November 12, 1683, at the hands of the Orthodox whose conversion he had been seeking with great urgency. Saint Fidelis’s zeal for the conversion of the Protestants came within a very short time after the apostolic work of Saint Peter Canisius, S.J., and more or less contemporaneously with that of Saint Francis de Sales, who was his senior by seven years and who died just one year before his own martyrdom. Both Saint Peter Canisius and Saint Francis de Sales sought to convert the Calvinists. Their work bore much fruit. Over 60,000 Calvinists returned to the true Faith at the preaching of Saint Francis de Sales.

The Catholic Church has never abandoned the conversion of souls for the diabolical lunacy of the “new evangelization’s” “let’s listen and learn from each other without compromising the truth or giving any impression of religious indifferentism as we all remain faithful to our respective traditions and structures” program of “inter-religious dialogue” and to exercise the “spiritual ecumenism” (inter-religious prayer) pioneered by a disciple of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., Abbe Paul Couturier, whose pioneering efforts in syncretism were praised by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II (in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995) and by recently retired “Petrine Minister,” Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in his address to Protestant and Orthodox representatives in Cologne, Germany, on Friday, August 19, 2005. As Dom Prosper Gueranger noted in his commentary on the life of Saint Fidelis:

There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children.

The Catholic Church is unchangeable! She cannot be the source of the very changeableness that has been exhibited ceaselessly by the scions of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Her official documents and statements cannot contradict anything that she has taught from time immemorial. Her children are taught to imitate the lives of her saints who were zealous for the conversion of the souls of non-Catholics. A non-martyr, Saint John Bosco, had this zeal when he was but a teenaged boy:

There were in John’s class, at the school in Chieri, several Jews who were in difficulties about their Saturday’s work. For them it was the Sabbath, when all work was forbidden. But the older boys used to laugh at them as if it were an extra vacation day. John, who saw that it was a question of conscience, used to send them a list of the work given out, with the explanations. In consequence, they vowed him an eternal friendship, and one of them, who used to frequent the restaurant where John worked, became very intimate with him. One day this young fellow, whose name was Jonas, got mixed up in a school scrape and, anxious about the consequences, came to consult his friend.

“If you were a Christian,” said John, “I should take you straight off to Confession, but that can’t be done.”

“Why not? We can go to Confession if we like.”

“Perhaps, but you have no Sacrament of Penance, no power to forgive sins, no guarantee of secrecy.”

“I will go to a Catholic priest if you like.”

“You can’t unless you are baptized and believe in Jesus Christ.”

“What would they say at home?”

“If God calls you to this, He will protect you.”

“What would you do if you were in my place?” asked the young Jew.

“I would begin to study the catechism,” said John.

The advice was taken; John prayed. Light and conviction came to Jonas, but the catechism was discovered. Irate parents took it to the Rabbi and accused John of betraying the friendship and ruining the soul of their son. Both friends had a good deal to suffer; there were even threats of violence. Jonas had to leave home, but he stood firm in his determination to become a Catholic. In the end, friends came to his assistance, the young Jew was baptized and the tumult died down. Several others followed him into the Church. (F. A. Forbes, Saint John Bosco, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, pp. 25-27.)

Catholics seek the conversion of non-Catholics, being willing to give up their lives to do so. This is not the spirit of the faithless ones who populate the levers of power in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

On this feast, therefore, may we pray our Rosary in thanksgiving for having been given such great witnesses of the Faith as Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, who was devoted to preaching of the truths of Holy Catholic Church in all of their holy purity and integrity as he gave up his very life with do what the “Petrine Ministers” of conciliarism, including the current universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, each have believed is unnecessary: the urgent conversion of non-Catholics to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

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 Fidelis of Sigmaringen, O.F.M. Cap., pray for us.

Father Joseph Collins, R.I.P.

April 27th, 2019 by Vigilo

from Novus Ordo Watch

Father Joseph Collins, R.I.P.

(October 6, 1952 – April 27, 2019)

It is with great sadness and a heavy heart that we announce the death of Fr. Joseph Francis Collins. Fr. Collins died today, April 27, at 11:54 am in Albany, New York, after a battle with cancer. For many years, he was the pastor at St. Michael Chapel & Shrine in Glenmont, New York.

Originally ordained by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, Fr. Collins had been among the sedevacantist “Nine” who were expelled from the Society of St. Pius X in April of 1983, after they had sent a letter to Abp. Lefebvre and the SSPX General Council concerning serious problems with regard to the SSPX’s theology and internal policies. The other eight priests who also signed the letter were Fathers Clarence Kelly, Donald Sanborn, Daniel Dolan, Anthony Cekada, William Jenkins, Eugene Berry, Martin Skierka, and Thomas Zapp. (The whole story of “The Nine” is told by three of the clerics involved in this free Restoration Radio broadcast.)

We thank Fr. Collins for his many years of working for the glory of God and the salvation of souls, and we pray that he will enjoy a happy eternity with God.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. May his soul and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Here are some more photos of Fr. Collins, including some from shortly before his death:

from Quidlibet

THE MULTITUDE of theological errors and evil laws that have emanated from the Vatican II popes over the past fifty years — and that is exponentially increasing during the madcap reign of Bergoglio — has prompted many traditionally-minded Catholics to seek out ways to reconcile the notion of papal authority with the obvious destruction wrought by those in our day who claimed to wield it.

Sedevacantists like myself settled on the following explanation a long time ago: the very errors and evils officially sanctioned by the Vatican II popes demonstrate that they never truly obtained papal office (or authority) in the first place, and were therefore false popes. (For an explanation, see Sedevacantism: A Quick Primer)

Others — be they Novus Ordo conservatives, neo-traditionalists within the Vatican II establishment, or traditionalists of the Recognize-and-Resist (R&R) variety — shied away from this conclusion. They sought to reconcile “recognizing” the V2 popes as true Successors of Peter with simultaneously “resisting” them — minimizing any obligation to adhere to the teachings of the V2 popes, to observe their laws, or in practice, to submit to their authority.

To achieve this end and to negate the logical appeal of sedevacantism, the conservative/neo-trad/R&R camp sought to demonstrate two things:

  1. Since ordinary papal teaching lacked the “infallible stamp” that the rare ex cathedra papal pronouncement possessed, Catholics had no obligation whatsoever to submit or adhere to it. Ergo, you’re free to ignore Bergoglio’s (or for that matter, Paul VI’s) teachings and laws. 
  2. Some popes in the past (Nicholas I, Vigilius, Honorius, Liberius, Celestine III, John XXII, Alexander VI) were heretics, but nevertheless were always recognized as true popes. Ergo, a pope can teach heresy and still remain pope — take that, wicked sedes!

This is old stuff that the “right” subjected to constant recycling, even before Bergoglio’s Laudato Sì, and it always manages to float back, like gas from the landfill. I refuted point (1) in section 1 of 9/11 for the Magisterium, as well as in the introduction to my recent article, The Errors of Athanasius Schneider. I have refuted point (2) in a variety of articles listed in section 3 of my sedevacantist primer — and in so doing, please note, I have always pointed out that it was the Protestants, the Gallicans, and other haters of papal authority who raised these charges of “papal heresy” and were roundly trounced by an array of Catholic dogmatic theologians.

For the conservative-neo-trad-R&R camp, however, the historical case that seems both to provide a refutation of sedevacantism and to demonstrate the validity of points (1) and (2) is the case of Pope Honorius. From this, we are supposed to draw by analogy a principle for a course of action vis-à-vis Bergoglio and all the Vatican II popes that will allow one to recognize them as popes, but never, ever submit to them.

I dealt with the case in my lengthy article on Bp. Schneider, but since Honorius always seems to pop up in discussions of papal authority, I’ve been asked to sum up my arguments as a separate article. 

Emperor Heraclius

1. General Background. Pope Honorius I (625–638) reigned during the great controversy over the Monothelite heresy (=Christ had only one will, the divine). Around 634, he was approached by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who was attempting to resolve the dispute and pacify all sides in order to please the emperor Heraclius. Honorius responded to Sergius with several letters dealing with the controversy. Their contents became public only after the death of Honorius, and led to his being accused, variously, of either being a heretic himself, or at least, of being soft on heresy.

In 681 the Third Council of Constantinople posthumously condemned and anathematized Honorius, together with several Monothelites, which condemnation was subsequently renewed by the Second Council of Nicaea in 787 and the Fourth Council of Constantinople in 870. The condemnation subsequently made its way into the texts of some ecclesiastical oaths, and the Roman Breviary prior to 1570 portrayed Honorius as having been condemned for heresy.

Nevertheless, despite these condemnations, the Church continued to recognize Honorius as having been a true pope and true successor (albeit perhaps weak) of St. Peter.

Thus the facts in the story of Honorius that everyone agrees upon.

P2. Disputed Facts and Interpretations. But there are countless other facts and complications in this story that church historians and theologians do not agree upon, have interpreted in different ways and, generally, have been fighting over for centuries.

These disputed issues include: whether the texts themselves of Honorius’s letters really prove he was a heretic, or merely that he was “soft” in combatting heresy; how the term “heresy” is to be understood in the various conciliar condemnations, since at the time it did not always have the precise technical meaning it has today; whether the subsequent papal approval of the conciliar acts of Third Constantinople (necessary for their legal effect), approved the condemnation of Honorius for heresy properly speaking, or only cowardice; or whether some of the documents were or contained forgeries, a common problem during the era.

Countless other uncertainties like these muddy the waters, making it difficult not only to arrive at a clear and objective historical account of the Honorius affair, but also to tease out of these complicated events correct theological consequences.

Protestants, Gallicans, rationalists and others, especially in the 19th century, had no hesitations about their conclusions, of course, and they routinely trotted out the Honorius affair as one of their main arguments against papal authority in general, and papal infallibility in particular.

Over the centuries, however, the great Catholic dogmatic theologians, including St. Robert Bellarmine, while often disagreeing among themselves over facts and the documentation in the case, refuted at great length the repeated attempts to use Honorius as a cudgel to smash traditional Catholic teaching on the authority of the pope. Their arguments were so successful that by the twentieth century, the standard dogmatic theology manuals usually treated the case of Honorius summarily, in a sentence or two, among the minor objections to the pope’s authority.

(For an overview see The Case of Honorius I, together with a link to a nineteenth century work by Fr. [later Cardinal] Louis-Nazaire Bégin.)R

3. Honorius and the Traditionalists. After Vatican II, nevertheless, traditionalist writers of the “recognize and resist” variety, such as Michael Davies and Christopher Ferrara — perhaps unaware that they were keeping some utterly disreputable theological company — tried to resurrect Honorius as a killer analogical argument against both sedevacantism (which is based on the theological teaching that a public heretic can neither obtain nor retain papal office or authority) and against the obligation to assent to ordinary papal teachingThe conclusion they wanted to be drawn was that since Honorius was a heretic and the Church still recognized him as a true pope, so too, a pope who is a heretic does not lose his office and may safely be ignored.

Nearly fifteen years ago, it took me only a few sentences to shoot down this shaky analogy in my article Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope (see #11).


4. Honorius in the Age of Bergoglio. Honorius, though, started surfacing again in conservative and neo-trad attempts to explain Bergoglio, such as Dr. Roberto di Mattei’s 2015 article Honorius I: The Controversial Case of a Heretic Pope. In these articles, wherever Catholic historians and dogmatic theologians in the past disagreed over facts, documentation, or the analyses thereof, these conservative and neo-trad polemicists always picked whichever position which seemed the most damaging to Honorius — and therefore the most favorable to their own anti-sedevacantist, ignore-the-pope position.

This is the same procedure that Bp. Schneider recently followed with Honorius, in order to push readers to the following conclusion:

“Pope Honorius I was fallible, he was wrong, he was a heretic… [The three successive ecumenical councils, despite the fact that they] excommunicated Pope Honorius I because of heresy, … did not even implicitly declare that Honorius I had lost the papacy ipso facto because of heresy. In fact, the pontificate of Pope Honorius I was considered valid even after he had supported heresy in his letters to Patriarch Sergius in 634, since he reigned after that another four years until 638.” 

I am sure that Bp. Schneider thought that this argument was really powerful and original (as, no doubt, did many of his conservative and neo-trad readers). But had he done even a bit more research, he would have discovered that the argument had already been made and summarily shot down a long time ago.

5. A Faulty Analogy. For like countless trad controversialists of the ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and ’00s, His Excellency wanted us to derive by analogy from this complex series of events two general theological principles:

  • The Honorius case demonstrates that Catholics have no obligation to assent to ordinary papal magisterium.
  • The Honorius case defeats the general principle laid down by St. Robert Bellarmine’s (and relied upon by sedevacantists) that a heretical pope automatically loses his office.

Both of these analogical arguments and the principles derived therefrom are false, simply because the common properties needed for any analogy to “work” are completely absent from these analogies.

A. Catholic historians and dogmatic theologians hotly disputed factual issues in the Honorius case (whether the letters showed he was guilty of heresy or merely soft on it, the sense of the term “heresy,” the meaning of the conciliar condemnations, etc.); this renders the factual foundation of the analogies unreliable to begin with.

Why? Because one can have no certitude whatsoever about essential common properties between the two things we are comparing: the Honorius case and Bellarmine’s loss-of-papal-office teaching.

As regards questions of fact alone, therefore, the basis for the analogy simply disappears.A

B. The disputed letters were NOT PUBLIC; and it is only PUBLIC heresy that prevents a heretic from obtaining or retaining papal office or authority.

The theologian Hurter and others say it is certain that: “the letters of Honorius were unknown [ignotae] until the death of the Pontiff and that of [the Patriarch] Sergius.” (Medulla Theologiae Dogmaticae, 360.)

This one fact alone destroys the Honorius case as an argument both against the theologians after Bellarmine and against sedevacantism, even if one were to concede that the contents of Honorius’s letters were heretical. For it is only public heresy that takes someone out of the body of Church, and in the case of the papacy, it is public heresy that prevents the heretic from obtaining or retaining papal office. Private heresy in a pope, on the other hand, has no such effect.

The existence of public heresy in a pope is the very foundation for the principle Bellarmine lays down, and it is the existence of public heresy in the Vatican II popes to which sedevacantists apply Bellarmine’s principle and draw their conclusion.

So the analogy that conservatives, neo-trads and the adepts of R&R wish to draw with Honorius is simply not apposite — or in plain English, is just plain dumb — based as it is on a phony apples-to-oranges comparison.

C. The disputed letters were not public; they may not therefore be adduced as an analogical argument against the obligation of Catholics to give “the assent of the intellect” to what the pope teaches through his authentic ordinary magisterium.

Papal letters that remain hidden and unknown throughout the course of a pontificate and only surface after a pope dies are not magisterium at all. The “teacher” (magister) was dead for fifty years — in this case, until 680 — and there was no one in the classroom.  

And in the present discussion, it is the public teachings (either by word or by deed) of the Vatican II popes that faithful Catholics object to as contrary to Catholic faith and morals — the errors and evils these men have openly and manifestly attempted to impose upon the universal Church in every part of the world. This they have done on thousands of occasions through their countless encyclicals, decrees, instructions, decrees, speeches, discourses and public acts.

So, as with the loss-of-papal-office argument, the Honorius analogy lacks yet another common property for the principle it attempts to prove.

D. The principle upon which Bellarmine and sedevacantists base their theological position is derived from the data of revelation — faith is necessary for membership in the Church — and on the face of it therefore offers a degree of theological certitude that cannot be obtained from a mere (and in this case, factually questionable) analogy.

The argument from analogy (comparing the common properties between two things) can never provide certitude, only probability. Only significant resemblances have value in an argument of this type (Bittle, Science of Correct Thinking [1950], 348), and there are none here.

For in the case of Honorius, we have clearly demonstrated that the fundamental facts of the analogy are disputed, and that the required common properties do not exist. Moreover, even assuming that the fact were true, they could still not provide an even remotely credible analogical argument against Bellarmine, sedevacantism and the teaching authority of authentic papal magisterium.

*    *    *    *    *

THUS the answer to our question: No, the Honorius affair does not refute either (1) the general obligation Catholics have to adhere to authentic papal magisterium, or (2) the principle behind sedevacantism that a public heretic cannot obtain or retain papal authority.

Thus conservatives, neo-trads and R&R followers are left with the same dilemma they have faced for fifty years: How to reconcile, on one hand, the obvious errors and evils officially taught and sanctioned by the V2 popes, and on the other, the indefectibility and infallibility of Christ’s Church, which by Our Divine Lord’s promise can give neither error nor evil. One side of the dilemma must give way, my friends — it’s either men with no authority who have defected from the faith or it’s a defected Church where Christ’s promise has become void. But for those with faith, this should be no dilemma at all.

This was written by Rev. Anthony Cekada. Posted on Wednesday, April 24, 2019, at 3:34 pm.

from Novus Ordo Watch

Jorge Bergoglio says the darndest things, most of them incompatible with Catholicism.

After the Jesuit pretend-pope gave an address to a mixed audience consisting mostly of young Novus Ordos and Lutherans on Oct. 13, 2016 in the Vatican, he engaged in a question-and-answer session with the youngsters. It was on that occasion that he pronounced one of his many condemnations of “proselytism”, telling a girl who had asked whether she should try to convert her non-religious friends: “It is not licit to convince them of your faith; proselytism is the strongest poison against the ecumenical path” (source). We covered this in a blog post at the time:

However, there was another thing Francis said during his audience with these hapless youths, something that escaped not only us but, it seems, just about everyone else too. Asked about what he likes and dislikes about the Lutheran church, he answered: “I really like the good Lutherans, the Lutherans who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ. However, I do not like lukewarm Catholics and I do not like lukewarm Lutherans” (“Pope jokes in ecumenical meeting: Who is better – Catholics or Lutherans?”Rome Reports, Oct. 13, 2016; underlining added.)

A video report by Rome Reports has captured the moment he said this and provided English subtitles. The fun begins at the 1:09 min mark:

The heresy implied in these words is so blatant that it defies belief that Francis actually said this so openly.

As far as a refutation of this outrageous Bergoglian remark goes, it shouldn’t be necessary to point out the obvious, but we might as well: There can be, and is, only true religion, one true Faith. God has revealed only one truth, one set of revealed teachings, contained in the Deposit of Faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles (see Jn 1:17; Jn 16:12-13; Heb 1:1-3), passed on through Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture (see 2 Th 2:14; 2 Tim 3:15-16). He established the Church to be the infallible and indestructible guardian of that truth, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15), “that henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive” (Eph 4:14). Any deviation from this true Gospel is necessarily a false gospel, one that leads to eternal damnation (see Gal 1:8-9; 2 Jn 1:9). Lutheranism is a set of heresies invented and/or propagated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. It is a perversion of the Gospel.

It is therefore clear that it is absolutely impossible for someone to adhere to Lutheranism and to “the true Faith of Jesus Christ” at the same time. The one excludes the other. That is not to say that there aren’t many Lutherans who are sincere in their errors, but sincerity in error is still sincerity in error — it does not change the fact that the doctrines of Lutheranism are not the teachings of Jesus Christ but “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim 4:1; cf. Heb 13:9). That many Lutherans mean to adhere to the true Faith of Jesus Christ can readily be assumed but is irrelevant with regard to the fact that they do not in fact adhere to it.

What Francis did in this ecumenical audience on Oct. 13, 2016, is confirm Lutherans in their errors (something he habitually does also with Jews and Muslims). He told them, essentially, that their heresies are the true Faith of Jesus Christ. That is a complete denial of the Catholic Faith. By contrast, Pope Leo XIII didn’t exactly share Francis’ belief that Lutheranism is just as much “the true Faith of Jesus Christ” as Catholicism is, as is evident from this Apostolic Letter to Cardinal Pietro Respighi.

Francis has long had a love affair with Lutheranism:

Thus, it is clear that what the Frankster said in that ecumenical audience regarding there being “good Lutherans” who “follow the true Faith of Jesus Christ” is not at all out of character for him.

Here is a small sampler of what real Catholic Popes have said about the only true Faith, the only true religion.

Addressing dissidents, Pope Leo XII exhorted “all of you who are still removed from the true Church and the road to salvation”, hoping they would “sincerely agree with the mother Church, outside of whose teachings there is no salvation” (Encyclical Quod Hoc Ineunte, n. 9).

Pope Pius IX condemned those who claim that “[t]he Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion” (Syllabus of Errors, n. 21) and warned against them who make no distinction “between the true religion and false ones” (Encyclical Quanta Cura, n. 3). Indeed, in his encyclical Nostis et Nobiscum, he rebuked those who try to draw Catholics into “Protestantism, which in their deceit they repeatedly declare to be only another form of the same true religion of Christ, thereby just as pleasing to God” (n. 6). That applies to Bergoglio to a tee!

Upon convoking the (First) Vatican Council, the same Pope Pius IX addressed an apostolic letter to Protestants and other non-Catholics who, “whilst they acknowledge the same Jesus Christ as the Redeemer, and glory in the name of Christian, yet do not profess the true faith of Christ, nor hold to and follow the Communion of the Catholic Church” (Apostolic Letter Iam Vos Omnes; underlining added).

Pope Leo XIII noted that “French Catholics … have the happiness of belonging to the true religion” (Encyclical Au Milieu Des Sollicitudes, n. 7) and, in another document, emphasized the exclusivity of Catholicism as the only religion revealed by God: “…the Catholic religion … is alone the true religion” (Encyclical Sapientiae Christianae, n. 34; underlining added).

Pope Pius XI, too, referred to Catholicism as “the true religion of Christ” (Encyclical Casti Connubii, n. 115). In another place he stated clearly: “The Church is indeed conscious of her divine mission to all mankind, and of the obligation which all men have to practice the one true religion…” (Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, n. 39).

Pope Pius XII called “the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church” nothing less than the “true Church of Jesus Christ” and warned that “grave errors … are being spread among those outside the true Church” (Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 13, 8).

Bergoglio is a Modernist and an an adherent of Vatican II ecclesiology, and so he considers Protestantism to be simply a different “expression” of the same Christian religion. He recently admitted that for him, Christianity is really not about adherence to doctrine, and shortly before he had proclaimed in Abu Dhabi that God positively wills the diversity of religions!

“Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true”, wrote Pope St. Pius X in his landmark encyclical Pascendi (n. 14). His successor, Pope Pius XI, condemned “that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule” (Encyclical Mortalium Animos, n. 2).

Thus we see once again the stark contrast between the true Catholic religion of the ages and the Novus Ordo counterfeit that began with the false pope John XXIII (1958-63) and has reached its present zenith in the man the world calls “Pope Francis.”

from Christ or Chaos

Most of us who were born in the first decade after the end of World War II on September 2, 1945, the Feast of Saint Stephen of Hungary (when General Douglas MacArthur accepted the surrender of the Japanese Empire) grew up at a time when cataclysmic changes were taking place in the United States of America.

Many parents of the so-called “greatest generation” that survived the Depression and “won” World War II (a victory that saw half of Europe and a good chunk of Asia imprisoned by Communism and the remnants of Christendom taken over by amoral naturalists intent on eradicating Catholicism from the fabric of once Catholic Europe) lavished their children with material pleasures and creature comforts that were unheard in the past, although the prosperity of the 1920s was certainly filled with conveniences and technological innovations that paved the way for the commercialism of the 1950s.

The pull of materialism, which has been a strong current in American thought and praxis dating back to the days of the Calvinists of colonial New England and the Anglican mercantilists of Virginia and the mid-Atlantic region, was such that the goal of most Americans, including most Catholics, became focused excessively, if not exclusively, on the pursuit of the so-called “American Dream” of the acquisition, retention and expansion of material wealth and goodies a theraison d’etre of human existence and self-identification.

Many, although far from all, Catholic parents immersed their “baby boom” children in the diversions of naturalism, including sports and amusement parks, and were content to see them “cathechized” and “entertained” by the seemingly harmless programming on network television that, although inoffensive, worked a great many themes of religious indifferentism, naturalism and even feminism. It was even the case that the “envelope” was pushed on matters of feminine attire and even personal conduct in many of those programs.

Most insipidly, though, the so-called “golden age” of television in the 1950s helped to further destroy the routine of family prayer and even family conversation as the schedules of families became centered on the schedules of network and local television station programming, which featured all manner of advertisements designed to create a “need” among children to purchase the latest toys and other novelties. Many families grew apart whose members became isolated cells living under one roof, a phenomenon that is even worse today in those homes where parents are foolish enough to provide their children with their own “social networking” devices that have proven to be even more addictive and time-consuming than was television programming in its infancy seventy years ago.

The way was thus paved for the truly revolutionary 1960s, a time in which the Judeo-Masonic forces of naturalism, preying upon the passivity that its lords had sought to produce as a result of nonstop television watching and an immersion in materialism and bread and circuses, used its “asserts,” so to speak,” to help foment a theological, liturgical, and pastoral revolution that has produced at least two full generations of young, fully grown adults who have thrown off the “shackles” of all pretense of religious adherence, especially that of the one and only true Faith, Catholicism. The end result of this revolution has been the emergence of a new form of barbarism, one that features people who have no knowledge of or interest in any religion, no less the true religion. Hedonism, a word that seems to have been lost in the past three or four decade, is rampant. Indeed, it is rampant to such an extent that sports figures and other so-called “celebrities” boast openly of the immoral pursuits. 

Unbelief is rampant among what researchers call the “millennials,” a term that demographers have coined to separate the post-baby boom generation (those born between 1965 and 1980) from those born between 1981 and 1996. The graph below, compiled by the Pew Research Center, provides empirical proof of the convergence between the forces of Judeo-Masonic Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of concilarism: 

One cannot teach what one does know, and one cannot give what one does not have. The end result of this revolution has been the emergence of a new form of barbarism, one that features people who have no knowledge of or interest in any religion, no less the true religion. Hedonism, a word that seems to have been lost in the past three or four decades, is rampant. Indeed, it is rampant to such an extent that sports figures and other so-called “celebrities” boast openly of the immoral pursuits. Yet is that the current head of the false religious sect that masquerades itself as the Catholic Church has, at various times, called sins of the flesh “the least of sins” and has talked endlessly about “accompanying” hardened sinners rather than exhorting them to quit their sins. Everything about Catholicism has been turned upside down by the conciliar revolutionaries to such an extent that those Catholics who try to adhere, despite their own sins and failings, to the true teaching of Holy Mother Church are considered “renegades” and “misfits.”

This is no accident.

This is the ultimate goal desired by the ancient enemies of Our Lord, those insidious people who infiltrated the highest quarters of the Catholic Church in the decades before the emergence of Angelo Roncalli as “Pope John XXIII” on October 28, 1959, and the beginning of what would be an eleven year period leading to the sacramentally barren liturgical rites of a counterfeit church that is the ape of the Catholic Church. As a true priest in the conciliar structures noted to me on Palm Sunday in 1985, “Tom, the Saracens themselves could not have not a better job of destruction than has been wrought in the past twenty years.”

Yes, that the rise of irreligion in our world is the direct result of the apostasies, heresies, errors, sacrileges, blasphemies, and pastoral “innovations” of the lords of conciliarism, and what passes for “religious education” in the conciliar structures has resulted in the lion’s share of two full generations of Catholics having lost any knowledge of the true Faith, including:

Belief in the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament as a matter of dogmatic truth (not that He is present in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, that is).

Belief that the Holy Mass is the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of the Our Lord’s bloody Sacrifice on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for our sins.

Belief that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Belief in a God Who punishes sin and thus of the existence of Hell for unbelievers and for those Catholics who die in a state of final impenitence.

Belief that Catholics must confess their Mortal Sins both in number and by kind.

Belief in the dogma of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception and of her Perpetual Virginity.

Belief in the efficacy of prayer to Our Lady, Saint Joseph, and all of the other saints and angels.

Belief in the Resurrection of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ from the dead on Easter Sunday.

Those who do not believe that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ rose from the dead on His own power will come to hate the true Catholic Faith and to revile those who seek to remind them of it.

Those who do not believe that there is an empty tomb in Jerusalem because Our Lord went forth from it as miraculously as He passed through Our Lady’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb on Christmas Day will come to live as pagans, seeking their “heaven” in the here and now while believing that they will still be able to enjoy their worldly pleasures in some kind of ill-defined “afterlife.”

Once again, of course, the loss of belief in Our Lord’s actual, Bodily Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday is attributable in large measure to the work of the devils posing as “cardinals” and “popes” in the false church of conciliarism that, so very sadly, is believed to be the Catholic Church, something that a 2016 post at Novus Ordo Watch makes very clear (Three Deniers of Our Lord’s Resurrection). An article of mine from ten years ago, written while still in the early stages of accepting the truth that the counterfeit church of concilairism is not the Catholic Church and that the conciliar “popes” have been false claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter, discussed the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s heretical belief of the “resurrection of persons,” not of bodies. There were those who tried to defend “their man” at the time.

Ah, their own “Pope Benedict” pulled the rug out from them by reiterating many of the same false claims in Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection. Ratzinger is now what he has always been: a Modernist by way of the “improvements” made to Modernism by the “new theology” that was condemned, much to the then Reverend Mr. Ratzinger’s disdain, it should be noted, by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.

Most of the people we encounter as we shop for food or other necessities have no clue at all about First and Last Things. Most young people today do not even know Who God is, which is why so many of them do not believe that He exists or that, if He does, He has any relevance to their daily lives, which are defined by the constant effort to fulfill material and carnal desires that are never satiated. This is because material and carnal desires can never be satiated. Those who live carnally must want more and more and more throughout their lives until they die (or, more likely, are put to death in a hospice) as unhappy as they lived.

One’s coutenance displays a great deal about the interior disposition of his immortal soul. Unhappy people are glum. They do not smile easily and they look askance, not that they know what the word askance means, that is, at anyone who does smile readily and who attempts to greet them during the course of a business transaction. Whatever “happiness” most people alive today think that they are having is fleeting, leading many into the depths of despair, alcoholism and/or drug addiction. Life is but a drudgery, and any thought of sacrifice and suffering, no less that of redemptive suffering, must be anesthetized and escaped from as quickly as possible. 

The glorious season of Paschaltide that is now upon us means nothing to most people. Daily activities were carried on as usual during Holy Week, including on Good Friday. Businesses were open and stores were filled with shoppers. The blathering blabberers of naturalism babbled on and on and on, I am sure, about the Mueller Report and the reaction to it. A full schedule of major league baseball games was played. 

Maundy Thursday?

Good Friday?

Holy Saturday?

Easter Sunday?

What’s that all about? 

What’s religion got to do with anything?

It is truly sad to see most people alive today have no interest in realizing that they are loved by the Infinite, Omnipotent, Eternal God, Who became Flesh in the Viriginal Immaculate Womb of His Most Blesssed Mother and suffered and died to win for us our eternal salvation. Empty lives here below lead people to the eternal emptiness of being deprived of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity.

Given this igorance, indifference and the lack of the utter lack of belief in Our Lord’s Resurrection on Easter Sunday that prevails in many, although not all, of the precincts of the counterfeit church of concilairism at a time when a heretofore “soft” form of totalitarianism on the part of “democratically elected” officials is being transformed into the sort of Soviet-style totalitarianism that exists in one-party states, it is useful to consider how a true Jesuit, Father Maurice Meschler, described the Resurrection of Our Lord in the sort of exacting terms that spell out the word A-N-A-T-H-E-M-A to the likes of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Walter Kasper, Gerhard Ludwig Muller, and, of course, Jorge Mario Bergolgio.

Father Meschler’s reflection consists of several distinct parts, each of which provides a vast contrast between the rationalism of the conciliar revolutionaries (and their naturalist comrades in the world) and the actual truths of the Catholic Faith. The first part deals with the truth and the reality of the Resurrection that is denied by many conciliar revolutionaries and by their like-minded heretics in various “mainstream” Protestant sects, each of which is dying as a result of their centuries-long devolution into the realms of open paganism:

We now come to the glorious life of Jesus, the brilliant reverse of His earthly life, which, in spite of the miracles and prophecies by which God’s glory was manifested in it, nevertheless bore throughout the stamp of poverty, labour, suffering and humiliation—in short, the “form of a servant.”

Christ entered upon this glorious life by three gradations. Immediately after His Death His Soul was glorified, i.e., its lower faculties also entered into the state of beatitude. In the Resurrection His Body too was glorified by being reunited to the beatified Soul. And at the Ascension His glory reached its climax and consummation.

Thus we have two periods of the glorious life to consider: the Resurrection and the glorious life on earth until the Ascension; then the Ascension and the glorious life in heaven.


The Resurrection of Christ

Mark vvi. 9. But he rising early the first day of the week appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.

The first mystery of Christ’s complete glorification is the Resurrection. In the Resurrection His entire Humanity, Body and Soul, entered into essential glory, and hence Easter is the most glorious feast of the God-Man and of all Christendom, as the Martyrology so beautifully and rightly expresses it: “The feast of feasts, the Resurrection of our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ.”

1. Truth and Reality of the Resurrection

Christ truly rose from the dead. All assure us of this: the Holy Scriptures (Mark xvi. 9), the holy angels (Matt. xxviii. 6. Luke xxiv. 6), the holy women (Mark xvi. 10, Luke xxiv. 9, 22. John xx. 18), and the Apostles (Luke xxiv. 34), who doubted at first, but were afterwards convinced of the fact and preached their testimony of the Resurrection throughout the world. Indeed, the whole system of Christianity bears witness to the Resurrection: its very essence and stability stand and fall with this truth (1 Cor. xv. 14).

And Christ was bound to rise from the dead (Luke xxiv. 46.). This had been prophesied of Him (Ps. xv. 10. Acts ii. 31) and proclaimed in His types, Isaac (Hebr. xi. 19) and especially Jonas. Christ Himself had often and solemnly predicted it to His Apostles (Matt xv. 22; xx. 19. Mark ix. 30; x. 34. Luke xviiii. 33) and even to the Jews; at first mysteriously(John ii. 19 and then quite plainly. He repeatedly refers to the miracle of Jonas as a sign of in confirmation of His mission, His Messianic office, and His Divinity (Matt. xv. 4. Luke xi. 29). So the Jews themselves awaited the third day after His Death in eager suspense (Matt. xxvii. 63). All eyes were directed to this Sepulchre. If He did not rise again, all was over with Him—with His Person, His plans, and His work. This last failure would truly be worse for Him than anything. Thus it behoved Christ to rise from the dead, and He has risen in truth. “Surrexit Dominus vere, alleluia . . . Scimu Christum surrexise a mortuis vere” (Missal). . (Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Volume II, Freiburg Im Breisgau 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, pp. 519-520.)

To deny the actual fact of Our Lord’s Bodily Resurrection is to make Him, the God-Man, into a liar, a blasphemy that matters not to those who believe themselves to have a “mission” to “correct” all that has been taught by the Catholic Church under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost from time immemorial.

Father Meschler then described the aspects and circumstances of Our Lord’s Resurrection.

2. Nature and Attendant Circumstances of the Resurrection

The essence of the resurrection consists in the reunion of the body and the soul to a glorified life. The transfigured soul reanimates the body; but the result of this reanimation is no longer an earthly life, but an entirely new and marvelous one. The body is now not merely a perfectly pliable instrument, which opposes no further resistance and obstruction to the action of the soul; it is also a glorious instrument on a par with the soul which it supports and to which it offers undreamed-of sources  of knowledge, joy, and power. For without ceasing to be a body it assumes spiritual qualities, the attributes of glorified bodies. They are these: First, immortality, which is completely impassability and a complete independence with regard to life, youth, and strength of exterior conditions and influences, such as food and sleep; secondly, clarity, which consists in radiant beauty and glory; thirdly, freedom, which excludes and overcomes everything difficult or base; lastly, agility, subtlety, and fullness of power, which knows no restrictions of matter, time, or distance. In consequence of these attributes a glorified body is a most wonderful thing, a masterpiece of God’s wisdom and power (1. Cor. xv. 26, 38 seq.).

So Christ rise again. After He had laid aside all the consequences of this early life, which is burdened with the curse of sin (Rom. vi. 10). He walked in this newness of life (Rom. vi. 4), as a Body of glory (Phil. iii. 21) which displayed the whole plenitude and magnificence of this glorious life. For He is the “first fruit” (1 Cor. xv. 20), the “first-born from the dead,” the Author and Model of all the glorified (Col. i. 18), and the true Son of God, Who merited for Himself the crown of glory and honour by His suffering and Death (Hebr. ii. 9). The servile form has disappeared, and the Divinity now shines forth through the glorified Body, so that the Father can say as at the eternal generation: “Thou art My Son this day have I begotten Thee. As of Me, and I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for Thy possession” (Ps. ii. 7 seq.). Who can comprehend the floods of joy and rapture that now pour into the Soul of the God-Man through the transfigured senses of this glorious Body, and flow together into His Sacred Heart? His glorified Humanity receives a vast kingdom of honour, power, and joy, diffuses it again on all sides in streams of light, beatitude and strength. He now reigns in truth. In the agility, power, and freedom of His glorified existence no point of His kingdom I remote from Him, and His screptre reaches to the utmost boundaries of His vast dominion. The holy women who come to Him are the harbingers of millions of adorers; for in place of one nation which has rejected Him all the nations of the earth will be His portion. From His grave the angels proclaim His Resurrection and send the soldiers as heralds of it into the city, which, in the midst of her victory, trembles before the Risen Lord. And what sets the seal of perfection upon all His happiness and glory is its immutability, permanence, and eternity. “Christ rising again form the dead dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over Him” (Rom. vi. 9). The bright and beautiful day of a blissful eternity has risen for the God-Man, and it will never wane nor set.

Such is the essence of the Resurrection. Its attendant circumstances were as follows: Fist, it took places three days after Christ’s Death. Three days sufficed for a valid proof of His real Death; there was no reason for a longer period.

Secondly, the Resurrection took place unseen. No mortal eye looked on; it was beheld with exultant joy only by eternity and the choirs of angels and patriarchs. Of the latter some shared in this glorious Resurrection, either temporarily or permanently. As the God-Man had once gone forth at midnight from the virginal womb of His Mother without violating its integrity, so His glorious Humanity now made its exist from the shade of the Sepulchre without breaking its seals, and unnoticed by men. The result of the Resurrection was a life that no longer belonged to this world.

Thirdly, the Resurrection was accomplished by Christ’s own divine power. The raising of the dead is exclusively the work of divine omnipotence. This omnipotence originates in the Father, and therefore we are told that the Father raised up Jesus from the dead (Rom. viii. 11), and that He lives by the power and the glory of the Father (1. Cor. vi. 14. Rom. vi. 4 But in virtue of the eternal generation the Son likewise possesses this omnipotence, and so the Resurrection is also the work of His own divine power. And since the latter operates independently of time and means, it (the Resurrection) was accomplished in a moment, as will be the case with us also (1 Cor. xv. 52). This self-resuscitation is a peculiar glory of the Resurrection of Christ. The God-Man resumes His life, as He had laid it down, of His own free volition (John ii. 19; x. 18).  (Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Volume II, Freiburg Im Breisgau 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, pp. 520-523.)

I don’t know about you out there in cyberspace. Father Maurice Meschler described the nature and the circumstances of Our Lord’s Resurrection with Catholic truth, not with the obfuscation and double-talk of the Modernists condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, which has been employed as the basis of Scriptural exegesis, catechesis, and homiletics for over a half century now.

Indeed, quite similar to the fairy tale told by Gerhard Ludwig Muller, who is the official archivist of the heretical works of “Pope Benedict XVI” and who was the prefect of the misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since July 1, 2012, a presbyter in the conciliar structures told the story during a weekday staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service of how one of his seminary professors said that a video camera would have filmed nothing on Easter Sunday. Similarly, a notorious heretic, a true priest, in the same diocese adamantly claimed to a Catholic woman after she had questioned him about Our Lord’s Resurrection as he was packing up his briefcase following a heretical reflection, “He did not rise! He did not rise!”

Our Lord did rise from the dead, and those in the conciliar structures who deceive the Catholic faithful on this point are headed for eternal perdition if they do not repent of their errors and abjure them publicly before they die.

Modernists must always make “foggy” and “complex” what is clear and simple, something that eats away at their pride and their alleged “scholarship,” which is nothing other than sophism.

The world as we know it is founded on a web of lies, the chief of which being that it that the Incarnation, Nativity, Hidden Years, Public Life and Ministry, and Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ are matters of complete indifference having no bearing on either personal or social order.

Father Meschler’s description of the significance of Our Lord’s Resurrection is thus an important antidote to the web of lies that the Modernists and  naturalist pals, whether of the false opposites of the “left” or of the “right,” keep telling to themselves and the general public:

3. Significance of the Resurrection

The great significance of the Resurrection consists in its being the crown of the life and work of Christ and the completion of the Redemption, and this in three respects.

The first aim of Christ’s ministry was to prove His true Divinity, in order that we might be justified by faith. His teaching and miracles had this for their immediate object. But there was still a link wanting in the chain of this great proof—the most important link of all, viz. His Resurrection. Our Saviour Himself had held out the prospect of it to the Jews as His principal miracle and the most irrefutable proof of His Divinity. Now He works this miracle, and it is in very deed far greater than any other that His foes could have demanded of heaven (Mark viii. 11), because it is wrought upon His own Body and life. So the Resurrection is the last and supreme proof of His Divinity. All other miracles rest upon this and receive from it their confirmation. Thus the glory of the Resurrection is reflected back upon the whole life and work of Jesus, surrounding it with a halo of radiant brightness.

The second object of Christ’s ministry was our deliverance from the tyranny of Satan. With three mighty forces—the power of the passions, sin, and death—the prince of darkness had subjugated the human race to his sway, and robbed men of all God’s gifts—peace, grace, and the immortality of the body. Our Saviour had already overcome the two first of these, the power of the passions and sin, by the example of virtue He set us throughout His life, by His Passion and Death, and by the grace that He thereby merited for us. It only remained for Him to vanquish the last enemy, Death. This He does now by His Resurrection, conquering this foe in his own securest stronghold, the grave (1 Cr. Xv. 26 55 seq.). As Samson lifted and carried away the gates of the city where he was imprisoned, so our Lord unhinged the terrible bolts and gates of death and bore them off in a triumph, thus opening the prison of eternal death, that we might all escape (Judg. xvi. 3). By His Resurrection He has vanquished death for us, and our resurrection is now as certain as His (1 Cor.  xv.). The fearsome grave, the death of all earthly hope, has become the place of life, and the garden around it is the new Paradise in which the Risen Saviour offers to mankind the gift of immortality. Thus the Resurrection is a new victory of the Redemption, a great and glorious victory, complete and universal, because it has been won for us all.

Thirdy, the Resurrection is the crown and perfection of the life and work of the God-Man, because it is His essential glorification, the entrance into His kingdom and the beginning of the glorious life that was due to Him from the first as the Son of God, and which was also the prize and reward of His suffering life. This divine life was in reality the destined end of the God-Man; the Passion was only a transition period and a preparation for the life of glory. And now He has entered upon this glory; for in His Resurrection He did not return to His former passible life, but began a new and most glorious one, truly immortal and divine. This glorious life is the type, pledge, and cause of the glorious life that is in store for us. With it the Redemption is consummated. Thus the Resurrection of Christ is the completion of the Redemption and of His entire work as God-Man. Everything is now accomplished. All foes are defeated, all possessions and blessings are recovered; all God’s plans for the human race are re-established—nay, infinitely furthered. Now all is peace—a blessed and eternal peace! Now there is nothing to be done but to enjoy and use what He has won. . (Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Volume II, Freiburg Im Breisgau 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, pp. 523-525.)

We are not to fear anything that the combined forces of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of concilairism propose to do to us. This is the time of chastisement. Those who profess the true Catholic Faith, those who call sin by its proper name, those who seek to do penance for their sins—and, yes, even those who even make the Sign of the Cross in public will be charged with “hate crimes” before too very long. It is only a matter of time, and the “laboratories” of various state governments in the United States of America are already making sure that there will be no dissent from the public celebration of sin and error as such dissent is “hateful” and “bigoted,” before this persecution receives the full and open sanction of the Supreme Court of the United States of America and possibly of Congress itself.

In the midst of these terrible times, though, we must proclaim our joy in the knowledge of the actual fact of Our Lord’s Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday, a joy that no petty potentate of the “left” or of the “right” can take away from us even if we are imprisoned, beaten, tortured, water-boarded, and executed. If God be with us, Who can be against us? We cannot live in fear. We must manifest our confidence in the truths of the Holy Faith.

Father Meschler made this clear in his section on the conclusion to be drawn from the mystery of the Resurrection:

4. Conclusion to be Drawn From the Mystery of the Resurrection

The first fruit of the mystery is joy. Alleluia is the watchword, the cry of supreme and everlasting peace (Tob. xii. 22. Apoc. xix 1). All rejoice; Heaven rejoices; the angels appear clad in the white garments of joy, and bid men rejoice; our Saviour, the Apostles and the whole Church rejoice. “In resurrectione tua, Christe, coeli et terra laetentur!” (Roman Breviary.) And who would not rejoice, both for our Saviour’s sake and our own? Let us rejoice, then, and congratulate Him with all our hearts on His day of triumph. How well has He earned it! The ear that saw such evil days; the ear that heard so much contradiction and mockery, and so many blasphemies; the heart that broke with fear, grief, and the terrible anguish of death—how different everything has become! “Ru Rex gloriae, Christe, tu Patris sempiternus es Filius” (Te Deum). “Jesu dulcis memoria.”) Let us unite ourselves in spirit with all the thanksgivings, praises, and expressions of joy of heaven and earth; for this is truly “the day which the Lord hath made. Let us be glad and rejoice therein.” (Ps. cxvii. 24).

The second lesson of this mystery is love for our Divine Saviour. Every reason urges it. In the first place, we see here how great a Master we have in Him, glorious, immortal, powerful, and gracious beyond all measure. It is this very mystery which shows us what a sacrifice He made for us in renouncing His glory for so long. Moreover His glory is our glory, His Resurrection our resurrection. He cannot forget us; He obtains everything for us, and shares everything with us.

The third lesson is hope, courage, and confidence! What have we to fear, now that we no longer need to fear death? “Surrexit Christus, spes mea!” (Missal.) “I am the Resurrection and the Life; he that believeth in Me . . . shall not die for ever (John xi. 26). Christ is immortal; everything about Him and everything that is united to Him is immortal—His doctrine, His Church, His elect and their thoughts, words, sufferings, and death. We Christians cannot be conquered by death. The Holy Sepulchre is the proof of it. Where is the stone? Where are the guards, the seals? Where is death? Let those who do not believe in Christ fear and despair! We hope and exult! “Thanks be to God, who hath given us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. xv. 57). How sorely to be pitied are His enemies and adversaries! Let us pray for them, that they too may become participators in His joy and peace. “Tu nobis, victor Rex, miserere, Amen.” (Missal. Alleluia! Agnus Dei, qui tollis peccata mundi, dona nobis pacem.”—Love, joy, and courage—these are set before us to-day with the “newness of life” to which Christ’s Resurrection calls us (Rom. vi. 4).

For reading and meditation: “Victimae Paschali” (Missal); “Te Deum;” Ps. ii. cxvii. cxxxviii. . (Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Volume II, Freiburg Im Breisgau 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, pp. 525-526.)

Yes, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s doctrine is immortal. It is not subject to reinvention by Modernists or to the same sort of outright denial exhibited by the Jews during Our Lord’s life here on earth and in the immediate aftermath of His Resurrection. Our joy, our hope, and our confidence in Our Lord’s Easter victory over the power of sin and eternal death must be absolutely unflagging without, of course, presuming that we are saved. We have confidence without presumption. We are Catholics, which means that the fear of the forces of this world can have no part in our interior lives. We need to fear only displeasing God by means of Mortal Sin and of dying in its unholy persistence.

Father Meschler explained how the Jews, whose Talmudic descendants today continue to spread the lies that they paid the Roman soldiers who guarded Our Lord’s tomb to tell, knew that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had risen from the dead but remained obstinate in their refusal to yield unto Him. They paid the price for this obstinacy with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. by the Romans and their dispersal to the far quarters of the earth:

The Glorious Life from the Resurrection to the Ascension. Aim and Signification of this Life.

The object of this intermediate sojourn on earth was two-fold. First, the revelation of this truth and nature of the Resurrection; to prove that our Saviour was truly risen, and to a glorious life. And in all likelihood He also intended to show us what awaits our body after this life—Secondly, the completion of the organization of the Church, in which many very important points were still wanting. All our Saviour’s appearances after His resurrection are made in pursuit after His Resurrection are made in pursuit of these end; sometimes of the former sometimes of the latter, sometimes of both together.

The necessity of this revelation of the Resurrection lies in the extraordinary importance of this fact for the life-work of Jesus, for whole Church, and indeed for the whole world. It is the foundation of all religion. That is why it is written that Christ “was delivered up for our sins rose again for our justification: (Rom. iv. 25), i.e. for the confirmation of the faith, hope, and charity by which we are justified. So the Resurrection must of necessity in some way be proclaimed and made manifest.

As for the manner of this proclamation, it was not to take place through Christ Himself, by His rising again in presence of all the people. The life of Resurrection is quite a new and extraordinary life, and does belong to this world, but to the kingdom of glory. It was therefore advisable that the revelation should be made by means of intermediary agents and in ways appointed by God alone.

And by whom, then, was it made. First by angels, who are always the connecting links between this world and the world beyond, and whom God employs to reveal His eternal decrees, as was the case with the mystery of the Incarnation at the Annunciation and Nativity of Christ. This service by angels also gave proof of Christ’s supremacy and power. Probably the Saints whose bodies were now resuscitated and also appeared to many people in the city, were also charged to make known the fact of His Resurrection (Matt. xvii 52 53).

And to whom was the revelation made? Not to all the people, but to the “witnesses preordained by God” (Acts x. 41; xiii. 30 seq. 1. Cor. xv. 5), the Apostles. After His Resurrection, Christ no longer held personal intercourse with the people. They are now referred to the Apostles. It is better so for their faith and for their submission to the Church in its established form. The Revelation of the Resurrection to Christ’s Enemies

1. Why Christ Reveals His Resurrection to His Enemies

Christ reveals His Resurrection to His enemies, in the first place that He may be true to His word. He had held out the sure prospect of it to them, as well as to His Apostles, and so they too were to receive certain tidings of it.

Secondly, He did this out of goodness and mercy. The great miracle of the Resurrection was to remove the last pretext for their obdurate unbelief.

Lastly, He did it in pursuit of a plan of His wisdom, according to which the measures they had already taken to frustrate the Resurrection, as well as those they were about to take in order to deprive it of credence, should become the most brilliant testimony in its favour and also bear witness to the holiness of Jesus and their own wickedness.

2. How Christ Reveals His Resurrection to His Enemies

Our Lord first reveals His Resurrection to the soldiers on guard, through an angel, and with every token of terrific power. The angel descends like a flash of lightning, the earth trembles and quakes; he rolls away the stone and seats himself quietly and majestically upon it, in the midst of the soldiers in the antechamber of the Sepulchre, so that they could convince themselves that it was empty, if they liked (Matt. xxviii. 2 3). The angels meet those who oppose violence to Christ with terrific and overwhelming power.

As for His enemies in the city, the chief priests, our Saviour reveals His Resurrection to them through the guards. Half-dead with terror, the soldiers fled. Some of them ran at once into the city and told the chief priests, under whose order Pilate had placed them, what happened (Matt. xxviii. 4 11). These witnesses are quite unimpeachable, partly on account of their calling and office and because they were in no way implicated in the matter, and partly because they must have been more inclined to speak in accordance with Pilate’s and the chief priests’ wishes than otherwise. And nevertheless they acknowledge the true facts of the occurrence. Thus the chief priests receive the official information of the Resurrection against their will, and through the very guards they had posted to prevent any fraud.

3. With What Result Christ Reveals His Resurrection to His Enemies

The chief priests take counsel with the ancients (Matt. xxviii. 12); and their decision is therefore an official one. Instead of yielding, as they had promised to do (Matt. xxvii. 42), or of explaining away the whole occurrence by ascribing it to sorcery, against which even armed force was powerless, they evidently acknowledge it to be a fact; but in order to get out of the dilemma they induce the soldiers to tell a lie, bribe them with a large sum of money (Matt. xxviii. 13 14), and promise to secure them against punishment even from Pilate. They were to say that the disciples had taken away the Body whilst they slept. Under these circumstances Pilate might well feel little indication to make an ado about the matter, in his own interest as well as in that of the soldiers and Jews. He had enough on his conscience. This measure of the chief priests was not simple unbelief, but the basest dishonesty. Every word is a crime and a fatal snare for themselves, as St. Augustine demonstrates (“In Ps. lxiii. Mentita est iniquitas sibi, Ps.xxvi. 12”). By their lies they bring themselves into a dilemma, and win shame and hell as their portion. And yet, although their tissue of lies came to light, the tradition that the disciples took away the Body remained prevalent among the Jews, as St. Matthew tells us (xxiii. 15).—We may here notice in passing the role that money plays in our Saivour’s destiny; it is always that of iniquity and injustice (Luke xvi. 9 11).

With this act of dishonesty, the Great Council disappears from the Gospels. It has throughout perseveringly played the part of the impious State, in league with the temporal power of the day; first, in pursuit of its object, viz. to stand its ground against God and the truth; secondly in the employment of means to this end, viz. bribery, lying, official manipulation of seals, confiscation, and suppression by brute force; and thirdly in the result of all this which is nothing else than defeat and destruction in shame and terror. And this was the actually the fate of the Jewish State for a few years later. “The truth of the Lord remaineth for ever” (Ps. cxvi. 2).

On the other hand, how glorious is our Saviour in His all-merciful goodness! He thinks of His unhappy persecutors, and sends them angels to instruct and embarrassments to warn them. And then in His supremacy and power! H does not show Himself to His foes again, nor ask them to bear witness to His Resurrection. He lives—above them and among them. He shows Himself everywhere, and everywhere witnesses are loudly preaching His Resurrection. What a terrible thought for his foes! Oh that the mighty one of this world might at learn “learn where is wisdom, where is strength, where is understanding,” and “know also where is length of days and life, which is the light of the eyes and peace!” (Bar. iii. 14). Where else than with God? How significant, in light of this mystery, is the Office of Easter-week, in which we find depicted on the one hand the indestructible beauty of the Just One, and on the other the vain and future efforts of His foes, and their miserable defeat and destruction. (Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Volume II, Freiburg Im Breisgau 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, pp. 526-530.)

Father Meschler described the state of politics in the United States of America, practiced by men and women who make their obeisance to the Talmudic descendants of the chief Jewish priests of Our Lord’s time by pledging their fealty to the government of a murderous, anti-Christian regime, the State of Israel, when speaking before the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee. Indeed, one candidate in 2016, our current and much-besieged president who suffers from many self-inflicted wounds that arise from his ignorance of embracing the cross and of enduring injustice as Our Lord showed us during His Passion and Death, even boasted that his daughter, who practices the diabolical Kabbalism, was about to have a “beautiful Jewish baby” (see  Trump Remarks at AIPAC) while another candidate three years ago, a baptized Catholic whose father turned him in a fire-breathing Baptist apostate, considers support for a state whose creation was opposed by Pope Saint Pius X when he spoke to the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, on January 25, 1904, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostles, as a test of one’s “fidelity” to the interests of the United States of America, which he believes are synonymous with those of Israel, starting off by saying “God bless AIPAC” (see Rafael Edward Cruz Obeisance at AIPAC).

The world is indeed built on a fabric of anti-Incarnational lies, and yet it is that even Catholics believe that God will grant a respite to nations built on those lies, which have mutated to the point of being the means of the self-annihilation of those very nations. I mean, what part of “Without Me you can do nothing” (John 15: 5) is hard to understand or to accept?

In the midst of the lies told by the naturalists of Modernity and the rationalists of Modernism, we must always have recourse to the fairest flower of our race, the Blessed Virgin Mary, to whom Our Lord appeared first (an apparition that was recounted from the New English Edition of The Mystical City of God in). Father Meschler described the reason why Our Lord appeared to His Most Blessed Mother first and how it affects us today:

3. What Results for Us From Our Saviour’s Appearance to His Mother

In the first place, let us rejoice in Our Lady’s joy and congratulate her with all our hearts; for she has well deserved it is of us.—Secondly, we see how we can too can attain to true Easter joy, viz. by always following our Lord faithfully and generously wherever He goes.—Thirdly, let us learn wherein true Easter joy consists and how we must manifest it. In this Mary is our model. The object of our joy must be our Saviour and spiritual things; the manner of it must be quiet and interior, in prayer and recollection; and lastly it must be noble and unselfish, not excluding others.—All this finds a beautiful expression in the Easter anthem, which we may here briefly consider, in order to recite it well. Regina coeli, laetare, Alleulia! She is now no longer the Mother of Sorrows, but the Queen of heaven, i.e. of honour, power, and joy. To be the Mother of God is now a joy. Quia, quem meruisti portare, Alleluia! Al the joy of the Easter feast is peculiarly her own. She is the Mother of the Risen Saviour. She gave Him birth and bore all His sorrows and sufferings with Him till His Death. Resurrexit sicut dixt, Alleluia! O joy! By His Resurrection thy Son has confirmed everything: His doctrine, His word, and His Divinity. All is gloriously consummated. All is gloriously consummated. Ora pro nobis Deum, Alleulia! Pray for us, as thou then didst for the Apostles and the whole Church. Obtain for Christ’s kingdom by thy glorious intercession an increase of faith, hope, and love, and for the whole world participation in the true Easter joy in Christ, here below and in a blissful eternity. (Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Volume II, Freiburg Im Breisgau 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, p. 533.)

This is the season of Easter joy, a joy which we must make manifest to the unbelieving world in which we live, a joy that no man can take from us, a joy that transcends the petty men of naturalism and the forgettable revolutionaries of conciliarism who will be but footnotes in the annals of salvation history once the final battle takes place.

It is Easter!

Let us celebrate with true joy as we keep close to Our Lord by meditating upon the Glorious Mysteries of His Most Blessed Mother’s Most Holy Rosary, which is the weapon that we must use to console the good God and to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world, a world that is in a mess today because it does not now the joy of the Crucified and Resurrected Christ the King nor that of having such a Blessed Mother to help us in our every need, whether spiritual and temporal.

Let must make manifest Easter joy in the midst of an unbelieving world, and we must be ever grateful to Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother for the imcomparable, unmerited gift of the Catholic Faith, which makes it possible for us to be sharers of an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise.


Christ is Risen!


Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, Triumph soon!

Our Lady of the 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.

Saints Soter and Caius (whose feasts are impeded this year), pray for us.