Procinctu Press | THE BLOG

The Doctor Of The Vatican II Sect

from Introibo Ad Altare Dei

My spiritual father, Fr. Gommar A. DePauw, JCD, used to tell me, “The Jesuits are always good for a laugh or a heresy. Usually both.” I couldn’t help but think of his truthful quip when it was brought to my attention that there is an online petition to “Pope” Francis, asking him to declare the vile heretic Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ as a “Doctor of the Church.” (See Who is Teilhard de Chardin? This post will expose his life and works which his admirers are trying to obscure and thereby paint the (demonstrably false) picture of a man hailed as “priest, geologist, paleontologist, philosopher, theologian, and mystic, [who] was both a distinguished scientist and one of the most influential and visionary thinkers that the Catholic Church produced in the twentieth century.” (Ibid).  Most people have probably never heard of Teilhard (1881-1955) or the destruction which he brought to the Church and the world at large.

His Early LifePierre Teilhard de Chardin was born in south central France on May 1, 1881, and was educated at the Jesuit College at Mongre; he joined the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1899. Teilhard continued philosophy and seminary education from 1901-05. This was followed by a three-year sojourn to Cairo, Egypt, where he taught physics and chemistry at a Jesuit school and developed his interest in paleontology. He went to England in 1908, studied theology, and was ordained to the priesthood in 1911 at the age of 30. He returned to Paris and studied paleontology thereby earning a doctorate in 1922.

Two men influenced Teilhard in his priestly formation:

  • Fr. George Tyrell, one of the most vociferous Modernists of the era. He denied the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. He was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X in 1908, and died unrepentant
  • Henri Bergson, a French Jew and philosopher whose theories on science and evolution fascinated young Teilhard

Teilhard de Chardin had fully bought into Modernism, and he set about to create a “new, improved Christianity.” In his own words:
“As you already know, what dominates my interest and my preoccupations is the effort to establish in myself and to spread around a new religion (you may call it a better Christianity) in which the personal God ceases to be the great Neolithic proprietor of former times, in order to become the soul of the world; our religious and cultural stage calls for this.” (Trojan Horse in the City of God, 1967, p. 239; Emphasis mine). 
Teilhard: Forger and Pantheist Teilhard’s fervor to prove radical evolution knew no bounds. He was involved in the Piltdown Man hoax. In 1912, Charles Dawson (an amateur “archaeologist”) claimed he had found a “human-like” skull that he proclaimed the “missing link” in evolution. He was assisted at the dig by none other than Teilhard (among others). De Chardin boldly proclaimed his “missing link” as proof of his ideas. In November 1953, Time magazine published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species. It consisted of a human skull of medieval age, the 500-year-old lower jaw of an orangutan and chimpanzee fossil teeth. Someone had created the appearance of age by staining the bones with an iron solution and chromic acid. Microscopic examination revealed file-marks on the teeth, and it was deduced from this that someone had modified the teeth to a shape more suited to a human diet. (See,9171,823171,00.html).

Teilhard’s philosophy transformed the universe from a place in which we exist to a place that, through evolution, exists with us. Evolution, for Teilhard, is the hermeneutic key for understanding the place of Christ within the vast cosmos. Teilhard saw everything moving towards perfection—which he called the Omega Point—as a movement toward God that was simultaneously physical and spiritual. He called the transformation divinization, and saw humanity as currently passing through an evolutionary-spiritual dimension he termed the Noosphere, so that we can enter the final stages of the Pneumatosphere and become one with God.

It’s not difficult to see how his ideas are akin to pagan Hindu pantheism with evolution thrown in the mix. Moreover, what do these fancy sounding words and phrases (Omega point, Noosphere, etc.) mean? They were simply made up by Teilhard (like Piltdown Man) to justify his heterodox ideas and make them sound “profound.” In Teilhard’s own blasphemous words, “Christ saves. But must we not hasten to add that Christ, too, is saved by evolution?” (See Le Christique, [1955])

For a priest, he spent a most of his time going on excavations and writing his theology/philosophy books. When he was a missionary in China, he never made a single convert, and he almost never offered the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Teilhard: Eugenicist and HereticSome of  Teilhard’s  writings suggest he was a racist, who believed the Chinese were “sub-human.”
Here’s a sample from his writing:Do the yellows—[the Chinese]—have the same human value as the whites? [Fr.] Licent and many missionaries say that their present inferiority is due to their long history of Paganism. I’m afraid that this is only a ‘declaration of pastors.’ Instead, the cause seems to be the natural racial foundation…Christian love overcomes all inequalities, but it does not deny them.
No humane hopes for an organized society must cause us to forget that the human stratum may not be homogeneous. If it were not, it would be necessary to find for the Chinese, as for the Negroes, their special function, which may not (by biological impossibility) be that of the whites. (April 6, 1927 letter–pure racism)
The philosophical or ‘supernatural’ unity of human nature has nothing to do with the equality of races in what concerns their physical capacities to contribute to the building of the world.…As not all ethnic groups have the same value, they must be dominated, which does not mean they must be despised—quite the reverse…In other words, at one and the same time there should be official recognition of: (1) the primacy/priority of the earth over nations; (2) the inequality of peoples and races. Now the second point is currently reviled by Communism…and the Church, and the first point is similarly reviled by the Fascist systems (and, of course, by less gifted peoples!). (See Philosophy and Theology Volume 29, Issue 1, [2017], pgs. 69-82). 
Teilhard believed in polygenism, which posits the idea that the human race had different origins, as opposed to a single couple; Adam and Eve. His heretical theory was roundly condemned in the brilliant encyclical Humani Generis ofPope Pius XII, which was drafted by the eminent Dominican theologian Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange. As the result of his evolutionism and polygenism, he denied not only the First Parents of the human race, but as a necessary consequence, he denied the dogma of Original Sin. The outcome of this rejection will be detailed later in this post. Let’s first see how the True Church reacted to Teilhard de Chardin:

  • 1926, his Superior forbade him to teach
  • 1933, the Holy See ordered him to give up his subsequent post in Paris
  • 1939, the Holy See banned some of his writings
  • 1947, Rome also forbade him to write or teach on philosophical subjects
  • 1955, his Superiors forbade de Chardin to attend the International Congress on Paleontology. That same year, de Chardin died in New York on Easter Sunday

Even under Roncalli (John XXIII), he was censured posthumously. On June 30, 1962, a Monitum (“warning”) was given at Rome by the Holy Office: “It is sufficiently clear that the above mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine. For this reason, the most eminent and most reverend Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as Superiors of Religious Institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Teilhard de Chardin and his followers.” Of course the Monitum of 1962 was a dead letter, which was never enforced, as Teilhard’s works spread like wildfire in seminaries and Catholic Universities during the early 1960s. 
The True Church, always vigilant, was wise to try and stop Teilhard by Her numerous censures thereby making him a condemned theologian. Here are some of the results of his ideas:
1. If there is no Original Sin, there is no need of a Redeemer. If there was no Adam, Christ could not be the Second Adam Who died to ransom us from sin. (Sin, in all forms, is downplayed or outright denied). 
2. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not the unbloody re-presentation throughout time of the Sacrificial death of Christ, since there was no need of it. (Mass becomes a “celebration of the people” who are “evolving towards God” and will become One). 
3. Since everything is evolving, there is no fixed and immutable dogmas or morality (One religion or set of morals is as good as another).

4. Eventually, everyone gets to enjoy happiness–there is no Hell for the wicked (Hell is considered “negative” and outdated theology).

5. In his pantheistic idea, not only humanity, but all of nature is evolving. Hence, there should be reverence for the Earth; Teilhard will sometimes describe Earth as an “altar” upon which humanity and nature are “transubstantiated.”
You can see these ideas at work in the Vatican II sect. He helped shape the Robber Council and the sect it created. How, you might ask, can someone who was censured and had his ideas condemned, be so quickly rehabilitated to the point of adopting his heresies? It started way before the unenforced Monitum of 1962. The Modernists were driven underground but were never extirpated. Teilhard himself, when condemned under Pope Pius XII, said: “I have got so many friends in good strategic positions, that I feel quite safe about the future” (Letter, Sept. 24, 1947, wherein de Chardin remarks on his numerous disciples in positions of great influence in the Church, which would certainly appear to have been borne out by the accolades given de Chardin during the Second Vatican Council–Emphasis mine).

The “Doctor” is INThe Vatican II sect praises the very man and ideas that were condemned by the True Church. Here is what the post-concilliar “popes” had to say:
Wojtyla (John Paul II): When I think of the Eucharist, and look at my life as a priest, as a Bishop and as the Successor of Peter, I naturally recall the many times and places in which I was able to celebrate it. I remember the parish church of Niegowić, where I had my first pastoral assignment, the collegiate church of Saint Florian in Krakow, Wawel Cathedral, Saint Peter’s Basilica and so many basilicas and churches in Rome and throughout the world. I have been able to celebrate Holy Mass in chapels built along mountain paths, on lakeshores and seacoasts; I have celebrated it on altars built in stadiums and in city squares… This varied scenario of celebrations of the Eucharist has given me a powerful experience of its universal and, so to speak, cosmic character. Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world. It unites heaven and earth. It embraces and permeates all creation. (See Ecclesia Eucharistica, 2003, para. #8; Emphasis mine).
Ratzinger (Benedict XVI): The role of the priesthood is to consecrate the world so that it may become a living host, a liturgy: so that the liturgy may not be something alongside the reality of the world, but that the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host. And let us pray the Lord to help us become priests in this sense, to aid in the transformation of the world, in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves. That our lives may speak of God, that our lives may be a true liturgy, an announcement of God, a door through which the distant God may become the present God, and a true giving of ourselves to God. (See; Emphasis mine).
Bergoglio (Francis): In the Eucharist, fullness is already achieved; it is the living center of the universe, the overflowing core of love and of inexhaustible life. Joined to the incarnate Son, present in the Eucharist, the whole cosmos gives thanks to God. Indeed the Eucharist is itself an act of cosmic love [as John Paul II wrote]: “Yes, cosmic! Because even when it is celebrated on the humble altar of a country church, the Eucharist is always in some way celebrated on the altar of the world”. (See Laudato Si 2015, para. #236; Emphasis mine). 
Conclusion Bergoglio is considering removing the Monitum of 1962 against Teilhard, thus making de jure what has been de facto all these years. His false ideas of evolution, pantheism, and polygenism have helped to create and shape the Vatican II sect. The sect must continually “evolve” to remain “relevant to the times.” Now, we have a documentary set to air in 2020 on PBS praising Teilhard de Chardin’s life and work. Worse still, there is an online petition to declare the liar, heretic, and eugenicist a “Doctor of the Church.” What we’re witnessing is the opposite of what Teilhard taught: The devolution  of whatever is left of Faith and Morals in the Vatican II sect into error, impiety, and outright evil. 

Perpetually Lost in the Fog of His “New Theology”

from Christ or Chaos

Although I am working on a commentary that deals, at least peripherally, with the Mueller Report as summarized by Attorney General William Barr that I hope to have completed by Saturday, April 13, 2019, the Feast of Saint Hermenegild and the Commemoration of Saturday in Passion Week, it was my great misfortune to have heard about and then, worse yet, to have read Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s letter about what he considers to be the cause of the clerical abuse crisis within the false religious sect that he believes is the Catholic Church.

I am afriad that this commentary turned out to be longer than Ratzinger/Benedict’s confused and confusing letter, which some commentators have said is “long” even though it is but a mere six thousand words or so. Long? Pshaw. Ratzinger/Benedict’s letter only seems long because it is long on empty rhetoric and confusion, which is the way that this poor man, who will be ninety-two years of age on Tuesday of Holy Week, April 16, 2019, has studied theology and thus views the Faith and the world. This commentary will be an effort to strip away the nonagenarian’s confusion in as short a manner as possible.

Ratzinger Unwittingly Criticizes the Consequences of His False Relgious Sect’s “Reconciliation” with the French Revolution 

Displaying his utter lack of understanding of root causes, the antipope emeritus prescinded from the trees to the forest while providing no clear understanding of the simple fact that the rise of moral relativism in the world is the simple, logical and inexorable consequence of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the subsequent rise and institutionalization of Judeo-Masonic naturalism as the very foundation of the civil state, social life and the social disorder that it has brought in its wake. The fifth in the current line of antipopes is incapable of understanding that all must fall into ruin when Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not reign over men and their nations and when His one and only true Church, the Catholic Church, is not acknowledged by the civil state as having the authority from Him to govern men in all that pertains to the good of souls.

Thus it is that Ratzinger/Benedict bemoans the rise of immorality in the 1960s on the forgetfulness of God without recognizing he himself has hailed Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, as representing what he thinks is the Catholic Church’s “official reconciliation” with the “principles of that new era inaugurated in 1789.”

What happened in 1789?

Well, Judeo-Masonic forces of the French Revolution made warfare upon the very existence of God and upon His true Church as they destroyed the relics of various saints, including Saint Louis IX, King of France, desecrated churches and imprisoned and killed believing Catholics, including priests and consecrated religious.

Permit me to reprise the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s praise of Gaudium et Spes in his very misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology and then contrast it with what he wrote in his recently-released letter:

Let us be content to say here that the text [of Gaudium et Spes] serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word “world” means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church’s group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 382.)

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the “demolition of the bastions” is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.)

A society without God — a society that does not know Him and treats Him as non-existent — is a society that loses its measure. In our day, the catchphrase of God’s death was coined. When God does die in a society, it becomes free, we were assured. In reality, the death of God in a society also means the end of freedom, because what dies is the purpose that provides orientation. And because the compass disappears that points us in the right direction by teaching us to distinguish good from evil. Western society is a society in which God is absent in the public sphere and has nothing left to offer it. And that is why it is a society in which the measure of humanity is increasingly lost. At individual points it becomes suddenly apparent that what is evil and destroys man has become a matter of course. (Antipope Benedict XVI, Thoughts on Abuse Crisis.)

How can one bemoan “a society without God” after having praised the forces that brought about this society?

Joseph Alois Ratzinger’s lifelong hatred of Thomism and its clarity of thought has produced a mind filled with internal contradictions that he is constitutionally incapable of recognizing as such. Ratzinger believes that it is “good enough” for some kind of  generic, Judeo-Masonic of God to be recognized in the “public square” without acknowledging that the First Commandment requires all men and all nations to recognize and to adore the true God, the Most Holy Trinity, as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church. As has been noted so many times on this site, our true popes have warned us that a generic conception of God leads to the triumph of moral relativism and atheism. Men and their nations need the Catholic Faith. They need Holy Mother Church.

Pope Pius XI noted this in Mitt Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:

Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.

No faith in God can for long survive pure and unalloyed without the support of faith in Christ. “No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal Him” (Luke x. 22). “Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent” (John xvii. 3). Nobody, therefore, can say: “I believe in God, and that is enough religion for me,” for the Savior’s words brook no evasion: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also” (1 John ii. 23) (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

There is no such thing as a generic, one-reference-fits-all-religions God and the true God of Divine Revelation has not created all men equal in rights and duties as He created a hierarchy in the Order of Nature (Creation) and in the Order of Grace (Redemption). A husband and father, for instances, has rights and duties that are different from those of a mother. Parents have rights and duties that differ from those of children. A teacher has different rights and duties than his students. An employer has different rights and duties than his managers and employees. More the point, of course, is that a true pope has paramount rights and duties over all men on the face of this earth in all that pertains to the good of their souls.

The Protestant Revolution overturned all ecclesiastical hierarchy.

The French Revolution—and all subsequent social revolutions—overturned the natural hierarchical structure of kingdoms and nations.

Egalitarianism is the lie of the devil. It is not true that God has created all men equal in rights and duties, and it is an abject falsehood to assert that the purpose of human existence is to “live together as brothers and sisters” in order to “fill the earth and make known the values of goodness, love and peace.”

God has created man to know, to love, and to serve Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church, she who is the sole means of human sanctification and salvation and thus the necessary means of assuring a just social order wherein those who govern pursue the common temporal good in light of advancing man’s Last End.

Ratzinger/Benedict, rejecting the clarity and consistency of Scholasticism, says contradictory things, sometimes in the context of the same article. As noted on several occasions in the past, New Oxford Review, whose editors reject sedevacantism, once featured a very frank and honest assessment of the contradictions inherent in the writings of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI: 

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

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

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

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

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

That is, it is a vain exercise to seek to find clarity of thought in the mind of a man who rejects Scholasticism, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church, and who does not realize how many times he contradicts himself and presents the Faith, which is something sure and clear, in the form of one paradox after another.

Pope Saint Pius X noted the contradictory “double-minded”–nature of the Modernist in Pascendi Dominic Gregis, September 8, 1907:

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

Anyone who cannot admit that this describes Antipope Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is not examining his writings honestly. The man who was the presiding officer of the counterfeit church of conciliarism between April 19, 2005, and February 28, 2013, has at varying times criticized Gaudium et Spes, the “pastoral constitution on the Church and the world” issued by the “Second” Vatican Council on December 7, 1965, as having a semi-Pelagian flavor to it (which it does) while also praising it approvingly as a “countersyllabus” of errors, meaning that Pope Pius IX was wrong to have issued The Syllabus of Errors on December 8, 1864. 

For the record, of course, it is important to point out as well that Ratzinger/Benedict, who has bemoaned the loss of God from public life, defects from the Catholic Church’s immutable teaching about the Social Reign of Christ the King as matter of principle while our true popes, while always maintaining the integrity of Catholic teaching on this doctrine, noted that it was necessary to make regrettable concessions to the reality of things as they exist in the world at present, which is quite different from accepting “religious liberty” and separation of Church and State as good and true in se, which they are not. Ratzinger simply does not believe that the Catholic Church has any role to play in the “public sphere” except to be a “voice,” something that he has made clear on any number of occasions, including in the following exchange with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on July 14, 1987:

Under pressure, Rome gave in. On July 14, Cardinal Ratzinger received Archbishop Lefebvre at the Holy Office. At first the Cardinal persisted in arguing that “the State is competent in religious matters.”

“But the State must have an ultimate and eternal end,” replied the Archbishop.

Your Grace, that is the case for the Church, not the State. By itself the State does not know.”

Archbishop Lefebvre was distraught: a Cardinal and Prefect of the Holy Office wanted to show him that the State can have no religion and cannot prevent the spread of error. However, before talking about concessions, the Cardinal made a threat: the consequence of an illicit episcopal consecration would be “schism and excommunication.”

“Schism?” retorted the Archbishop. “If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubiae: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us.”

As this tirade ended, Joseph Ratzinger gave in: “Let us find a practical solution. Make a moderate declaration on the Council and the new missal a bit like the one that Jean Guitton has suggested to you. Then, we would give you a bishop for ordinations, we could work out an arrangement with the diocesan bishops, and you could continue as you are doing. As for a Cardinal Protector, and make your suggestions.”

How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the Cardinal’s rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: “So, must Jesus no longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!” To the Cardinal, he said:

“Eminence, even if you give us everything–a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries–we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

“For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.

Recounting this incident, the Archbishop described the Cardinal’s attitude: “Motionless, he looked at me, his eyes expressionless, as if I had just suggested something incomprehensible or unheard of.” Then Ratzinger tried to argue that “the Church can still say whatever she wants to the State,” while Lefebvre, the intuitive master of Catholic metaphysics, did not lose sight of the true end of human societies: the Reign of Christ.” Fr. de Tinguy hit the nail on the head when he said of Marcel Lefebvre: “His faith defies those who love theological quibbles.” (His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547-548.) 

Leaving aside the late Archbishop Lefebvre’s refusal to recognize that apostates are not members of the Catholic Church, from which one falls as a member if embraces, no less articulates and publicly propagates heresies and errors condemned by true popes and/or our twenty legitimate general councils, this exchange demonstrates clearly that Joseph Alois Ratzinger is simply incapable of admitting that the godlessness of modern society is the direct result of the Protestant Revolution and of Judeo-Masonry. There is no middle ground between light and darkness, truth and error, Christ and Belial.

Pope Leo XIII made this clear in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

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

The civil state has the positive obligation to recognize Christ the King and to be obedient to Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to the good of souls without any exception whatsoever, a truth that was summarized very clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

The fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time does nothing to detract from the immutability of the Catholic teaching explicated so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X.

Indeed, the fact that the conditions favorable to a Catholic state do not exist at this time is the result of the proliferation of a deliberate, planned attack by the adversary himself upon it by using the combined, interrelated errors of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry to uproot the Holy Cross as the foundation of personal and social order in Europe and to make sure it was not the foundation of such order here in the United States of America.

Father Denis Fahey made this exact point in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)   

The civil state has an obligation to recognize the true Faith and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End: the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Heaven for all eternity. This obligation is immutable even though the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity is founded in a revolution against it. That which is true does not cease being true simply because men reject it and then base their social structures upon its rejection.

While it is true that Holy Mother Church accommodates herself to the actual situations in which her children live, exhorting them to make use of existing laws to their benefit and thus to the good of souls, she never ceases to proclaim the truth even when men reject it.

Although the counterfeit church of conciliarism has embraced the falsehood of a “healthy secularity,” the Catholic Church has taught from time immemorial that those who exercise authority in a civil government have an obligation to subordinate all things that pertain to the good of souls to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. Yes, I well understand that even most Catholics, no less thorough-going naturalists or agnostics or atheists, find this to be utter madness to the point of frothing at the mouth as though they are suffering from hydrophobia.

It is nevertheless the case that the Catholic Church has indeed condemned the separation of Church and State has she has insisted that she has the authority from her Invisible Head and Divine Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to interpose herself with civil officials in grave matters pertaining to the eternal good of souls after–and only after–the exhausting of her Indirect Power of teaching and preaching and exhortation Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, made it abundantly clear that the civil state has an obligation to subordinate itself in all that pertains to the good of souls to the true religion:

As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion — it is a public crime to act as though there were no GodSo, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.) 

Meaning quite explicitly to belabor this point, the antipope emeritus who bemoaned the loss of God in society has always celebrated the separation of Church and State, doing so on May 10, 2010, in Portugal, in direct, open contradiction of Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of this separation in Portugal:

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


“By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church”?

Pluralism strengthens sanctity within the soul?

Guess again.

Pope Saint Pius X specifically condemned the very separation of Church and State in Portugal that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised on May 11, 2010:

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

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

“Gay marriage” and the surgical execution of children were already “legal” in Portugal when Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited in 2010. Some “new area of freedom for the Church,” eh?

Well, the same true is Ireland.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Tametsi Futurus Prospicentibus, November 1, 1900, noted the following about the consequences of nations rejecting the Social Reign of Christ the King:

From this it may clearly be seen what consequences are to be expected from that false pride which, rejecting our Saviour’s Kingship, places man at the summit of all things and declares that human nature must rule supreme. And yet, this supreme rule can neither be attained nor even defined. The rule of Jesus Christ derives its form and its power from Divine Love: a holy and orderly charity is both its foundation and its crown. Its necessary consequences are the strict fulfilment of duty, respect of mutual rights, the estimation of the things of heaven above those of earth, the preference of the love of God to all things. But this supremacy of man, which openly rejects Christ, or at least ignores Him, is entirely founded upon selfishness, knowing neither charity nor selfdevotion. Man may indeed be king, through Jesus Christ: but only on condition that he first of all obey God, and diligently seek his rule of life in God’s law. By the law of Christ we mean not only the natural precepts of morality and the Ancient Law, all of which Jesus Christ has perfected and crowned by His declaration, explanation and sanction; but also the rest of His doctrine and His own peculiar institutions. Of these the chief is His Church. Indeed whatsoever things Christ has instituted are most fully contained in His Church. Moreover, He willed to perpetuate the office assigned to Him by His Father by means of the ministry of the Church so gloriously founded by Himself. On the one hand He confided to her all the means of men’s salvation, on the other He most solemnly commanded men to be subject to her and to obey her diligently, and to follow her even as Himself: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me” (Luke x, 16). Wherefore the law of Christ must be sought in the Church. Christ is man’s “Way”; the Church also is his “Way”-Christ of Himself and by His very nature, the Church by His commission and the communication of His power. Hence all who would find salvation apart from the Church, are led astray and strive in vain.

As with individuals, so with nations. These, too, must necessarily tend to ruin if they go astray from “The Way.” The Son of God, the Creator and Redeemer of mankind, is King and Lord of the earth, and holds supreme dominion over men, both individually and collectively. “And He gave Him power, and glory, and a kingdom: and all peoples, tribes, and tongues shall serve Him” (Daniel vii., 14). “I am appointed King by Him . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy possession” (Psalm ii., 6, 8). Therefore the law of Christ ought to prevail in human society and be the guide and teacher of public as well as of private life. Since this is so by divine decree, and no man may with impunity contravene it, it is an evil thing for the common weal wherever Christianity does not hold the place that belongs to it. When Jesus Christ is absent, human reason fails, being bereft of its chief protection and light, and the very end is lost sight of, for which, under God’s providence, human society has been built up. This end is the obtaining by the members of society of natural good through the aid of civil unity, though always in harmony with the perfect and eternal good which is above nature. But when men’s minds are clouded, both rulers and ruled go astray, for they have no safe line to follow nor end to aim at.  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

It is not for nothing that the great defender of the Social Reign of Christ the King, Louis Edouard “Cardinal” Pie, who was the Bishop of Poitiers, France from from May 23, 1849, to the time of his death on May 18, 1880, wrote the following about the American and Belgian systems as expressions of the Universal Israelite Alliance as found in a book on his works by Father Father Théotimede Saint Just and translated from the French into the English by Mr. Daniel Leonardi:

In fine, Cardinal Pie insists:

“Christianity would not be divine if it were to have existence within individuals but not with regard to societies.”

Fr. de St. Just asks, in conclusion:

“Could it be proven in clearer terms that social atheism conduces to individualistic atheism?”. . . .

Neither in His Person,” Card, Pie said in a celebrated pastoral instruction, “nor in the exercise of His rights, can Jesus Christ be divided, dissolved, split up; in Him the distinction of natures and operations can never be separated or opposed; the divine cannot be incompatible to the human, nor the human to the divine. On the contrary, it is the peace, the drawing together, the reconciliation; it is the very character of union which has made the two things one: ‘He is our peace, Who hat made both one. . .’  (Eph. 2:14). This is why St. John told us: ‘every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God. And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and is now already in the world’ (1 John 4:3; cf. also 1 John 2:18, 22; 2 John: 7). “So then, Card. Pie continues, “when I hear certain talk being spread around, certain pithy statements (i.e., ‘Separation of Church and State,’ for one, and the enigmatic axiom ‘A free Church in a free State,’ for another) prevailing from day to day, and which are being introduced into the heart of societies, the dissolvent by which the world must perish, I utter this cry of alarm: Beware the Antichrist.”

Fr. de St. Just adds:

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

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

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

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

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

Cardinal Pie responded firmly to this question:

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

Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, is continuing to endeavor in the utterly mad process of “discovering” the causes of problems without admitting that his own basic premises about the modern civil state and its “compatibility” with the Holy Faith and thus with the right ordering of men and their nations is not only erroneous but heretical.

Inherently Paradoxical and Contradictory: The Mind and the Writing of Joseph Alois Ratzinger

Remember, this is the same logically incoherent “thinker,” esteemed by “conservatives” and by traditionally-mind Catholics attached to the conciliar structures as a “theologian,” if not that veritable “restorer of tradition,” who has told us before he was “Pope Benedict XVI” that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service represented a rupture with the past before asserting as “Pope Benedict XVI” that no such rupture had taken place:

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgyWe abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced itas in a manufacturing process–with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something “made”, not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Milestones.)

In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on “Summorum Pontificum,” July 7, 2007.)

One who has a mind so filled with the sort of contradictions and paradoxes cannot see, no less admit, that the crises afflicting the world are the result of the apostasies, heresies and errors of Modernity with which his own false religious sect has made its “official reconciliation.” It is no accident that the licentiousness of men since the 1960s has been made worse by the sacramental barrenness of the conciliar liturgical rites and by the corruption of the young by means of the sort of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that the antipope emeritus believes, correctly, is responsible for the corruption of the young in “public education.” He cannot see that there is a connection between the gestalt, if you will, of the “Second” Vatican Council and the windows that were “opened to the world” by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII.

Refusing to Consider the Consequences of the Protestant Revolution and of Judeo-Masonry in the World and in the Conciliar Sect

Ratzinger/Benedict is so disconnected from reality that he does not realize that the seeds for the licentiousness he decries were planted long before they had flower in the age of the “flower people” in the 1960s by the ancient enemies of Christ the King and His true Church, a phenomenon that Pope Leo XIII noted and denounced in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884:

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

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

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

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

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.

Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. 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. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

What happened in the 1960s did not just occur overnight. Yet it is that the twisted, convoluted mind of Joseph Alois Ratzinger cannot see nor accept the simple truth that Catholicism is the sole foundation of sanctity within the human soul and hence of order within civil society, which is why he must blather ad infinitum about the existence of problems whose root causes he simply cannot identify as to do so would be to admit that his rejection of the “Second” Vatican Council which he helped to plan, guide and bring to fruition.

Unlike the dogmatic evolutionist from Bavaria, Father Edward Cahill, S.J., saw how the synagogue and the lodge were working together to produce a society preoccupied with the pursuit of material and carnal pleasure:

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

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

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

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

In other words, everything that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI decried as having been of a relatively recent vintage was the work, proximately speaking, of diabolical forces that were given the “religious liberty” by the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity to spread poisons aplenty in an unrestrained manner. And it is no wonder that the sodomites gained such a foothold within the conciliar hierarchy, presbyterate and religious communities as the “pope” who believed in the “pleasant side of man,” Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, was himself a sodomite and made sure to fill the ranks of his hierarchy with fellow perverts, who, of course, went to great lengths to recruit, promote and protect their own fellow-travelers. If Ratzinger/Benedict wants to understand how this scenario, which certainly had antecedent roots before the “Second” Vatican Council but became far more pronounced during Montini’s time and thereafter, it would be good for him to read Mrs. Randy Engel’s The Rite of Sodomy, wherein he gets a brief mention near the book’s end along with his brother Georg.

A Dogmatic Evolutionist Denounces Moral Relativism

A final area of incongruity in Ratzinger/Benedict’s recent “letter” concerns complaint about theologians in the 1960s and thereafter who sought to relativize morality as a matter of conscience uninformed by the Catholic Church’s magisterium. Although the antipope emeritus makes a valid point in this regard, he does not comprehend that he is the greatest theological relativist of them all:

In moral theology, however, another question had meanwhile become pressing: The hypothesis that the Magisterium of the Church should have final competence (“infallibility”) only in matters concerning the faith itself gained widespread acceptance; (in this view) questions concerning morality should not fall within the scope of infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church. There is probably something right about this hypothesis that warrants further discussionBut there is a minimum set of morals which is indissolubly linked to the foundational principle of faith and which must be defended if faith is not to be reduced to a theory but rather to be recognized in its claim to concrete life.

All this makes apparent just how fundamentally the authority of the Church in matters of morality is called into question. Those who deny the Church a final teaching competence in this area force her to remain silent precisely where the boundary between truth and lies is at stake. (Antipope Benedict XVI, Thoughts on Abuse Crisis.)

Ratzinger’s mind is a mess.

Ratzinger simultaneously states that not all matters of morality fall within the “scope of the infallible decisions of the Magisterium of the Church,” something that is says is “probably right,” and that contemporary theologians call into question the Church’s authority in matters of morality.

To quote from the article cited earlier in this commentary: “Huh?”

Holy Mother Church cannot err on matters of Faith and Morals, and although morality can be known, albeit imperfectly, because of fallen human nature, by the light of reason unaided by Divine Revelation, she alone is the authoritative interpreter and infallible teacher of the Natural Law. The [First] Vatican Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church [Pastor Aeternus] July 18, 1870:

Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate.

Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd [50] .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation. . . .

So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870.)

Holy Mother Church, guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, cannot err on any matter of Faith and Morals. Ever.

Pope Pius XI, writing in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, explained that the Church has never asserted that morality belongs exclusively to her, only that is belongs wholly and authoritatively to her, meaning that no one else is vested with the authority from God to contest a decision of the Catholic Church on moral theology:

18. Hence it is that in this proper object of her mission, that is, “in faith and morals, God Himself has made the Church sharer in the divine magisterium and, by a special privilege, granted her immunity from error; hence she is the mistress of men, supreme and absolutely sure, and she has inherent in herself an inviolable right to freedom in teaching.'[10] By necessary consequence the Church is independent of any sort of earthly power as well in the origin as in the exercise of her mission as educator, not merely in regard to her proper end and object, but also in regard to the means necessary and suitable to attain that end. Hence with regard to every other kind of human learning and instruction, which is the common patrimony of individuals and society, the Church has an independent right to make use of it, and above all to decide what may help or harm Christian education. And this must be so, because the Church as a perfect society has an independent right to the means conducive to its end, and because every form of instruction, no less than every human action, has a necessary connection with man’s last end, and therefore cannot be withdrawn from the dictates of the divine law, of which the Church is guardian, interpreter and infallible mistress.

19. This truth is clearly set forth by Pius X of saintly memory:

Whatever a Christian does even in the order of things of earth, he may not overlook the supernatural; indeed he must, according to the teaching of Christian wisdom, direct all things towards the supreme good as to his last end; all his actions, besides, in so far as good or evil in the order of morality, that is, in keeping or not with natural and divine law, fall under the judgment and jurisdiction of the Church.

20. It is worthy of note how a layman, an excellent writer and at the same time a profound and conscientious thinker, has been able to understand well and express exactly this fundamental Catholic doctrine:

The Church does not say that morality belongs purely, in the sense of exclusively, to her; but that it belongs wholly to her. She has never maintained that outside her fold and apart from her teaching, man cannot arrive at any moral truth; she has on the contrary more than once condemned this opinion because it has appeared under more forms than one. She does however say, has said, and will ever say, that because of her institution by Jesus Christ, because of the Holy Ghost sent her in His name by the Father, she alone possesses what she has had immediately from God and can never lose, the whole of moral truth, omnem veritatem, in which all individual moral truths are included, as well those which man may learn by the help of reason, as those which form part of revelation or which may be deduced from it. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

There was thus no need, as Ratzinger/Benedict contended in his recent letter, for Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II to have to “recapture” the non-Biblical roots of morality in Veritatis Splendor, August 6, 1993, if Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger and others of his ilk had not rejected the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas as part of the “new theology” that had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. Ratzinger has always hated Scholasticism, adopting as his own the Lutheran falsehood that the official philosophy of the Catholic Church had “obscured” the supposedly “true” meaning of Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers and substituted a more “formalized,” “cold” and “impersonal” theology that left no room for “development” and “progress.” This hatred of Scholasticism caused Ratzinger to embrace the “new theology’s” repackaged heresy of dogmatic evolutionism, which he expressed as Father Joseph Ratzinger, as Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger as “Pope” Benedict XVI:

1971: “In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian ‘thing’ was not directly … censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes.” (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: “The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian’s Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms – perhaps for the first time with this clarity – that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church’s anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time

(Joseph Ratzinger, “Instruction on the Theologian’s Ecclesial Vocation,” published with the title “Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia,” in L’Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

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

These are all subjects of great importance – they were the great themes of the second part of the Council – on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church’s decisions on contingent matters – for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible – should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itselfIt was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.  

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedomhas recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one’s own faith – a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God’s grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all(Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

What was that Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the “new theologians” deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?

Let me remind you:

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church’s twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been “discovered” as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.

Pope Pius XII also reiterated that, contrary to the implication contained in Ratzinger’s letter, every Catholic must accept all that Holy Mother Church teaches on Faith and Morals without any reservation, objection or qualification:

18. Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith — Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition — to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly “to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,”[2] is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.

19. Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

21. It is also true that theologians must always return to the sources of divine revelation: for it belongs to them to point out how the doctrine of the living Teaching Authority is to be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Scriptures and in Tradition.[4] Besides, each source of divinely revealed doctrine contains so many rich treasures of truth, that they can really never be exhausted. Hence it is that theology through the study of its sacred sources remains ever fresh; on the other hand, speculation which neglects a deeper search into the deposit of faith, proves sterile, as we know from experience. But for this reason even positive theology cannot be on a par with merely historical science. For, together with the sources of positive theology God has given to His Church a living Teaching Authority to elucidate and explain what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurely and implicitlyThis deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church. But if the Church does exercise this function of teaching, as she often has through the centuries, either in the ordinary or extraordinary way, it is clear how false is a procedure which would attempt to explain what is clear by means of what is obscure. Indeed the very opposite procedure must be used. Hence Our Predecessor of immortal memory, Pius IX, teaching that the most noble office of theology is to show how a doctrine defined by the Church is contained in the sources of revelation, added these words, and with very good reason: “in that sense in which it has been defined by the Church.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

It is laughable for a dogmatic relativist such as Ratzinger/Benedict to complain about moral relativism as the two are entirely related and dependent upon each other.          

There is one other point that needs to be made, and it is an important one.

Just as it is truly the work of the adversary to distract even believing Catholics from shutting out the world and to meditate with great fervor during Passiontide, up to and including the Paschal Triduum of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection, by the impending release of the redacted Mueller Report and the controversy that is and will continue to surround it during this most sacred time of the year, it is also a work of the adversary to use the man who has done his bidding for him by praising false religions, entering into temples of false worship, personally esteeming the symbols of false idols with his own priestly hands and propagating Modernism’s conndemned and philospohically absurd precept of dogmatic evolutionism (repackaged as the “hermeneutic of continuity”) to undermine the immutability of dogmatic truth, which is an attack on the nature of God Himself and a work of blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost, to distract people with a “letter” that does nothing but prove himself to be impressed with his own supposed “originality” yet again. Spare us, O Lord, spare us, from such men—and from the man he praises at the end of his “letter,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Azarius prayed that God would spare those who were outraged at the offenses committed against Him as follows in the lesson appointed for Holy Mass on Thursday in Passion Week:

In those days, Azaria prayed to the Lord, saying: O Lord, our God, for Your Name’s sake, do not deliver us up forever, we beseech You, or make void Your covenant. Do not take away Your mercy from us, for the sake of Abraham, Your beloved, Isaac Your servant, and Israel Your holy one, to whom You promised to multiply their offspring like the stars of heaven, or the sand on the shore of the sea. For we are reduced, O Lord, beyond any other nation, brought low everywhere in the world this day because of our sins. We have in our day no prince, prophet, or leader, no holocaust, sacrifice, oblation, or incense, no place to offer first fruits, to find favor with You. But with contrite heart and humble spirit let us be received; as though it were holocausts of rams and bullocks, or thousands of fat lambs, so let our sacrifice be in Your presence today, that it may please You; for those who trust in You cannot be put to shame. And now we follow You with our whole heart, we fear You and we pray to You. Do not let us be put to shame, but deal with us in Your kindness and great mercy. Deliver us by Your wonders, and bring glory to Your Name, O Lord: let all those be routed who inflict evils on Your servants; let them be shamed and powerless, and their strength broken; let them know that You alone are the Lord God, glorious over the whole world, O Lord, our God. (Daniel 3: 25, 34-45.)

This describes the situation that we face as true offerings of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are very rare and we lack the Principle of Unity represented by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to lead us with clarity and with apostolic courage and zeal for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and the eternal salvation of souls. Holy Mother Church, the spotless mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, is undergoing her Mystical Passion, and it is right for us to pray to be spared from this dreaful times.

Pope Saint Leo the Great, whose feast was celebrated yesterday, April 12, 2019, explained that the Catholic Church is inerrant, which means the likes of hte conciliar “popes” and their heretical teachings are to be rejected as having nothing to do with her as they are imposters, apostates, blasphemers and idolaters:

Pope Saint Leo the Great wrote much during his twenty years on the Throne of Saint Peter, including on the very nature of the papacy and about the fact that the jaws of hell will never prevail against the Catholic Church:

When the Lord, as we read in the Evangelist, asked His disciples Who did men, amid their divers speculations, believe that He, the Son of Man, was; blessed Peter answered and said Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father, Which is in heaven and I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; and I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thus therefore standeth the ordinance of the Truth, and blessed Peter, abiding still that firm rock which God hath made him, hath never lost that right to rule in the Church which God hath given unto him.

In the universal Church it is Peter that doth still say every day, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, and every tongue which confesseth that Jesus is Lord is taught that confession by the teaching of Peter. This is the faith that overcometh the devil and looseth the bands of his prisoners. This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. This teaching it is, my dearly beloved brethren, which maketh the keeping of this Feast to-day to be our reasonable service, even the teaching which maketh you to know and honour in myself, lowly though I be, that Peter who is still entrusted with the care of all other shepherds and of all the flocks to them committed, and whose authority I have, albeit unworthy to be his heir.

When, therefore, we address our exhortations to your godly ears, believe ye that ye are hearing him speak whose office we are discharging. Yea, it is with his love for you that we warn you, and we preach unto you no other thing than that which he taught, entreating you that ye would gird up the loins of your mind and lead pure and sober lives in the fear of God. My disciples dearly beloved, ye are to me, as the disciples of the Apostle Paul were to him, (Phil. iv. 1,) a crown and a joy, if your faith, which, in the first times of the Gospel, was spoken of throughout the whole world, Rom. i. 8, abide still lovely and holy. For, albeit it behoveth the whole Church which is spread throughout all the world, to be strong in righteousness, you it chiefly becometh above all other peoples to excel in worth and godliness, whose house is built upon the very crown of the Rock of the Apostle, and whom not only hath our Lord Jesus Christ, as He hath redeemed all men, but whom also His blessed Apostle Peter hath made the foremost object of his teaching. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

Well, it is all there, isn’t it?

One must engage in all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to believe that the contagion of heresy is not rife within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is why all those who are not yet convinced of the truth of our ecclesiastical situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal should re-read these words:

This is the faith which maketh men free of the world and bringeth them to heaven, and the gates of hell are impotent to prevail against it. With such ramparts of salvation hath God fortified this rock, that the contagion of heresy will never be able to infect it, nor idolatry and unbelief to overcome it. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great.)

The false “popes” of conciliarism have esteemed the symbols of idolaters. So have Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and “Saint John Paul II” before the latter’s own election as the head of the false conciliar sect on March 13, 2013, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has shown repeatedly that he has no belief in the integrity of the Catholic Faith. So have his predecessors in the past sixty and one-half years.

We need to pray to Pope Saint Leo the Great drive out the Huns who occupy Rome and the institutions of the Catholic Church during this time of conciliarism.

On the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary in Passiontide

Today is the Feast of the Seven Dolors of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Passiontide, which is why we should strive to pray the Chaplet (Rosary) of the Seven Dolors in addition to meditating upon the Sorrowful Mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary.

While it is certainly true that the heresies and errors promoted by the blasphemers who govern and constitute the counterfeit church of conciliarism have grieved Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, we should always recall that our own terrible sins have afflicted the Pure Heart of Mary as they caused her Divine Son to suffer their effects in His Sacred Humanity during her Passion and Death.

We are just two days away from Palm Sunday, which, liturgically, begins with First Vespers on Saturday, April 13, 2019, and just nine days away from Our Lord’s Easter Victory over sin and eternal death. May we cooperate with the graces won for us by Our Lord during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that He sends us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, to participate in this Easter victory at our Particular Judgment as we seek to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart in these times that He has appointed for us from all eternity to live and to work out our salvation in fear and trembling as members of His Catholic Church.

Vivat Christus RexViva Cristo Rey!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.  

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

Five Sorrowful Decades: Fifty Years of Paul VI’s “New Mass”

from Novus Ordo Watch

Embed from Getty Images

by Francis del Sarto

“Truly, if one of the devils in C. S. Lewis’s The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better.” –Dietrich von Hildebrand

“Every sectarian who wishes to introduce a new doctrine finds himself, unfailingly, face to face with the Liturgy, which is Tradition at its strongest and best, and he cannot rest until he has silenced this voice, until he has torn up these pages which recall the faith of past centuries.” –Dom Prosper Guéranger, O.S.B.

“Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists. It has been destroyed.” –Fr. Joseph Gelineau

“The reform of the liturgy is irreversible.” –“Pope” Francis

For the past half-century the vast majority of the 1.2 billion people identifying as Roman Catholic around the world have had as their “ordinary” form of worship a rite that would have seemed utterly alien to most of the faithful who lived in the nearly two millennia leading up to it. These forebears certainly would not have seen it as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass which they knew and so cherished, once described by Fr. Frederick Faber as “the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven”. Only knowledgeable Catholics who had lived in the past 500 years would recognize it at all, but even then only as something resembling the false form of the worship services concocted by Protestant “Reformers” as a direct rival to the Mass, a veritable anti-Mass.

It was on Holy Thursday, April 3, 1969, that “Pope” Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Montini) promulgated the “Apostolic Constitution” Missale Romanum as part of a liturgical “renewal” he said had begun with Pope Pius XII’s restoration of Holy Week services as “the first step toward adapting the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”. We are permitted to be highly skeptical of Montini’s assertion that a return to antiquated forms may somehow be more relevant to contemporary worshippers after centuries of disuse than those that have developed organically. In fact, it was Pope Pius XII who explicitly rejected “the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation” (Encyclical Mediator Dei, n. 63).

Paul VI’s “Promulgation of the Roman Missal” was in reality the announcement of a non-Catholic, pseudo-Roman Missal meant to supplant the true Roman rite as promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in the 1570 Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. Of course, we know now that the unstated goal of this new worship service was the ushering in of a new religion — the replacing of the Catholic lex orandi, lex credendi for a crypto-Modernist counterfeit. It was to eliminate the true Mass once and forever, and replace it with a fake “revised” version.

The fact that April 3, 1969, was not only Holy Thursday that year but also the first day of the Jewish Passover, is surely more than simple coincidence; for the New Mass is the Modernist repudiation of the Sacrifice of the Mass, much as observing Passover after the institution of the New Covenant is intended to reject the Sacrifice of Calvary, which is its fulfillment.

From Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Memorial Meal

Despite a few red flags in the language of Paul VI’s Missale Romanum — vocabulary such as “[t]he words Mysterium fidei [mystery of Faith] have been removed from the context of Christ’s own words and are spoken by the priest as an introduction to the faithful’s acclamation” — it would be three days later that the full heterodox orientation of Montini’s changes became patently obvious. On April 6, the official rubrics of the “new order of the Mass” (novus ordo Missae as it was called) were published along with an accompanying General Instruction of the Roman Missal (sometimes abbreviated GIRM). This new order of Mass has since become known as the “New Mass”, the “Pauline Mass”, the “Mass of Paul VI,” or simply the “Novus Ordo.”

The following links highlight the stark differences between the Roman Mass of the ages and the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI:

The publication of this “revised” Roman rite led to a prompt counterattack by Catholics, principally in the form of the justly celebrated Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (aka The Ottaviani Intervention because it was presented to the “Pope” by Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani), which argued, among other things, that the revised liturgy constituted “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent” and “has much to gladden the heart of even the most modernist Protestant”.

This was by no means an exaggeration, as the Critical Study copiously demonstrated. Indeed, even Paul VI’s very definition of what the Holy Catholic Mass is was a blatant surrender to Protestantism. The first edition of the GIRM defined the Mass as follows:

The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is the sacred meeting or congregation of the people of God assembled, the priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason, Christ’s promise applies eminently to such a local gathering of holy Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst” (Mt. 18:20).

(“General Instruction of the Roman Missal”Missale Romanum: Ordo Missae Editio Typica [Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1969], n. 7)

Martin Luther could not have said it better himself!

When contrasted with the true and traditional Catholic definition of the Holy Mass, such as can be found in any pre-Vatican II catechism, the departure from orthodoxy appears most striking: “The Mass is the true and especial Sacrifice of the New Law; in it Jesus Christ, by the ministry of the priest, offers His Body and Blood to God the Father, under the appearances of bread and wine, by a mystical immolation in an unbloody manner” (Cardinal Peter Gasparri, The Catholic Catechism [Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., 1932], n. 385). That’s the Catholic definition.

In his Intervention, Cardinal Ottaviani chastised Paul VI for his overtly Protestant definition, charging:

The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a “supper,” a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. The Instruction further characterizes this “supper” as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:

– The Real Presence – The reality of the Sacrifice – The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates – The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of the presence of the “assembly.”

In a word, the Instruction’s definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by “going beyond them” amounts, at least in practice, to denying them.

(Cardinals Alfredo Ottaviani, Antonio Bacci, et al., Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, Sept. 25, 1969)

On March 26, 1970, the Vatican released a second edition of the GIRM, in which the original definition was revised. The result was visibly little more than damage control: “At Mass that is, the Lord’s Supper, the People of God is called together, with a priest presiding and acting in the person of Christ, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord, the Eucharistic Sacrifice” (n. 27).

“Pope” Montini had cited the Second Vatican Council’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, as providing the impetus for his revision butchering of the Roman rite of Mass. And fittingly it was during deliberations over that document that Cardinal Ottaviani was in the midst of heated exchanges that ultimately led to the highly symbolic moment at the Council when this great voice of Tradition was literally silenced. A review of The Liturgical Movement by Fr. Didier Bonneterre notes:

During the first session of the Second Vatican Council, in the debate on the Liturgy Constitution, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” The Cardinal was old and partly blind. He spoke from the heart without a text about a subject which moved him deeply, and continued:

Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.

So concerned was he at the revolutionary potential of the Constitution, and having no prepared text, the elderly Cardinal exceeded the ten-minute time limit for speeches. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation.

The Council Fathers clapped with glee, and the journalists to whose dictatorship Father Louis Bouyer claimed the Council had surrendered itself, were even more gleeful when they wrote their reports that night and when they wrote their books at the end of the session…

(Michael Davies, “The Liturgical Movement”The Remnant, n.d.)

Paul VI knew very well what detrimental effects this “New Mass” would have upon the people. During the last General Audience before its universal use became mandatory, “Pope” Montini prophesied:

We may notice that pious persons will be the ones most disturbed, because, having their respectable way of listening to Mass, they will feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others.

Not Latin, but the spoken language, will be the main language of the Mass. To those who know the beauty, the power, the expressive sacrality of Latin, its replacement by the vulgar language is a great sacrifice: we lose the discourse of the Christian centuries, we become almost intruders and desecrators [intrusi e profani] in the literary space of sacred expression, and we will thus lose a great portion of that stupendous and incomparable artistic and spiritual fact that is the Gregorian Chant. We will thus have, indeed, reason for being sad, and almost for feeling lost: with what will we replace this angelic language? It is a sacrifice of inestimable price.

(Paul VI, General Audience, Nov. 26, 1969. English translation taken from “40 years of Missale Romanum and the new Roman Rite – II: a Requiem, by Paul VI”Rorate Caeli, Nov. 29, 2009; underlining added.)

More than anything else in the post-conciliar epoch, it was Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae that catapulted the new religion of Vatican II into the souls of unsuspecting Catholics throughout the world. Montini was a spiritual terrorist of the worst possible sort.

How Missale Romanum Aided the Devil’s War against the Mass

In the March-April 1993 issue of the sedevacantist journal Catholic Restoration, there appeared an article entitled “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion” by John Kenneth Weiskittel. The theme of the article was to examine accusations that “Archbishop” Annibale Bugnini, who had presided over the fateful “reform” of the liturgy, had been a Freemason whose goal was to de-Catholicize the worship of the Church. While it’s not been proven beyond doubt that he was a Lodge brother, circumstantial evidence points strongly in that direction. The recent biography Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy by Yves Chiron devotes a few pages to this question (pp. 171-175) but does not reach a definitive conclusion either way.

Certainly, the effects of the Novus Ordo rite on souls could not have been any more deleterious if the rite had been concocted by a Freemason. Bugnini, the architect of the post-conciliar liturgy, was in truth what many called him, namely, the “gravedigger of the Mass” and the “evil spirit of the liturgical reform”. (And, may we suggest, he would make an excellent addition to the rogue’s gallery of Novus Ordo Modernist “saints” who best exemplify the “ideals” of Vatican II.)

Bugnini was Paul VI’s Secretary of the Council for the Implementation of the Constitution on the Liturgy, and would be appointed Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship in May of 1969. Mr. Weiskittel, in a section aptly titled “The War Against the Mass”, shows how the new liturgy of Montini and Bugnini worked to the advantage of occult forces bent on the Church’s destruction:

“Justly,” writes Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, “has St. Bonaventure called the Mass a compendium of all God’s love and of all his benefits to men. Hence the devil has always sought to deprive the world of the Mass by means of heretics, constituting them precursors of Antichrist, whose first efforts shall be to abolish the holy sacrifice of the altar, and according to the prophet Daniel, in punishment of the sins of men, his efforts shall be successful: And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice because of sins” [Dan 8:12].

For many Catholics the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled in 1969, when Paul VI promulgated the publication of a “new order of the Mass.” There can be no question that with the introduction of the new “Mass” the Conciliar revolution shifted into a higher gear. All of the errors of the Council now more quickly became apparent and spread with greater ease; the Novus Ordo Missae constituting their very embodiment. Whereas the [traditional] Latin Mass is a sacramental action aimed at giving glory to God, the object of the new “Mass” is a social action centered around the congregation.

The Latin Mass is one thing, and one thing only, the perfect mode of divine worship. For the “reformers,” however, this was precisely the problem with it. Oh, they pushed the idea that the Mass had to be made more “relevant” and “understandable” to the man in the pew, and that a “return to ancient liturgical forms” was the way to accomplish this. But, in truth, there was only one real reason for eliminating the Tridentine Mass: Its continued survival constituted a major obstacle to the imposition of a new belief system on Catholics; hence, it had to go. Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy summed this up well, when he wrote:

One final problem remained. The Reformers feared that “nothing would come out of the Council.” Even though they had managed to insert into the “official” Documents of the Council their false ideas, they knew that this alone was insufficient…. Change would occur far too slowly for the impatient innovators. The greater majority of the faithful had never asked for the Council (the Curia had opposed it also), and were perfectly content with the way the Church had always been. Even John XXIII had acknowledged and praised it as being “vibrant with vitality.” For most people things would have gone on much as before. It was absolutely necessary to introduce into the fabric of the everyday life of the Christian, all these new ideas, the “new economy of the Gospel.” How then to achieve this? The answer was obvious. One had to “reform” the Liturgy. [Rama P. Coomaraswamy, The Destruction of the Christian Tradition (London: Perennial Books, 1981), p. 137.]

This is in line with the apostate [priest and occultist Paul] Roca’s thinking, who, along with calling for “the scientific, economic, and social transfiguration of our … sacraments,” writes [in his book Glorious Centennial]:

As long as Christian ideas remained in a state of sacramental incubation, in our hands and under the veil of liturgy, they were unable to exert any efficacious and scientifically decisive social effect upon the organic and public government of human societies. [Quoted in Fr. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, The New Montinian Church, p. 191]

The new “Mass,” likewise, would need to reflect the “ecumenical,” “humanistic,” “universalist,” “socially relevant” activism of the Conciliar Church — abominations like the civil rights “Mass,” the farm workers’ “Mass,” the Marxist “Mass,” the feminist “Mass,” the homosexual “Mass,” which removed the focus from God to “special interest groups” [that] required a fitting service for their “social gospel” messages. And they got just that with the “reformed” rite. While these are extreme manifestations, to be sure, they are accepted extremes in the Conciliar religion and serve to underscore the doctrinal gulf that separates the true Catholic faith from the new “Catholic” faith.

(John K. Weiskittel, “The Bugnini File: A Study in Ecclesial Subversion”; italics added and some formatting adjusted.)

Theory aside, the last 50 years are proof positive of the destructive nature of the Novus Ordo Missae, for, with very few exceptions, the generations raised with that liturgy have no concept whatsoever of the true Roman Catholic religion.

The apostate priest Paul Roca [1830-1893], quoted above, also had a rather remarkable prediction to make, one that must have seemed absurd in the 19th century but which, in the 21st, is basically just a recap of historical fact:

[T]he divine cult in the form directed by the liturgy, ceremonial, ritual and regulations of the Roman Church will shortly undergo a transformation at an Ecumenical Council, which will restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.

(Paul Roca, qtd. in Bp. Rudolf Graber, Athanasius and the Church of Our Time, trans. by Susan Johnson [Gerrards Cross: Van Duren C. P., Ltd., 1974], p. 35)

What are we to make of Roca’s prescient vision of the Church being radically transformed by a council in the not-too-distant future? It could be just idle boasting, or it could be something more sinister. Did he have insider knowledge of what the secret societies were planning against the Church? In any case, we notice the striking similarities between Roca’s prophecy and Paul VI’s fulfillment:

  • Roca: Liturgy to be transformed at an Ecumenical Council
    Vatican II: Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for a revision of the liturgy
  • Roca: Said change will “restore it to the veritable simplicity of the golden age of the Apostles in accordance with the dictates of conscience and modern civilization.”
    Paul VI in Missale Romanum: The revision is based on “ancient sources”, the “doctrinal and spiritual riches” of which must be brought to light in order to adapt “the Roman Missal to the contemporary mentality”

How appropriate for Montini to choose “Paul” — Roca’s first name — as his “papal” name!

Francis Speaks Out in Favor of Missale Romanum and against “Nostalgic Past Tendencies”

The usually loquacious Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”) somehow managed not to bring up the topic of his predecessor’s paradigm-smashing document this April 3, though he had already brought it up earlier in the year. Speaking to the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in the Vatican on February 14, 2019, in typical fashion he made some Catholic-sounding noises, only to abruptly take a hard left turn in his discourse: “We must rediscover the reality of the sacred liturgy, and not reduce it”, he declared; but by no means was he making an appeal to restore the traditional Latin Mass to its rightful place in once-Catholic churches.

On the contrary — after all, this is Francis we’re talking about. The Vatican II “liturgical renewal”, he told those gathered, was greatly furthered in 1969 by the actions of Montini:

In the first months of that year the first fruits of the reform accomplished by the Apostolic See flourished for the benefit of the People of God. On precisely this date the Motu proprio Mysterii paschalis was promulgated regarding the Roman calendar and the liturgical year (14 February 1969); then, the important Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969), with which the Holy Pope [sic] promulgated the Roman Missal. In the same year the Ordo Missae and various other Ordo were issued….

(Francis, Address to Plenary Meeting of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the SacramentsZenit, Feb. 14, 2019; italics given.)

The entire address provides many insights into Bergoglio’s mindset, which shows a determined revolutionary bent, as reflected in the following passage, where he contrasts the “irreversible” revised liturgy of Paul VI with what went before:

The liturgy is not “the field of do-it-yourself”, but the epiphany of ecclesial communion. Therefore, “we”, and not “I”, resounds in prayers and gestures; the real community, not the ideal subject. When we look back to nostalgic past tendencies or wish to impose them again, there is the risk of placing the part before the whole, the “I” before the People of God, the abstract before the concrete, ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual.

In this sense, the title of your assembly is valuable: The liturgical formation of the People of God. The task that awaits us is indeed essentially that of spreading among the People of God the splendour of the living mystery of the Lord, Who makes Himself manifest in the liturgy.

(italics given)

Just beneath the surface of his words we can see the conflict between the worship services of two opposing religious belief systems: Catholic vs. Novus Ordo. Francis condemns the Catholic conception of the liturgy every step of the way:

  • Stressing the “we” over the “I” is coded language for saying that the priest has no unique role as the alter Christus (“another Christ”), the one who offers the Mass in the person of Christ Himself; now it’s all about a community offering “praise and thanksgiving” (but not the sin-atoning Sacrifice of Calvary)
  • He restates the same when he condemns those “placing the part before the whole, the ‘I’ before the ‘People of God’”, and this criticism is also directed against whom Paul VI referred to as “pious persons … having their respectable way of listening to Mass, [who] will [now] feel distracted from their customary thoughts and forced to follow those of others” (that is, their interior prayers are now interrupted by the humanistic spectacle of the “People of God”, including an often even irreverent “presider” who acts more as entertainer or assembly leader than as sacrificing priest)
  • Bergoglio’s warning against putting “the abstract before the concrete” may be an unspoken denial of the doctrines of Transubstantiation and the Real Presence, which he possibly regards as abstract and unreal, not to mention unimportant, especially when the concrete — community — is to be preferred
  • His criticism of putting “ideology before communion and, fundamentally, the worldly before the spiritual” is absurd: The traditional Latin Mass is worldly and ideological? Really? This is yet another astounding Bergoglian black is white, white is black inversion of truth. If anything, it is the “New Mass” that is worldly, first of all because of its invalidity, but also because of its focus moved away from God and onto the congregation, and the systemic and ubiquitous liturgical “abuses” that are always focused away from the Divine, including a pastor riding a bull down the center aisle of a church, a tango in the “sanctuary” before the watchful gaze of Bergoglio, the utter chaos of “Cardinal” Christoph Schonborn’s youth liturgies, a monstrance delivered by drone, and a Super-Soaker water pistol used for sprinkling the people with holy water, and untold other liturgical and spiritual abominations, all of which can be excused by the rubric of “mak[ing] the liturgy relevant to the modern mind”, so fundamental to Montini’s justification for the changes
  • And of course one would be hard-pressed to find a bigger ideologue than Bergoglio, who reads his political and Naturalist ideology into just about every Scripture passage he preaches on; and his one-foot-in/one-foot-out-of-the-closet Marxism is by definition materialist and mundane

So, as comes as no surprise, Francis’ presentation is quite congruent with the raison d’être of the Pauline “Mass”. Fifty years later, Missale Romanum is still a foundation stone to the whole rotten Novus Ordo superstructure.

Rejecting the Conciliar Church Means First Rejecting the New “Mass”

As shown above, the Novus Ordo Missae is the most crucial “reform” of the Modernists, because by its very nature it first compromises and then utterly destroys the Faith of those who attend it. In 2002, a Patrick Buchanan column entitled “An Index of Catholicism’s Decline” included the following statistic: “By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a ‘symbolic reminder’ of Jesus.”

There is a bit of an error there, for it should read, “70 percent of all Novus Ordos”. This is the grim legacy of the Montini-Bugnini liturgy: a dissolving of even the most rudimentary Catholic beliefs. An amusing irony, however, must not escape us: In the case of Paul VI’s invalid New Mass and its equally invalid “priests”, those 70% of people who do not believe in the Real Presence happen to be unintentionally correct, for in their “Mass”, Christ is truly not present!

But some much-needed levity aside, the unhappy anniversary of the promulgation of the Novus Ordo liturgy is one to be bemoaned, not celebrated. The “New Mass” is a destroyer of souls. We must work tirelessly to bring benighted people into the light, so that they may see that it is not Catholic, is not a Mass, does not please God, and is frightfully harmful to souls.

By the way, an anagram of Novus Ordo Missae is, “a dubious norm S.O.S.”.

How very appropriate.

Bitcoin Fear and Greed | Currently at Resistance

Regarding Bitcoin Fear and Greed, Greed is currently at a high level of resistance. See the chart below to see how human emotion rotates from fear to greed, and what that means for the price of Bitcoin.

bitcoin fear and greed

I posted this topic of Bitcoin Fear and Greed on Trading View. Here is the content…

“Bitcoin is at resistance on the Fear and Greed index.

There are many indicators which point to Bitcoin being overbought right now. There are also moving averages that will be applying downward pressure. 

On top of that, there are many examples and charts comparing 2015 to 2019, and a pivot at this level would be both expected and healthy as we gear up for the next bull run. 

However, for the purpose of this chart, I wanted to cut through all the clutter and focus only on price movement as it relates to the Crypto Fear and Greed index. 

You can see the chart for the index here… BITCOIN FEAR AND GREED 

On this chart, the green vertical lines represent a high of fear…the red vertical lines represent a high of greed. To be more clear, the green lines are numbered on both charts to easily see the rotations. 

It is said that 90% of traders lose money, so these levels are helpful in judging sentiment, and when emotions are at an extreme one way or the other, it is often a signal to look to go against the crowd. Look to Buy when there is fear, Sell when there is greed. 

This is not just trading, but life in general. Remember that a stock or crypto chart is literally only a story about human sentiment and emotion. Nothing is ever 100% predictable 100% of the time, but there is a reason that similar patterns emerge over many different markets, and it is because the same human emotion is being displayed in the different markets. 

To the present time, and the present chart, the Crypto Greed is at a resistance. It would sure make sense for a pivot here at the $5,300 level and see the next high in fear bring bitcoin under $4,400. 

Does it have to happen? Of course not. Nothing is 100% as was stated earlier. However, chances are fairly high that the top is near, and it would be risky to go long when most humans are being greedy. Hope this was of use to you. 

I got the data from and originally got it from Steve at Crypto Crew Youtube Channel.”


Francis in Morocco: “Being a Christian is not about Adhering to a Doctrine”

from Novus Ordo Watch

It was bound to happen. On the last day of his two-day apostolic journey blather tour in Morocco, Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope” Francis) once again spoke his heretical mind. Whenever this man’s lips part, there is no predicting what will come out of his mouth, and this time he had a few theological indiscretions prepared for his audience.

At the Cathedral of St. Peter in Rabat, Francis addressed his own Novus Ordo clergy, as well as members of the so-called Ecumenical Council of Churches. Vatican Media has provided the following video of the meeting:

A full transcript of Bergoglio’s speech has been posted on the Vatican web site:

The address is the typical mixed bag of truths, half-truths, and outright errors. We will highlight some of them.

In all seriousness, Francis opines that “Jesus did not choose us and send us forth to become more numerous!” That is a direct denial of the Great Commission (see Mt 28:19-20); but of course Francis wouldn’t be Francis if he didn’t nevertheless affirm in his very next sentence: “He called us to a mission.”

But what does mission and preaching the Gospel mean for Francis? To him, its essence lies in “our capacity to generate change and to awaken wonder and compassion.” If you can’t recall the Gospel passage where Christ sends His disciples to generate change and awaken wonder and compassion, you’re not alone. It only exists in the gospel according to Francis, and that is a false one (cf. Gal 1:8-9).

The false pope proceeds to explain that whatever preaching the Gospel and being missionaries may mean, it is definitely not making converts of unbelievers:

We do this by the way we live as disciples of Jesus, in the midst of those with whom we share our daily lives, joys and sorrows, suffering and hopes (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 1). In other words, the paths of mission are not those of proselytism. Please, these paths are not those of proselytism! Let us recall Benedict XVI: “the Church grows not through proselytism, but through attraction, through witness”. The paths of mission are not those of proselytism, which leads always to a cul-de-sac, but of our way of being with Jesus and with others. The problem is not when we are few in number, but when we are insignificant, salt that has lost the flavour of the Gospel – this is the problem – or lamps that no longer shed light (cf. Mt 5:13-15).

(underlining added)

Ah yes, that ever-present scourge of “proselytism”! Francis never fails to warn his people against that great evil! Remember?

This time, the pretend-Pontifex even assures his listeners that proselytism “leads always to a cul-de-sac”, a curious assessment for which he offers no rationale whatsoever, of course.

The professional Novus Ordo apologists — you know, the likes of Tim Staples, Jimmy Akin, Patrick Madrid, and Dave Armstrong — will try to tell you that “proselytism” refers not to the making of converts as such but rather to the making of converts using dishonest, intimidating, or otherwise immoral means. That, however, is definitely not what Francis means, and we can prove it:

Francis’ denunciation of proselytism is nothing new, then, and it is not surprising that he should have brought it up again, given the opportunity. However, he did have something new for his listeners, too, something that is no less outrageous:

I believe we should worry whenever we Christians are troubled by the thought we are only significant if we are the flour, if we occupy all the spaces. You know very well that our lives are meant to be “yeast”, wherever and with whomever we find ourselves, even if this appears to bring no tangible or immediate benefits (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 210). For being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine, or a temple or an ethnic group. Being Christian is about an encounter, an encounter with Jesus Christ. We are Christians because we have been loved and encountered, and not as the result of proselytism. Being Christian is about knowing that we have been forgiven and knowing that we are asked to treat others in the same way that God treated us. For “by this everyone shall know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35).

(underlining added)

So here the Jesuit apostate from Buenos Aires informs the world that being a Christian, a disciple of Jesus Christ, is not about adhering to a doctrine. Really? Let’s see.

In his Apostolic Letter against the French Sillon movement, Pope St. Pius X taught:

No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness.

But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors.

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them.

(Pope St. Pius X, Apostolic Letter Notre Charge Apostolique; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

All this is pretty clear. But since Francis also says that Faith “must be constantly nourished by the word of God”, we will also take a look at the testimony of Sacred Scripture regarding the importance of doctrine in Catholicism:

And they were astonished at his doctrine. For he was teaching them as one having power, and not as the scribes. (Mk 1:22)

Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (Jn 7:16)

The high priest therefore asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine. (Jn 18:19)

And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. (Acts 2:42)

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. (Acts 5:27-28)

Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into the house nor say to him, God speed you. (2 Jn 9-10)

I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2 Tim 4:1-4)

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. (2 Thess 2:14)

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:6-9)

Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. (Rom 16:17)

Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. (1 Cor 2:13)

These things proposing to the brethren, thou shalt be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished up in the words of faith, and of the good doctrine which thou hast attained unto. Till I come, attend unto reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine. (1 Tim 4:6,13)

If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to that doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing nothing… (1 Tim 6:3-4)

Exhort servants to be obedient to their masters, in all things pleasing, not gainsaying: Not defrauding, but in all things shewing good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things. (Titus 2:9-10)

…But being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine, huh?

Quick, someone call Catholic Answers and tell them to close down their offices. It’s not about doctrine, it’s all about an “encounter”, an experience. Maybe the Vatican will soon change the name of its Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to Congregation for the Experience of the Faith. At this point, anything is possible.

However, Francis isn’t quite so consistent in his dissing of doctrine. Keep in mind that he is the same theological shyster who at other times will suddenly play zealous guardian of orthodoxy and feign concern about a re-emergence of the heresies of Pelagianism and Gnosticism (see Letter Placuit Deo, approved and ordered by Francis); when, of course, he is the true Pelagian (atheist is in Heaven because he was “good”) and the real Gnostic (new doctrines from the “god of surprises”). In other words, being a Christian is all about doctrine whenever it suits him and his agenda.

Of course it is true that to be a genuine disciple of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must do more than simply believe and profess His holy doctrine. To enjoy God’s grace and ultimately make it to Heaven, we need not only Faith but also hope and charity, final perseverance (see Mt 7:21; Jas 2:14-26; Denz. 808). But that’s not the issue because that’s not what Francis was addressing: He didn’t say that in addition to professing the truth we must also live it if we wish to be saved. Had he said that, we could take no issue with it.

Instead, he said that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine.” Yet that is precisely what it is, above all. For he who adheres to the true doctrine but does not practice it, although he is a hypocrite and on his road to damnation, is nevertheless a Christian, a member of the Catholic Church, albeit a lifeless one:

If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema.

(Council of Trent, Session VI, Canon 28Denz. 838)

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 23)

Thus, he who retains Faith, even though he be in mortal sin, is still a Christian, still a member of the Church. (This important truth has immense repercussions for the visibility of the Church; otherwise one could not know who is and isn’t a Catholic, since one cannot tell whether another is in the state of mortal sin or in the state of sanctifying grace.) On the other hand, possessing charity and hope without Faith, is not possible: “But without faith it is impossible to please God…” (Heb 11:6).

Francis, then, has once again uttered a heresy, and quite an idiotic one at that. If Christianity isn’t about doctrine, why do we have a Creed?

Yes, yes, of course we are quite aware that one can spin Francis’ words to mean all sorts of things, as in, “Let me tell you what Francis meant by this”, but that’s beside the point. The point is what he actually said, not what he should have said or could have meant.

The false pope then turned to the topic of dialogue, talking about a “dialogue of salvation and friendship” to which we have supposedly been called, and exhorting his listeners to be a “living sacrament of the dialogue that God wants to initiate with each man and woman”. In this context, Bergoglio asks: “How can we fail to think of Saint Francis of Assisi, who at the height of the Crusades went to encounter Sultan al-Malik al-Kamil?”.

That’s a really great point, so let’s recall exactly how that “encounter” went between the two and discover if beyond a “dialogue of salvation” in which he “generate[d] change” and “awaken[ed] wonder and compassion”, St. Francis didn’t also engage in some of that dreaded “proselytism” that always ends in “a cul-de-sac”:

The Sultan Meledin asked him who sent them, and for what purpose they came? Francis answered with courageous firmness: “We are not sent by men, but it is the Most High who sends me, in order that I may teach you and your people the way of salvation, by pointing out to you the truths of the Gospel.” He immediately preached to him, with great fervor, the dogma of One God in Three Persons, and the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind.

(Congregation of the Oratory of St. Philip Neri, The Life of S. Francis of Assisi [New York, NY: D. & J. Sandlier & Co., 1889], pp. 197-198)

Clearly, if St. Francis were alive today, Bergoglio would be the first one to denounce him for proselytizing and spreading “religious supremacy”, another concept he disses in the same speech: “Dialogue, then, becomes prayer… A prayer of intercession that says to the Father, ‘Thy kingdom come’. Not by violence, not by hatred, not by ethnic, religious or economic supremacy….”

If there is no religious supremacy, that means all religions are equal. But this is a betrayal of the Gospel, a most frightful betrayal of Jesus Christ, who is the only Way to Eternal Life (see Jn 14:6; cf. 2 Cor 6:14-18).

In his landmark encyclical against Freemasonry, Pope Leo XIII warned:

…[T]he great error of this age [is] 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.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Humanum Genus, n. 16)

Yes, Catholicism claims religious supremacy. It alone is the true religion; all others are false.

Francis preaches the fraternity and indifferentism of Freemasonry. Earlier this year in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, he had blasphemously declared that the “pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings.”

No wonder he considers all religions equal. To him, what matters is encounter and experience; the rest — like doctrine, for example — is unnecessary bells and whistles:

What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few [Modernists]. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true.

(Pope St. Pius X, Encyclical Pascendi Dominici, n. 14)

Francis is a true and proper Modernist and therefore inherently incapable of being the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Antipapal Appointees Always Advance Antichrist’s Anti-Catholic Agenda

from Christ or Chaos

Working in secret, a cabal under Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII developed a secret schema for the “Second” Vatican Council that supplanted the one that had been developed by a team under the supervision of Alfred Cardinal Ottaviani, who was the head of the Holy Office. As noted in Culpably Blind last month, the man who masterminded the hijacking of the schema was none other than the doctrinally, liturgically and morally corrupt Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, then the Archbishop of Milan. This hijacking represented the conciliar revolutionaries’ mode by which they would use “bait and switch” efforts” to lull “conservatives” to sleep before they, the revolutionaries, used a blitzkrieg to implement the plans that they had made far in advance.

Similarly, the supposedly “limited” reform of the Sacred Liturgy that the subject of the robber council’s first decree, Sacrosanctum Concilium, November 1, 1963, turned into a full blown overthrow of the entirety of worship of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church in favor of an unprecedented liturgy that was designed to serve as an instrument of evangelization for the conciliar sect’s false doctrines. The promulgation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service by means of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s very misnamed Missale Romanum on April 3, 1969, resulted in a regime of ceaseless, unremitting, mind-numbing changes. These changes and variations are so numerous that it is not uncommon for “conservative” Catholics within the conciliar structures to encounter stagings of this abomination of desolation that vary so widely from one place to another—and even within a single parish—as the “options” permitting such idiosyncratic differences are all permitted and are to be found in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal. (For an excellent history on how the liturgical revolution, which hijacked the Liturgical Movement that began with Dom Prsoper Gueranger, O.S.B., in the Nineteenth Century, made substantial inroads during the last decade of Pope Pius XII’s pontificate, please see a series of articles written by Dr. Carol A. Byrne, who is very much opposed to sedevacantism, at The Start of The New Liturgical Movement. One can follow the “Continued” links at the end of this article—and each subsequent one, numbering forty-five in total, to read the entire series, which is well worth reading.)

The teleology of error is such that one falsehood must multiply into many other falsehoods over the course of time, and the counterfeit church of conciliarism so replete with error as to make whatever decisions its officials take at one time subject to the same kind of “reevaluation” and “adjustment” with which they have dismissed the dogmatic decrees of Holy Mother Church’s twenty legitimate general councils and the defense of dogmatic truth by our true popes. What one conciliar “pope” does can be undone by the next conciliar “pope,” and no conciliar “pope” has been more intent on undoing anything approximating Catholicism that had been maintained prior to his “election” on March 13, 2013, than Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The Argentine Apostate has engaged in a systematic process of filling the conciliar curia with his fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionaries, some of whom have nominated and receive antipapal approbation for nominees to Vatican academies and councils who are not at odds with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law but who have made active war against them in the abject, open and unapologetic promotion of evil.

For example, “Archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia has made it a point to appoint anti-life and pro-sodomite “experts” to the revamped “Pontifical” Academy for Life in 2017. It is instructive for present purposes to review what happened two years ago in order to put Paglia’s belief, stated also in 2017, that parents in Italy must comply with state and school regulations requiring them to vaccinate their children with vaccinations derived from the cells of aborted babies in its proper perspective at a time when there was an outbreak of measles there:

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Academy, commented on the appointments, saying that “with these appointments Pope Francis has formed a College of academics of the highest professional standing that will offer to the Catholic Church and to the whole world a deep and wise vision in the service of human life, especially life that is weakest and most defenseless. The Academicians named by the Holy Father come from 27 countries around the world and are outstanding in diverse fields of human knowledge. Among them are a number of non-Catholics, either belonging to other religions and non-believers, a sign that the protection and promotion of human life knows no divisions and can be assured only through common endeavor.” With respect to the appointment of Honorary Members, Archbishop Paglia noted that, “They represent the history of the Academy and a passion for human life for which we must all be grateful; it is thanks to the earlier work of so many illustrious men and women that today, with the appointment of new Academicians, our institution continues its service to life with renewed energy.”

The Governing Council of the Academy, which will be appointed by the Holy See pursuant to the Statutes and the Regulations of the Academy, will appoint Corresponding Members and Young Researchers (a new membership category created in the Statutes promulgated by Pope Francis in 2016), and thus fill out the membership of the Academy.

The Ordinary Assembly of the Academy, scheduled for October 5-7 in the Vatican, will be opened by Pope Francis, and will constitute the official launch of the renewed Academy.

The following is the list of Ordinary and Honorary Members appointed by Pope Francis.

The Holy Father has appointed as Ordinary Members for a five-year term [a partial listing follows]:

● Professor Nigel BIGGAR, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, and Director of the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life, at the University of Oxford (Great Britain);

● Kathleen M. FOLEY, M.D., Neurologist, Director of the Department of Neurology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the New York Hospital (United States);

●Professor Daniel SULMASY, Professor of Bioethics at Georgetown University, Washington, DC (United States); (Bergoglio Nominates One Pro-Abort and Two Soros Cronies to Serve in the “Pontifical” Academy for Life.)

This is what I wrote at the time:

It is instructive to look at these three new “ordinary members” as one, Nigel Biggar supports the direct intentional taking of innocent human life in the womb, and the other two, support the dispatching of human beings when “medical professionals” deem that it is necessary to put them on a “path” to “ease” them on a path to death according to a “plan” designed by the “team” assigned to their cases, which, of course “consults” (pressures) family members to agree to do what is “best.”

First, consider the case of Nigel Biggar:

ROME, Italy, June 16, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life defended Pope Francis’ appointment of a new Academy member who is pro-abortion and has expressed qualified support for euthanasia. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has, moreover, accused Catholic media of “sensationalism” for highlighting the pro-abortion pick.

When a Twitter user pointed out to Paglia that English Catholic media outlets were focusing on the pro-abortion appointee, he suggested Catholic media was falling victim to “sensationalism.” 

“[W]e pray that Catholics and Catholic media not fall victim to sensationalism,” he tweeted. “Love for life must mean love for each other.”

University of Oxford Professor Nigel Biggar, who was appointed to the Academy for a five-year term, stated in a 2011 dialogue with pro-infanticide ethicist Peter Singer that a preborn baby is “not … the same kind of thing as an adult or a mature human being” and therefore does not deserve “quite the same treatment.”

I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness,” he said as reported by Standpoint magazine.

Then, one year later, when he was the keynote speaker for an event at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, he said “it is not true that all abortion is equivalent to murder.”

When LifeSiteNews asked Biggar if his appointment to the Academy indicated that the Church under Francis is shifting gears on abortion, he said that as someone who is not Roman Catholic, he did not think it appropriate to comment on the Church’s position.

I am very sorry to disappoint you, but the issue of abortion is one on which I have views, but it is not one that I have thought about for a very long time,” he said. 

I believe that the reason for my recent appointment lies in my sustained work on the issues of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. On those issues, my conclusions are consonant with the Church’s,” he added.

But Biggar’s position on euthanasia is not, in fact, consonant with Catholic teaching. 

In a review of Biggar’s 2004 book titled Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia, reviewer David Jones wrote for the periodical New Blackfriars that Biggar would allow some people to be euthanized who were so damaged that they could be excluded from being called “human.”  

“If someone’s brain is irreparably damaged so that he or she cannot think, then according to Biggar we should conclude that he or she is no longer a human ‘person’ and no longer part of the human community. Biggar even describes such individuals as ‘irretrievably inaccessible to human care’ so that it means nothing to protect them from being killed nor therefore (and this is my deduction) to visit, clothe or feed them,” wrote Jones. 

Christopher Ferrara, author and head of the American Catholic Lawyer’s Association, said an appointment of a pro-abortion member to the Vatican’s highest pro-life institution means that Pope Francis, “as incredible as it may seem, is programmatically committed to accommodating … the toleration of abortion in the life of the Church.”

“[He has] demolished John Paul II’s Pontifical Academy for Life by sacking every one of its members and having its new president, the ‘pro-gay’ Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (of obscene mural fame), draw up new statutes for the Academy,” he wrote, adding: “Bear in mind that Pope [Francis] has abolished the pro-life oath formerly taken by members of the Academy.”

Former Academy member Judie Brown, president of American Life League, said the Academy under Pope Francis’ leadership has lost its way. 

“Pope Francis has created a revised version of the sainted Pope John Paul II’s vision that is not only scary, but also in many ways ugly to behold,” she wrote.  (Pro-Abort to Head “Pontifical” Academy for Life.)

What the well-intentioned, incredulous author of the report does not understand is that everything about the counterfeit church of conciliarism is ugly, and that includes Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s aforementioned warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth and his incessant acts of obeisance to false religions, false places of worship and the idols and symbals of false religion. Those who do not see this are forever expressing “outrage” at what are simply the logical consequences of endorsing dogmatic evolutionism and of making a mockery of the First, Second, and Third Commandments.

It is really as simple as this: attacks the immutable nature of God and His Divine Revelation lead inevitably to attacks upon each of the Ten Commandments, including the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments.

“Saint John Paul II,” of course, always used the conciliarspeak of “human dignity” and “human rights” to condemn abortion, almost never referring to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment in his addresses and allocutions, although he did refer to “Thou shalt not” in Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, without specifically stating that this injunction was found in the Fifth Commandment. One of the reasons the fourth in the current line of antipopes did not do so might have from an “ecumenical” desire to get Protestants, who enumerate the Commandments differently, to read his encyclical, which was revolutionary not only in the language of conciliarspeak utilized but also for its attack on the liceity of the death penalty in most cases. To attack the liceity of capital punishment when it is administered by a duly constituted authority after the administration of due process of the law is to attack the Natural Law itself.

All that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing is to take full advantage of “Saint John Paul II’s” living tradition by fully embracing “brain death” and “palliative care” as positions of the “Pontifical” Academy for Life. After all, why should any conciliar “pope,” including Bergoglio, having any more respect for the teaching of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II than the latter had, say for Pope Saint Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, or The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, or for Pope Pius XI’s defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, and his condemnation of false ecumenism in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928?

It should come as no surprise that parents of children who attend Assumption Academy in Walton, Kentucky, which is administered by the Society of Saint Pius X, are being undercut by Vincenzo Paglia’s Antipapal Academy for Death, which says that there is no moral objection to having their son vaccinated with a vaccine derived from the cells of butchered babies:

VATICAN CITY, March 26, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — In a stunning declaration, the Pontifical Academy for Life — now populated entirely with Pope Francis appointments — has urged parents to vaccinate their children, even if the vaccines are derived from aborted babies.  

The issue made national headlines this month when a Catholic family sued a local health department after it placed severe restrictions on school attendance and extracurricular activities of students at Assumption Academy in Walton, Kentucky, following an outbreak of chickenpox at the school.  

Many Catholic families choose not to vaccinate their children against certain childhood diseases such as measles and chickenpox because the only vaccines available are derived from the cells of babies aborted in the 1960s.  

In the middle of the controversy, the Pontifical Academy of Life chimed in, siding not with the conscientious Catholic parents and students, but with the health department officials for whom the abortion-derived vaccines present no moral dilemma.   

The newly constituted Pontifical Academy of Life (PAV) — from which Pope Francis ejected all members appointed by Pope St. John Paul II and inserted his own appointees, with controversial Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia serving as the body’s head — said that “the cell lines currently in use are very distant from the original abortions and no longer imply that bond of moral cooperation indispensable for an ethically negative evaluation of their use.”

here is a “moral obligation to guarantee the vaccination coverage necessary for the safety of others,” added the PAV in its 2017 statement.

“An appropriate and necessary response”

The Kunkel parents, upon discovering the truth about the origins of the vaccines, chose not to have the chickenpox vaccine administered to their son, Jerome. 

Now an 18-year-old senior, Jerome plays center for the school’s basketball team but has been prevented from finishing out the season as result of the Northern Kentucky (NKY) Health Department’s directive.

The ban pits the religious liberty of the Kunkels and other Catholic families who conscientiously object against what the NKY Health Department says is the common good.

“Chickenpox, also known as varicella, can be a very serious illness that is especially dangerous for infants and pregnant women or anyone who has a weakened immune system,” declared the the NKY Health Department in an online statement. “The recent actions taken by the Northern Kentucky Health Department regarding the chickenpox outbreak at Our Lady of the Sacred Heart/Assumption Academy was in direct response to a public health threat and was an appropriate and necessary response to prevent further spread of this contagious illness.”

“The chickenpox vaccine is the best way to prevent becoming ill and spreading the varicella virus,” concludes the NKY Health Department, which advised Assumption Academy parents in a series of letters about the outbreak.  

Parents were told, “All students without proof of vaccination or proof of immunity against chickenpox will not be allowed to attend school until 21 days after the onset of rash for the last ill student or staff member.”

Discrimination against Catholics living their faith

Despite the dangers inherent in rejecting the vaccine, its origin remains highly problematic — if not anathema — for Catholics who view abortion of unborn infants as murder. The fact that those murders occurred over fifty years ago does not ameliorate their violence and horror.

erome says the ban discriminates against him because of his religious beliefs.

“The fact that I can’t finish my senior year of basketball … is pretty devastating,” said Jerome. “I mean, you go through four years of high school playing basketball, you look forward to your senior year.”  

His father, Bill, went further and told The Washington Post, “This is tyranny against our religion, our faith, our country.”  

“I don’t believe in that vaccine at all,” said the elder Kunkel in a WLWT5 TV interview, “and they’re trying to push it on us.”

“The chickenpox vaccine is derived from aborted fetuses,” continued Kunkel, adding, “as Christians, we’re against abortions.”

The new Pontifical Academy of Life delivers muddied message, defies Catholic consciences

The PAV’s newly stated position represents a subtle shift in support of aborted fetal vaccines.

In 2005, the PAV issued a statement that went to great lengths to describe the various levels of evil associated with the development, production, and marketing of such vaccines, while also addressing the culpability of doctors and parents.  

The PAV said at that time that cooperation with the moral evil involved is “more intense on the part of the authorities and national health systems that accept the use of the vaccines” than it is on the part of doctors who administer the vaccines and the parents who choose to inoculate their children using the tainted vaccines because no other option exists.  

While the PAV’s 2005 statement acknowledged the “moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk,” the 2017 statement by the Academy essentially erases the role of conscience for parents, instead declaring a moral obligation to use the vaccines derived from aborted children.

As we have seen on many other questions, the reconstituted PAV backslides into positions that no longer reinforce the conscience protections Catholic parents, and Catholics in general seek in order to live their lives in faith and trust in Christ,” said Judie Brown, American Life League president, in a statement to LifeSiteNews. “The new PAV position on vaccinations for children is more of the same.”

So not only are the consciences of the Catholic families of Walton Kentucky’s Assumption Academy pitted against their local health department, but they find themselves in opposition to the relaxed attitudes and standards of Francis’s Pontifical Academy of Life.

Pope Francis’s Pontifical Academy of Life: Tacit approval of aborted fetal vaccines

Debi Vinnedge, the founder of Children of God for Life, recently told LifeSiteNews’s Rome Correspondent, Diane Montagna, “There is a huge market worth billions of dollars due to the creation of patents, sale of the cell lines by companies that actually store and resell aborted fetal material.”

Research and vaccine production is filling the pockets of “universities, biotech companies, the pharmaceutical industry and of course, Planned Parenthood who was caught in an undercover sting discussing how they ensure obtaining intact organs for sale.”

“The tacit approval of using the aborted fetal vaccines when there is no alternative is a major roadblock to making any progress to stop this injustice,” said Vinnedge. “Until our physicians and clergy leaders unite worldwide demanding the moral alternatives, the pharmaceutical industry is not going to change. In fact, as history and the current trends are proving, it’s only going to get worse.”

Christopher Ferrara, author and head of the American Catholic Lawyers’ Association, said in 2017 that Pope Francis “demolished John Paul II’s Pontifical Academy for Life by sacking every one of its members and having its new president, the ‘pro-gay’ Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, draw up new statutes for the Academy.”

“Bear in mind that Pope [Francis] has abolished the pro-life oath formerly taken by members of the Academy,” he added. (Parents Must Vaccinate Even if Vaccines Come From Aborted Babies.)

This is all about the money and control

Forget all the relativist, rationalist, subjectivist rhetoric of “women’s rights” and “reproductive freedom.”

Contraception and surgical abortion are all about the money, blood money to be accurate.

Planned Barrennhood is now and has always been about the money, a point that is made in a documentary, “Unplanned,” that is debuting this week in motion picture theaters. Although I do not go to movies—and have done only for three movies (Therese, which was disappointing, The Passion of the Christ and, of course, For Greater Glory)  the past twenty years—and will not do so during Lent, it is my understanding that “Unplanned” is a powerful statement against Planned Barrennhood in very graphic terms, although I never underestimate the public’s ability to ignore truth even on the natural level and/or to be unmoved by it.

The pharmaceutical industry is not about “making us healthy.” It is about the money, which it makes in bundles and bundles by convincing physicians and hospitals to purchase their wares that are filled with poisons and are approved for marketing without proper safeguards and with built-in profit-margins that contain budget amounts for payouts as they expect a certain percentage of patients to die from their use.

Big Agriculture is not about supplying us with healthy food. It is about the money, which is why they have pushed most small farmers out of business and why they are so heavily invested in gene-editing, the manipulation of seeds and thus of the productive of genetically modified food products that their bought-and-paid-for agents in the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Food and Drug Administration and White House and Congressional staffers, congressmen, senators, governors, state legislators and the advertising industry. (This same relationship, of course, exists between Big Pharma and the same government bureaucrats, media conglomerates, elected officials and their appointees.)

The medical, working in conjunction with the insurance industry, is all about the money. Patients are milked for everything covered by their insurance policies, at which point most patients, many of whom are made more sick by the drugs they are administered by medical “professionals, are either consigned to burdensome debts that they pay never be able to pay off during their lifetimes or are said to be candidates for “palliative” care because of a what a team of “professionals” considers to be “quality of life” considerations that makes their being dispatched more “cost-effective” over time. (See Chronicling the Adversary’s Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry.)

Moreover, save for a few notable and very rare exceptions, most of the graduates of medical schools and colleges throughout the course of the Twentieth Century, including in supposed “halcyon days” of the 1950s that were not so great, were indoctrinated by the bilge about the “safety” of various pharmaceutical products and how vaccines were responsible for eliminating outbreaks of diseases. Lies. All lies.

Ah, you doubt my word.

Let me acquaint you with the work of Dr. Suzanne Humphries, who left conventional medicine after a period of twenty-two years after she had seen what was being done to patients and the lies that were being told in the name of “public health.” Her research speaks for itself, and her informative videos are chock-filled with important information, including how the government, the advertising industry and pesticide manufacturers such as Monsanto marketed the nonexistent safety of “DDT” in the 1950s with such gimmicks as a little girl dancing “DDT is good for me-e-e!” as she walked a cow”! I kid you not. Prolonged exposure to DDT produced symptoms that mimicked those of poliomyeletis, meaning the true culprit of many illnesses at the time the polio vaccine as developed were caused by DDT, which was heavily promoted by the government and advertisers as safe, safe, safe. Here are some examples:

DDT-laced wallpaper, from Copyranter:

(text for this final ad after the jump)

“The great expectations held for DDT have been realized. During 1946, exhaustive scientific tests have shown that, when properly used, DDT kills a host of destructive insect pests, and is a benefactor of all humanity.

Pennsalt produces DDT and its products in all standard forms and is now one of the country’s largest producers of this amazing insecticide. Today, everyone can enjoy added comfort, health and safety through the insect-killing powers of Pennsalt DDT products . . . and DDT is only one of Pennsalt’s many chemical products which benefit industry, farm and home.

GOOD FOR FRUITS – Bigger apples, juicier fruits that are free from unsightly worms . . . all benefits resulting from DDT dusts and sprays.

GOOD FOR STEERS – Beef grows meatier nowadays . . . for it’s a scientific fact that compared to untreated cattle beef-steers gain up to 50 pounds extra when protected from horn flies and many other pests with DDT insecticides.

FOR THE HOME – Helps to make healthier and more comfortable homes . . . protects your family from dangerous insect pests. Use Knox-Out DDT Powders and Sprays as directed . . . then watch the bugs ‘bite the dust’!

FOR DAIRIES – Up to 20% more milk . . . more butter . . . more cheese . . . tests prove greater milk production when dairy cows are protected from the annoyance of many insects with DDT insecticides like Knox-Out Stock and Barn Spray.

GOOD FOR ROW CROPS – 25 more barrels of potatoes per acre . . . actual DDT tests have shown crop increases like this! DDT dusts and sprays help truck farmers pass these gains along to you.

    GOOD FOR INDUSTRY – Food processing plants, laundries, dry cleaning plants, hotels . . . dozens of industries gain effective bug control, more pleasant work conditions with  Pennsalt DDT products. (DDT Is Good for Me–e–e.)

As Dr. Suzanne Humphries notes in a very compelling and informative video (see Dr. Suzanne Humphries on the smallpox vaccine), the government, the media and, of course, the pharmaceutical/medical industrial complex of death have been lying to us ever since the development of vaccines in the Nineteenth Century. The lies that have been told us even when many of us “baby boomers” were getting vaccines aplenty are astounding, and this is from one who had to be convinced of the vaccine scam in 2001 by several people. The evidence is there. Only the willfully blind refuse to see it as we have been conditioned to accept whatever the government and the medical industry insist is “good” for us. Dr. Humphries explains the vaccinators have changed the definition of illnesses such as poliomyelitis in order to convince the general populace that they are at risk for contracting polio. Dr. Jim West, who is known to at least a few readers of this site, also debunked the causes of polio in an article that he wrote in 2002 and was posted in 2015 at another website; see Everything You Learned About the Cause of Polio is Wrong.

All one really has to know about the vaccine scam is that the draconian Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, which is fully funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, was instrumental in pushing the propaganda used to condition us about the “necessity” of vaccines for one’s personal health and for public safety.

Yes, I know full well that some of true popes got vaccinated and that true priests led processions of their parishioners to get vaccinated. Pope Pius VII even said that the development of the smallpox vaccine was an instrument of God’s omnipotence. I am not casting aspersions on them. However, we know more now than they did when they lived, and most of what is known, as Dr. Humphries documents fully, is based upon the evidentiary paper trail left us by the so-called “medical professionals,” alleged scientists and pharmaceutical company executives that documented how vaccines failed to work. These alleged guardians of “public health” also documented how they changed the definitions of the various diseases the vaccines were said to have cured in order to cover-up the fact of their failure to do what they had told the public had been accomplished. 

Talk about fake news.

There are two issues here, therefore, that I want to bring to the attention of my own readers, few in number though you may be. (Again, this is a statement of fact without any complaint. Obscurity is good. Deo gratias.)

First, decrees issued by the conciliar authorities on matters pertaining to Faith and Morals carry no authority at all to bind the faithful. This has been true from the time of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII to that of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is in Morocco at this time promoting the apostate document that he signed in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates on January 19, 2019. Too bad vaccines don’t work as I, for one, would love to have a vaccine that kept the world safe from Jorge Mario Bergolio and conciliarism.

Second, decrees issued by the conciliar authorities under Jorge Mario Bergoglio invariably wind up supporting the promotion of sin under the cover of “compassion” and/or “accompaniment” and are reliably supportive of every falsehood promoted by pro-abortion, pro-sodomite, statist, open-borders and anti-family politician on the face of the earth, including the Chicoms, whose bidding he has done by throwing underground Catholics in Red China to them to persecute with antipapal approbation.

Thus it is that the parents in Kentucky who do not want to subject their children to vaccines derived from the cells of butchered babies (whether from abortions directly or from babies conceived by means of the illicit and immoral money-making practice of in vitro fertilization and then discarded for commercial purposes) have been undercut by the authorities at the revamped “Pontifical” Academy for Life, which is truly the Antipapal Assembly for Death, headed as it is at this time by Vincenzo Paglia, an absolute nogoodnik of the first order. (This is but another reason to simply avoid all contact with the contagious disease known as conciliarism, which is cured by simply cutting oneself off from the spiritual robber barons. Very simple.)

Although the Antipapal Assembly for Death did not rule directly about the aforementioned case in Kentucky and a 2017 statement Paglia issued concerned an outbreak of measles in Italy, Zigmunt Zimoski, the president of the “Pontifical” Council for Pastoral Assistance to Health Care Workers,” did issue a “New Charter for Health Care Workers” that was translated into English by the National Catholic Bioethics Center of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The “new charter,” which supports the lies of the inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, “natural family planning,” the medical industry’s manufactured, money-making myth of “brain death,” vital organ “donation” and transplantation, and vaccinations, including the use of vaccines derived from “biological material” that have some “association” with the cells of butchered babies. It is on the basis of this “new charter” that Vincenzo Paglia’s Antipapal Assembly for Death has ruled it permissible to use vaccines derived from the cells of butchered children.

Here is the relevant passage from the “New Charter for Health Care Workers, interspersed with my own interjections.

From the perspective of preventing infectious diseases, the development of vaccines and their employment in the fight against such infections, through the obligatory immunization of all populations concerned, is undoubtedly a positive step.  (New Charter for Health Care Workers, pp, 52-54.)

Interjection Number One:

The employment of “vaccines in the fight against” infectious diseases, through the obligatory immunization of all populations concerned, is undoubtedly a positive step”?

Says who?

Big Pharma, that’s who.

Big Government, that’s who (two).

Vaccines have nothing to do with public health, and the passage of laws and issuance of decrees and directives mandating the obligatory immunization of all citizens represents a draconian effort on the part of social engineers to engage in the control of the population. Once again, you see, the Rockefeller Foundation and its offshoot, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, do not have public health and safety in mind. They are concerned about an ideological agenda that is opposed to that which constitutes the true public good, namely, the eternal good of souls upon which all just scientific and medical decisions and treatments must be based.

Consider, for example, the positivistic, utilitarian reasoning of Associate Justice John Marshal Harlan I in the Supreme Court of the United States of America concerning compulsory immunization in the case of Jacobson v. United States, February 20, 1905:

The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the State subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best, and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that “persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the State, of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made so far as natural persons are concerned.” Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 46595 U. S. 471Missouri, Kansas & Texas Ry. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613169 U. S. 628169 U. S. 629Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington R.R., 27 Vermont 140, 148. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86137 U. S. 89, we said:

“The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is then liberty regulated by law.”

In the constitution of Massachusetts adopted in 1780, it was laid down as a fundamental principle of the social compact that the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for “the common good,” and that government is instituted “for the common good, for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people, and not for the profit, honor or private interests of anyone man, family or class of men.”

The good and welfare of the Commonwealth, of which the legislature is primarily the judge, is the basis on which the police power rests in Massachusetts. Commonwealth v. Alger, 7 Cush. 53, 84.

Applying these principles to the present case, it is to be observed that the legislature of Massachusetts required the inhabitants of a city or town to be vaccinated only when, in the opinion of the Board of Health, that was necessary for the public health or the public safety. The authority to determine for all what ought to be done in such an emergency must have been lodged somewhere or in some body, and surely it was appropriate for the legislature to refer that question, in the first instance, to a Board of Health, composed of persons residing in the locality affected and appointed, presumably, because of their fitness to determine such questions. To invest such a body with authority over such matters was not an unusual nor an unreasonable or arbitrary requirement. Upon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members. It is to be observed that, when the regulation in question was adopted, smallpox, according to the recitals in the regulation adopted by the Board of Health, was prevalent to some extent in the city of Cambridge, and the disease was increasing. If such was the situation — and nothing is asserted or appears in the record to the contrary — if we are to attach any value whatever to the knowledge which, it is safe to affirm, is common to all civilized peoples touching smallpox and the methods most usually employed to eradicate that disease, it cannot be adjudged that the present regulation of the Board of Health was not necessary in order to protect the public health and secure the public safety. Smallpox being prevalent and increasing at Cambridge, the court would usurp the functions of another branch of government if it adjudged, as matter of law, that the mode adopted under the sanction of the State, to protect the people at large was arbitrary and not justified by the necessities of the case. We say necessities of the case because it might be that an acknowledged power of a local community to protect itself against an epidemic threatening the safety of all, might be exercised in particular circumstances and in reference to particular persons in such an arbitrary, unreasonable manner, or might go so far beyond what was reasonably required for the safety of the public, as to authorize or compel the courts to interfere for the protection of such persons. Wisconsin &c. R.R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 27179 U. S. 301; 1 Dillon Mun. Corp., 4th ed.,§§ 319 to 325, and authorities in notes; Freund’s Police Power, § 63 et seq. In Railroad Company v. Husen, 95 U. S. 46595 U. S. 471-473, this court recognized the right of a State to pass sanitary laws, laws for the protection of life, liberty, heath or property within its limits, laws to prevent persons and animals suffering under contagious or infectious diseases, or convicts, from coming within its borders. But as the laws there involved went beyond the necessity of the case and under the guise of exerting a police power invaded the domain of Federal authority, and violated rights secured by the Constitution, this court deemed it to be its duty to hold such laws invalid. If the mode adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the protection of its local communities against smallpox proved to be distressing, inconvenient or objectionable to some — if nothing more could be reasonably affirmed of the statute in question — the answer is that it was the duty of the constituted authorities primarily to keep in view the welfare, comfort and safety of the many, and not permit the interests of the many to be subordinated to the wishes or convenience of the few.  (Jacobson v. Massachusetts, February 20, 1905.)

Admitting that the individuals are not free to do whatever it is they want to do as there is no moral liberty to sin nor to disobey just laws made by the civil authorities, Justice Harlan’s decision in the case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts was based upon the presumption that vaccines were effective against smallpox. They were not. Harlan’s decision was also premised upon the reliance of the near-infallibility of the medical community, a myth that Dr. Humphries explodes in her books and videos and that an article about the Jacobson case made very clear:

Attorney Lawrence Gostin has said that Jacobson v. Massachusetts “is often regarded as the most important judicial decision in public health.”2 He got that right. He knew he could use it after 9-11 to re-write state public health laws giving government more police power to trample on freedom whenever health officials declare a “public health emergency.”5

The tragic legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts not only haunts public health law making in the U.S., it has come to define it. If you wonder why this summer CDC officials boldly announced they want more police power to yank you off a plane and put you into involuntary quarantine because they believe you might get measles, you can thank the Supreme Court.6  If your healthy unvaccinated child has been kicked out of school while sick vaccinated children are allowed to stay7 – or if you have been fired from your job because you said “no” to getting a flu shot8 – look no further than Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

In a nutshell, the judges sitting on the Supreme Court more than a century ago used bad logic, relied on old science and made the ridiculous assumption that doctors are infallible to give government the green light to force healthy Americans to risk their lives with a pharmaceutical product based on “common belief” rather than fact. Piously waving the “greater good” flag, they threw individuals under the bus by throwing civil liberties out the door.

Here is how the Supreme Court created the legal club being used today to take away your right to exercise freedom of thought, conscience and religious belief when making vaccine decisions for yourself or your children.

Pastor Jacobson and His Son Had Suffered Severe Reactions to Smallpox Vaccine

In 1904, a Lutheran minister, Swedish immigrant Henning Jacobson, objected to a Cambridge, Massachusetts Board of Health law requiring all adults to get a second smallpox vaccination or pay a $5 dollar fine. Pastor Jacobson and his son had suffered severe reactions to previous smallpox vaccinations and he logically argued that genetic predisposition placed him at higher risk for dying or being injured if he was revaccinated.

e correctly concluded that smallpox vaccine ingredients were toxic and often caused injury and even death and that medical doctors were unable to predict who would be harmed.10 11 12 13 14 15 He made the legal and ethical argument that being required to get revaccinated was an assault on his person and a violation of his 14th Amendment right to liberty and equal protection under the law.16

Jacobson v. Massachusetts Affirms Infallibility of Doctors

But the attorneys representing medical doctors persuaded judges in the state court that Jacobson did not know what he was talking about and ruled against him. Instead of simply paying a $5 fine, Jacobson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was a mistake that led to one of the most unethical and dangerous legal decisions in American jurisprudence.

In a split decision with one dissenting vote, the Court majority, including Oliver Wendell Holmes, said that citizens do not have the right under the U.S. Constitution to be free at all times because there are “manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subjected for the common good.” They said that state legislatures have the constitutional authority to enact compulsory vaccination laws and exercise police power to restrict or eliminate liberty during smallpox epidemics to “secure the general comfort, health and prosperity of the state.”

The judges dismissed Jacobson’s concern about being genetically susceptible to vaccine harm. Instead they chose to incorrectly affirm the infallibility of doctors by making this ignorant statement: “The matured opinions of medical men everywhere, and the experience of mankind, as all must know, negative the suggestion that it is not possible in any case to determine whether vaccination is safe.”

Compulsory Vaccination Compared to Military Draft

Comparing compulsory smallpox vaccination of adults with the military draft in times of war, the judges declared that a citizen “may be compelled, by force if need be, against his will and without regard to his personal wishes or his pecuniary interests, or even his religious or political convictions, to take his place in the ranks of the army of his country and risk the chance of being shot down in its defense.”

Of course, today, most of the citizen soldiers being forced to “risk the chance of being shot down” in America are babies in newborn nurseries17 18 and little children who want to go to school.19 20

Vaccine Law Can Be Based on “Common Belief,” Not Fact

Although the 1905 Supreme Court judges dismissed concerns about the safety of smallpox vaccine as completely unfounded, they were clearly uncomfortable about Jacobson’s contention that his life was on the line. Not once, but repeatedly, they returned to the knotty problem of individual risk only to ridicule Jacobson and point out that his uneducated opinion was no match for the “common knowledge” expert opinion of medical doctors. In fact, the judges went so far as to say that – even if Jacobson could prove medical experts were wrong about the safety of smallpox vaccination – states still have the constitutional power to enact laws based on majority opinion and “common belief” and not on truth or proven facts. They said:

“A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts. The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive…for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not.”

I wonder how many legislators know that the 1905 Supreme Court ruling being used to eliminate exemptions from vaccine laws was based on the idea that “common belief” – not hard evidence – can rule the day?

The 1905 Supreme Court judges tried to defend their decision by explaining that if individuals like Jacobson were able to get exempted from vaccination, it would mean that, “Compulsory vaccination could not, in any conceivable case, be legally enforced in a community, even at the command of the legislature, however widespread the epidemic of smallpox; and however deep and universal was the belief of the community and its medical advisors that a system of general vaccination was vital to the safety of all.”

And there it is again. The Supreme Court told state governments they can make vaccine laws based on “deep and universal” beliefs about vaccination, especially beliefs held by medical doctors, but can ignore the deeply held beliefs of individuals with good reason to conclude they will be harmed by vaccination.

The Utilitarian Legacy of Jacobson v. Massachusetts

What were the beliefs of doctors in the early 20th century? Well, many influential doctors in academia and those leading social reform movements believed in a political philosophy called utilitarianism, which has its roots in hedonism.21 Utilitarianism is a theory of morality based on a mathematical equation: the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.22 23  Legislators like it because law making becomes a simple matter of adding and subtracting numbers, like generals do on a battlefield when counting how many casualties it took to win a battle. (The Harm of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, February 20, 1905.)

Although the author of this excellent analysis does not understand that the triumph of utilitarianism is the result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and the subsequent rise and institutionalization of the naturalistic precepts of Judeo-Masonry, the truth remains that trusting in the infallibility of the medical industry now is even more dangerous than it was in 1905. The assertion made about the “necessity” of compulsory vaccinations in the text of “New Charter for Health Care Workers” is gratuitous and contrary to fact.

Here is the next section from the “New Charter for Health Care Workers”:

The preparation of certain vaccines occasionally involves the use of “biological material” of illicit origin, for example, in the cell lines developed from deliberately aborted fetuses. The ethical problems here are essentially cooperation with evil and scandal, because of a grave disorder against the life and integrity belonging to every human being. The duty remains for everyone to manifest disagreement with the use of biological material of illicit origin for the preparation of vaccines and to ask health care systems to make other types of vaccines available.

In some cases, researchers utilize “biological material” that was not directly produced by those who make use of it, but acquired commercially; in these situations, one can invoke the criteria of independence, that is, the absence of proximate connection to illicit practices. Nevertheless, the researchers, in their professional activity, have the duty to avoid scandal.

Hence “there is a duty to refuse to use such ‘biological material’ even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or abortion, or when there was no prior agreement with the centers in which the artificial fertilization took place. This duty springs from the necessity to remove oneself within the area of one’s own research, from a gravely unjust legal situation and to affirm with clarity the value of human life.

In general there are of course different levels of responsibility, so that serious reasons could be morally proportionate for the use of such “biological material” even though it remains the duty for researchers to object to this situation and to try to make use of material not of illicit origin. (New Charter for Health Care Workers, pp, 52-54.)

Interjection Number Two:

The conciliar Vatican clearly accepts the utility of effective of vaccinations.

How can someone who is unvaccinated and contracts measles able to transmit the disease to those who are vaccinated?

Isn’t the whole point of the vaccination-scam to “protect” people?

How can those who are “protected” get infected by people who are not?

What’s the big deal about getting measles?

Many of us got them. We survived.

Many of us got and survived chicken pox and the mumps.

So what?

The human body was designed to fight off these diseases.

What about the power of the Miraculous Medal, which protected people in France from outbreaks of disease in the Nineteenth Century?

Mind you, I am not saying that pharmaceutical products cannot be used nor that they are not effective in many cases, and I got each of the existing vaccines in my childhood years (polio and oral polio vaccines, smallpox and tetanus). Additionally, although I do take a whole lot of supplements that I believe are responsible for my not having developed major coronary artery blockage—something that I learned after a heart catheterization on November 16, 2017, will never be the case given my age and the presence of only a twenty percent blockage in the left descending artery—and that I should be using natural means to control my blood pressure, I have been on blood pressure mediation for over forty years. It is not to reject all conventional medicine to reject the poisonous nature of vaccines, especially those containing cells derived from butchered babies. (By the way, of course, even though the supplements I take daily are beneficial, Saint Philomena is principally responsible for the good results of that heart catheterization in 2017 as the initial echo-cardiogram had showed that I had suffered a heart attack at some point, something that was contradicted by the findings of the catheterization. See Take Devotion to Saint Philomena Seriously.)

Whatever vaccines were sixty years ago, however, they are not now. This is true even of vaccines administered by veterinarians, including those, such as rabies, that state law mandates to be given. Our own Chase developed a sarcoma at the base of his neck just above his spine in January of 2015 in the exact spot where he had received a rabies vaccination twelve months before. The veterinarian, who is a pioneer in the use of alternative treatments (chiropractic, electro-acupuncture, laser treatment, his own naturopathic formulae), excised the tumor surgically upon discovery. However, it grew back in an operable place under his neck a year later, and he had to be euthanized over three months ago now. The veterinarian, who is seventy-seven years of age, knows the harmful nature of the vaccines. He told me that of least one other case as Chase’s in his practice. However, this is an instance where a veterinarian has to comply with the state mandate or lose his license.  

Catholics are not anti-medicine or anti-science. However, we must use good, old-fashioned common sense to know what is truly beneficial for us and when there is an actual need to seek medical attention in the event of an accident or a life-threatening illness. One does so these days, however, with the recognition that we are at the mercy of medical “evaluators” who desire to put us into the pipeline for eventual “home hospice” “care.”

This having been noted, it is important to point out that even though the “New Charter for Health Care Workers” is aimed principally at guiding those who work in the health care industry, including medical researchers, the section on vaccinations does have relevance to the situation in Kentucky, especially in light of Antipapal Assembly of Death’s acceptance of the moral liceity of such vaccines. Alas, this is not a complex matter at all once one recognizes (a) one can have nothing to do with abortion; and (b) that vaccine scam is based on one false premise after another. Does an evil act because less evil because it was committed forty years ago? The passage of time can never conference legitimacy on that which is illegitimate. 

As one medical professional, one who does not reject all vaccines, wrote to me on this matter: “It is better to be sick than be given a vaccine made from a cannibalized baby.”

It is this simple. There is no need for the moral casuistry of the Vatican relativists who seek to complexify every situation facing Catholics who are confronted with demands from the omniscient, omnipotent statist overlords who want to control us even while they insist that they believe in “freedom of choice.” Sure, we have “freedom of choice,” all right. We have the “freedom of choice” to agree with them or suffer their wrath.

The situation in the supposedly “free” West is slightly different, at least visibly, than in, say, Red China, where everyone is under compulsion to do what the state says or suffer monstrous fines. There is no such thing as legitimate freedom of conscience exemptions in a Communist tyranny, thus forcing Catholics who know better to be injected with the poisons that may cause serious health problems over the course of their lifetimes. We are getting closer and closer to that point to be sure (see (Rockland County, New York, Bans Unvaccinted Minors from Churches and other public places during measles outbreak and Protests Erupt over Unvaccinated Child Ban In Rockland County, New Yorks ), and when we do have at it formally, of course, the officials within the conciliar Vatican will be the first to make sure those of us who resist receive the maximize penalties allowable under the law after, that is, we are forced to be vaccinated with the poisons that are said to be so very good for us and for the good of public health. The whole vaccination scam is designed to destroy human immune systems and to give the pharmaceutical companies and governmental decisions more and more power over the lives of ordinary citizens.

The medical industry has lied to us about the “safety” of contraception, which can never be safe on natural level as that which is unsafe for the soul is inherently unsafe for the body. Contraception is a lie as it denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of Holy Matrimony. 

The medical industry has lied to us about the “safety” of surgical abortion, which is deadly to an innocent baby, harmful to the body and soul of his mother and destructive of the just order of  men and their nations.

The medical industry has lied to us about the “safety” of overt pharmaceutical abortifacients such as RU-486, which has killed women in addition to killing babies and the souls of their mothers and those who manucture, market and dispense them at a retail level with the full knowledge of being complicit in an abortion.

The medical industry has lied to us about the “fact” of brain death, which has made possible the killing off of innocent beings to faciliate the the vivisection of their bodily organs in order to “give the gift of life.”

The medical industry has lied to us about the “necessity” of starving and dehydrating to die persons said to be in a “persistent vegetative state.” (Yesterday, March 31, 2019, was the fourteenth anniversary of the court-ordered death of Mrs. Theresa Maria Schindler-Schiavo, who died on March 31, 2005, after she had been starved and dehydrated for thirteen grueling days of state-sponsored torture (see Ten Years Later).

The medical industry has lied to us about the “compassion” of “palliative care,” which is nothing other than a carefully supervised execution of a human being who is either terminally ill or said to be suffering a loss of a “quality of life” because of a chronic illness or even because the “team” of health care professionals deem that he is better off dead than alive.

The medical industry has lied to us the “dignity” of “doctor-assisted suicide,” which denies the Sovereignty of God over the inviolability of innocent life just as does abortion. New Jersey has become the latest state to “legalize” this lie (see New Jersey Governor Vows to Sign Bill Allowing Doctors to Help Kill Terminally Ill Patients).

Big Pharm has lied to us about the “safety” and the “benefits” of various products that have killed people.

Mad scientists, believing in their own omnipotence and omniscience, have lied about their work in gene-editing, human cloning and eugenics so that they can spring their “findings” as faits accompli for a public distracted by bread and circuses to admire with due reverence and acceptance.

Why should we believe that these combined forces are telling us the truth about the “safety” of vaccinations and even about the history of these vaccinations and their supposed effectiveness?

Why should we believe the assurances given by the government of the United States of America and global organizations such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization about the “safety” of food additives, preseveratives, artificial sweeteners and vaccines, some of which contain sterilizing agents to wipe out the popuations of Third World countries (see, for example, Mass Sterilization Exercise: Kenyan Doctors Find Anti-Fertility Agent in UN Tetanus Vaccine)?

Remember, the government assured us that “DDT is safe for me-e-e”.

What’s next?

Trusting the doctors and the government to get ourselves microchipped if we want to board an airplane (not that I do) or simply to “assure” the public safety by being able to identify (and to control) us and our activities?

At what point do we say, “This is enough, I will not believe in the lies told by people who do hate Christ the King and His true Church and who do not have either the temporal or eternal good of souls in mind”?

It has become an article of the secular “faith” to treat the high priests and priestesses of science with unfailing deference.

I dissent.

Moreover, Modernity is built on the lie that the Incarnation, Nativity and Redemptive Act of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are matters of complete indiffence to medicine, science, commerce, banking, politics, government, education and what passes for “popular culture,” and Modernism, which has propagated its own lies on matters of Faith, Worship and Morals that contradict the teachings of Holy Mother Church’s true general councils and her true popes and have deconstructed the teaching of the Church Fathers on doctrine and Sacred Scripture, has made its reconciliation with the lies of Modernity and propagated a false religion that yields in almost all instances to those high priests and priestesses of these fields. 

We cannot believe in these lies as each is from the master of lies and the prince of darkness, the adversary himself.

When are we going to learn that all must fall apart without the Social Reign of Christ the King as it must be exercised by His true Church?

On Monday in the Fourth Week of Lent

As noted earlier in this commentary, we are suffering the consequences of Protestantism’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the innumerable plots of the various factions of the synagogue of satan (Judeo-Masonry, which includes all forms of naturalism, viz. political “philosophies” and ideologies) in every aspect of our lives bar none. Our situation is going to get worse, not better, over time as not even the “make America great campaign” of President Donald John Trump includes clamping down on Big Pharm and Big Ag and Fake Science as too many money passes hands and too many lies have been accepted as truth for this to happen. We must suffer. We are being chastised justly for our own sins.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s reflection on the Gospel reading for today, Monday in the Fourth of Lent, should remind us we bear a significant responsibility for the horrific state of the world around us as it is but a small window into the mess that is our immortal souls in light of what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died for them to be so that they could go to Heaven immediately after death:

We read in the Gospel of the first Tuesday of Lent, that Jesus drove from the temple that were making it a place of traffic. He twice showed this zeal for His Father’s house. The passage we have just read from St. John refers to the first time. Both occasions are brought before us during this season of Lent, because this conduct of our Saviour shows us with what severity He will treat a soul with severity that harbours sin within her. Our souls are the temple of God, created and sanctified by God to the end that He might dwell there. He would have nothing to be in them, which is unworthy of their destination. This is the season for self-examination; and if we have found that nay passions are profaning the sanctuary of our souls, let us dismiss them; let us beseech our Lord to drive them out by the scourge of His justice, for we, perhaps, might be too lenient with these sacrilegious intruders. The day of pardon is close at hand; let must make ourselves worthy to receive it. There is an expression in our Gospel which deserves a special notice. The evangelist is speaking of the Jews who were more sincere than the rest, and believed in Jesus, because of the miracles He wrought; he says: Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because He know all men. So that there may be persons who believe in and acknowledge Jesus, yet who are not changed! Oh the hardness of man’s heart! Oh cruel anxiety for God’s priests! Sinners and worldlings are now crowded round the confessional; they have faith, and they confess their sins; and the Church has no confidence in their repentance! She knows that, a very short time after the feast of Easter, they will have relapsed into the same state in which they were on the day when she marked their foreheads with ashes. These souls are divided between God and the world; and she trembles as she thinks on the danger that they are about to incur by receiving holy Communion without the preparation of a true conversion. Yet, on the other hand, she remembers how it is written that the bruised reed is not to be broken, nor the smoking flax to be extinguished. Let us pray for these souls, whose state is so full of doubt and danger. Let us also, pray for the priests of the Church, that they might receive abundant rays of that light, whereby Jesus knew what was in man. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, The Liturgical Year, Volume V—Lent, pp. 332-333.)

We must pray to Our Lady, especially by means of her Most Holy Rosary and as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart according to the teaching of Saint Louis de Montfort’s True Devotion to Mary so that we will surrender our very liberty to her so that she will dispose of all our prayers, good works, sacrifices and sufferings as she sees fit for the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and the good of souls. (See the Appendix below for an excerpt from True Devotion to Mary).

We need Our Lady’s maternal assistance and the graces that flow forth through her loving hands to drive out the demons from our souls lest we, having fought the demons of this passing world, die without having cooperated with those graces to do battle first with the enemies of our salvation, which are ultimately far more important to contend with than those who can harm and kill the body alone.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

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.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.


From Chapter Three of True Devotion to Mary


1. A complete consecration to Mary

120.  As all perfection consists in our being conformed, united and consecrated to Jesus it naturally follows that the most perfect of all devotions is that which conforms, unites, and consecrates us most completely to Jesus. Now of all God’s creatures Mary is the most conformed to Jesus. It therefore follows that, of all devotions, devotion to her makes for the most effective consecration and conformity to him. The more one is consecrated to Mary, the more one is consecrated to Jesus.

That is why perfect consecration to Jesus is but a perfect and complete consecration of oneself to the Blessed Virgin, which is the devotion I teach; or in other words, it is the perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy baptism.

121.  This devotion consists in giving oneself entirely to Mary in order to belong entirely to Jesus through her. It requires us to give:

  (1) Our body with its senses and members;

  (2) Our soul with its faculties;

  (3) Our present material possessions and all we shall acquire in the future;

  (4) Our interior and spiritual possessions, that is, our merits, virtues and good actions of the past, the present and the future.

In other words, we give her all that we possess both in our natural life and in our spiritual life as well as everything we shall acquire in the future in the order of nature, of grace, and of glory in heaven. This we do without any reservation, not even of a penny, a hair, or the smallest good deed. And we give for all eternity without claiming or expecting, in return for our offering and our service, any other reward than the honour of belonging to our Lord through Mary and in Mary, even though our Mother were not – as in fact she always is – the most generous and appreciative of all God’s creatures.

122.  Note here that two things must be considered regarding our good works, namely, satisfaction and merit or, in other words, their satisfactory or prayer value and their meritorious value. The satisfactory or prayer value of a good work is the good action in so far as it makes condign atonement for the punishment due to sin or obtains some new grace. The meritorious value or merit is the good action in so far as it merits grace and eternal glory. Now by this consecration of ourselves to the Blessed Virgin we give her all satisfactory and prayer value as well as the meritorious value of our good works, in other words, all the satisfactions and the merits. We give her our merits, graces and virtues, not that she might give them to others, for they are, strictly speaking, not transferable, because Jesus alone, in making himself our surety with his Father, had the power to impart his merits to us. But we give them to her that she may keep, increase and embellish them for us, as we shall explain later, and we give her our acts of atonement that she may apply them where she pleases for God’s greater glory.

123. (1)  It follows then: that by this devotion we give to Jesus all we can possibly give him,and in the most perfect manner, that is, through Mary’s hands. Indeed we give him far more than we do by other devotions which require us to give only part of our time, some of our good works or acts of atonement and penances. In this devotion everything is given and consecrated, even the right to dispose freely of one’s spiritual goods and the satisfactions earned by daily good works. This is not done even in religious orders. Members of religious orders give God their earthly goods by the vow of poverty, the goods of the body by the vow of chastity, their free will by the vow of obedience, and sometimes their freedom of movement by the vow of enclosure. But they do not give him by these vows the liberty and right to dispose of the value of their good works. They do not despoil themselves of what a Christian considers most precious and most dear – his merits and satisfactions.

124.  (2) It follows then that anyone who in this way consecrates and sacrifices himself voluntarily to Jesus through Mary may no longer dispose of the value of any of his good actions. All his sufferings, all his thoughts, words, and deeds belong to Mary. She can then dispose of them in accordance with the will of her Son and for his greater glory. This dependence, however, is without detriment to the duties of a person’s present and future state of life. One such duty, for example, would be that of a priest who, by virtue of his office or otherwise, must apply the satisfactory or prayer value of the Holy Mass to a particular person. For this consecration can only be made in accordance with the order established by God and in keeping with the duties of one’s state of life.

125.  (3) It follows that we consecrate ourselves at one and the same time to Mary and to Jesus. We give ourselves to Mary because Jesus chose her as the perfect means to unite himself to us and unite us to him. We give ourselves to Jesus because he is our last end. Since he is our Redeemer and our God we are indebted to him for all that we are.

2. A perfect renewal of baptismal promises

126.  I have said that this devotion could rightly be called a perfect renewal of the vows and promises of holy baptism.  Before baptism every Christian was a slave of the devil because he belonged to him. At baptism he has either personally or through his sponsors solemnly renounced Satan, his seductions and his works. He has chosen Jesus as his Master and sovereign Lord and undertaken to depend upon him as a slave of love. This is what is done in the devotion I am presenting to you. We renounce the devil, the world, sin and self, as expressed in the act of consecration, and we give ourselves entirely to Jesus through Mary. We even do something more than at baptism, when ordinarily our god-parents speak for us and we are given to Jesus only by proxy. In this devotion we give ourselves personally and freely and we are fully aware of what we are doing.

In holy baptism we do not give ourselves to Jesus explicitly through Mary, nor do we give him the value of our good actions. After baptism we remain entirely free either to apply that value to anyone we wish or keep it for ourselves. But by this consecration we give ourselves explicitly to Jesus through Mary’s hands and we include in our consecration the value of all our actions.

127.  “Men” says St. Thomas, “vow in baptism to renounce the devil and all his seductions.” “This vow,” says St. Augustine, “is the greatest and the most indispensable of all vows.” Canon Law experts say the same thing: “The vow we make at baptism is the most important of all vows.” But does anyone keep this great vow? Does anyone fulfil the promises of baptism faithfully? Is it not true that nearly all Christians prove unfaithful to the promises made to Jesus in baptism?  Where does this universal failure come from, if not from man’s habitual forgetfulness of the promises and responsibilities of baptism and from the fact that scarcely anyone makes a personal ratification of the contract made with God through his sponsors?

128.  This is so true that the Council of Sens, convened by order of the Emperor Louis the Debonair to remedy the grave disorders of Christendom, came to the conclusion that the main cause of this moral breakdown was man’s forgetfulness of his baptismal obligations and his disregard for them. It could suggest no better way of remedying this great evil than to encourage all Christians to renew the promises and vows of baptism.

129.  The Catechism of the Council of Trent, faithful interpreter of that holy Council, exhorts priests to do the same and to encourage the faithful to remember and hold fast to the belief that they are bound and consecrated as slaves to Jesus, their Redeemer and Lord. “The parish priest shall exhort the faithful never to lose sight of the fact that they are bound in conscience to dedicate and consecrate themselves for ever to their Lord and Redeemer as his slaves.”

130.  Now the Councils, the Fathers of the Church and experience itself, all indicate that the best remedy for the frequent lapses of Christians is to remind them of the responsibilities of their baptism and have them renew the vows they made at that time. Is it not reasonable therefore to do this in our day and in a perfect manner by adopting this devotion with its consecration to our Lord through his Blessed Mother? I say “in a perfect manner”, for in making this consecration to Jesus they are adopting the perfect means of giving themselves to him, which is the most Blessed Virgin Mary.

131.  No one can object that this devotion is novel or of no value. It is not new, since the Councils, the Fathers of the Church, and many authors both past and present, speak of consecration to our Lord or renewal of baptismal vows as something going back to ancient times and recommended to all the faithful. Nor is it valueless, since the chief source of moral disorders and the consequent eternal loss of Christians spring from the forgetfulness of this practice and indifference to it.

132.  Some may object that this devotion makes us powerless to help the souls of our relatives, friends and benefactors, since it requires us to give our Lord, through Mary, the value of our good works, prayers, penances, and alms-giving.

To them I reply:

  (1) It is inconceivable that our friends, relatives and benefactors should suffer any loss because we have dedicated and consecrated ourselves unconditionally to the service of Jesus and Mary; it would be an affront to the power and goodness of Jesus and Mary who will surely come to the aid of our relatives, friends and benefactors whether from our meagre spiritual assets or from other sources.

  (2) This devotion does not prevent us from praying for others, both the living and the dead, even though the application of our good works depends on the will of our Blessed Lady. On the contrary, it will make us pray with even greater confidence. Imagine a rich man, who, wanting to show his esteem for a great prince, gives his entire fortune to him. Would not that man have greater confidence in asking the prince to help one of his friends who needed assistance? Indeed the prince would only be too happy to have such an opportunity of proving his gratitude to one who had sacrificed all that he possessed to enrich him, thereby impoverishing himself to do him honour. The same must be said of our Lord and our Lady. They will never allow themselves to be outdone in gratitude.

133.  Some may say, perhaps, if I give our Lady the full value of my actions to apply it to whom she wills, I may have to suffer a long time in purgatory. This objection, which arises from self-love and from an unawareness of the generosity of God and his holy Mother, refutes itself.

Take a fervent and generous soul who values God’s interests more than his own. He gives God all he has without reserve till he can give no more. He desires only that the glory and the kingdom of Jesus may come through his Mother, and he does all he can to bring this about. Will this generous and unselfish soul, I ask, be punished more in the next world for having been more generous and unselfish than other people? Far from it! For we shall see later that our Lord and his Mother will prove most generous to such a soul with gifts of nature, grace and glory in this life and in the next. (Saint Louis de Montfort, True Devotion to Mary.)