Leo Marches to the Beat of Jorge's Own Shopworn Conciliar Cliches

There was a time during the 1990s when I covered the Rose Dinner at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Washington, District of Columbia, following the March for Life for The Wanderer on an annual basis through the year 2000.

Then chaired by the March for Life Education and Defense Fund President and Founder, Miss Nellie Gray, the Rose Dinner featured a keynote speaker, who usually spoke after several other speakers and various awards and recognitions) whose turn at the lectern was interspersed with music provided by the late Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

It was around 1999, I believe, that the last speaker of the evening at the Rose Dinner was Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was a self-described atheist when he presided over 70,000 abortions between 1970 and 1973 in the City of New York, New York, before coming to oppose abortion for purely scientific reasons thereafter and then, over the course of the next twenty years, came to believe in God and then Christianity before he converted to Catholicism.

The evening had gone on interminably and Dr. Nathanson, conscious of this fact, said the following, which is a paraphrase:

“Look we’ve all had a long day and evening. We’re tired. We all know that abortion is wrong, so I am going to tell jokes.”

Thus, calling upon his Jewish heritage, Dr. Bernard Nathanson told one joke after another that had the dinner crowd roaring with laughter as the producer of The Silent Scream and The Edge of Reason knew that the audience needed to home and did not need to hear another long talk on the evil of killing babies.

Well, I am not going to “tell” any jokes, but I am about at the point now with Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV where I was in September of 2013 with Jorge Mario Bergoglio when I wrote What More Time Needs To Be Wasted On This Horrible Man? Obviously, I spent the next eleven and one-half years writing about the detestable Argentine Apostate (see A Catalogue of Commentaries About Jorge Mario Bergoglio and His False Church) and have spent the last eight months writing about his very worthy successor, who has said repeatedly that he wants to use Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Evangelii Gaudium, November 24, 2013, as the roadmap for his own false “pontificate” (see  An Evangelii Gaudium Primer (or Understanding Robert Francis Prevost's Having Made Jorge's Magna Carta His Very Own) and  An Evangelii Gaudium Primer (or Understanding Robert Francis Prevost's Having Made Jorge's Magna Carta His Very Own), part two), and he is not joking about that at all.

Indeed, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV used his Christmas address on Monday, December 22, 2025, to the conciliar curia to reemphasize his commitment to a “missionary church” that is not “closed in on itself” and that is need of “conversion”:

 Taking inspiration from his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, I would like to reflect on two fundamental aspects of the Church’s life: mission and communion.

By her very nature, the Church is outward-looking, turned toward the world, missionary. She has received from Christ the gift of the Spirit in order to bring to all people the good news of God’s love. As a living sign of this divine love for humanity, the Church exists to invite and gather all people to the festive banquet that the Lord prepares for us. In this gathering, every person can discover their identity as a beloved child, a brother or sister to their neighbor, and a new creation in Christ. Transformed by this discovery, they become witnesses to truth, justice and peace.

Evangelii Gaudium encourages us to make progress in the missionary transformation of the Church, who draws her inexhaustible strength from the mandate of the Risen Christ. “Jesus’ command to ‘go and make disciples’ echoes in the changing scenarios and ever new challenges to the Church’s mission of evangelization, and all of us are called to take part in this new missionary ‘going forth’” (no. 20) (Christmas Greetings of the Holy Father to the Roman Curia.)

This is conciliarspeak for reimaging what is thought to be the Catholic Church away from traditional structures, practices, and beliefs so as to “discover” herself anew according to the direction of the “Holy Spirit,” Who, we are supposed to believe, now wants the Catholic Church to consider the word “missionary” as referring to matters of social justice and not the conversion of non-Catholics to the Holy Faith nor to the sanctification of Catholics by means of prayer, mortification, and fasting. To believe that the Catholic Church has “all the answers” on matters pertaining to Faith and Morals is to have a church that “closed in on itself” and that is not open to the “newness” of the world around us.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio spoke about this endlessly, and Robert Francis Prevost is continuing the claptrap that encapsulates every shopworn and molding conciliar clichés, which are nothing other than relabeled precepts of Modernism and its cousin, the “New Theology,” that stand condemned by Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII, respectively.

Indeed, Pope Pius XII was so concerned about the advances being made by the “New Theology” in France that he authorized a commission to produce an encyclical letter reiterating his condemnation of it in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, as well to condemn modern errors on the Church’s relationship to the civil state that were being propagated by Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., in the United States of America, and Jacques Maritain in France that became the basis for Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965.

Although the final draft of the encyclical letter was not completed prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, a recent essay by Father Claude Barthe of “resist while recognize” movement described some of its salient features and demonstrates that all the conciliarspeak about a “different church” was part of what was to be condemned very specifically:

Four years prior to Vatican II, in 1958, a final anti-modern papal document, an encyclical, was in preparation at the Apostolic Palace. The Pope’s death interrupted its final drafting and publication. This was revealed in 2020 with the opening of the archives of Pius XII’s pontificate, which can now be consulted up to 1958, the year of the Pope’s death.

This opening prompted a flood of researchers to flock to the Vatican archives, thinking they would be able to demonstrate the Pontiff’s culpable weaknesses towards Hitler’s regime. Unsurprisingly, they were disappointed to find evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, serious historians saw vast new perspectives open up on subjects of the greatest interest.

It was known that Pius XII had launched preparations for an ecumenical council in 1948, which were the subject of significant research until 1951. It was also very characteristic that the idea was not to convene a new council, but to “continue” the one convened by Pius IX in 1869, which had to be interrupted in 1870 due to the Franco-Prussian War. But the project was abandoned[1].

On the other hand, what German historian Matthias Daufratshofer reported in March 2020 had been up to then generally unknown. While researching the archives of the former Holy Office on the studies that had preceded the proclamation of the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, he discovered the preparatory texts, the detailed outline, of an anti-modern encyclical drafted in the last years of Pacelli’s pontificate, which would have developed and clarified the 1950 encyclical letter, Humani generis, “on some false opinions which threaten to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine.”[2] Two researchers, Sister Sabine Schratz, OP, of the Institutum Historicum Ordinis Prædicatorum, and Daniele Premoli (Archivum Generale Ordinis Prædicatorum), have devoted themselves to the study of this project. They are preparing the publication of the successive stages of the draft, which had been produced by a commission, and on 3 January 2024, they published an article on the status of their work in the Journal of Modern and Contemporary Christianity: “L’Enciclica Pascendi dei tempi moderni. Il progetto per l’ultima enciclica di Pio XII (1956-58).”

The initial project: to publish an encyclical in 1957, on the 50^th anniversary of the condemnation of modernism by Pascendi

During the pontificate of Pius XII, concern had been growing in Rome about the spread of new currents that were referred to around the Pope under the general name of “Nouvelle théologie” (New Theology). The expression was used by Pius XII himself in a speech to the General Congregation of the Jesuits on 19 September 1946[3], following which Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, published an article in the journal Angelicum in October 1946 that caused quite a stir: “The ‘Nouvelle Théologie’: Where is it Heading?” The criticism was aimed primarily at the fact that this Nouvelle théologie, in the name of an ideologized “return” to the theology of the Fathers, denigrated scholastic theology (and through it, dogmatic formulations, which were largely dependent upon this scholasticism). Referring to this new way of talking about doctrine, Humani generis stated in 1950 that there was a desire that “the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately”, be replaced by “conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy.”. . . .

Preparatory work for the encyclical (1956-1958)

Pius XII formally approved the project at Christmas 1956. Immediately, in the last days of December, an ad hoc commission was appointed within the Holy Office (which would become the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after Vatican II). The pope reserved for himself the presidency of this Roman congregation, which was responsible for doctrine and was then the most eminent congregation in the Curia (it was called the Suprema). It did not have a prefect, but was headed by a secretary. The commission did not manage to complete its work in 1957 and was still pursuing it when Pius XII died in 1958.

It met for the first time in early 1957. Its members were among the most eminent of the Holy Office: the Dominicans Paul Philippe, president, Gagnebet, and Garrigou-Lagrange, all three close to the Master General of the Order, Michael Browne, and forming with him an extremely influential Dominican quartet; the Jesuits who had contributed to the drafting of Humani generis, Fathers Tromp and Bea, the latter being Pius XII’s confessor, but who was to become a turncoat after 1958; the great Mariologist Karlo Balić, a Capuchin; the French Carmelite Philippe de la Trinité; and Antonio Piolanti.

The report by Bishop Joseph Lefebvre, sent to the Holy Office, became, along with the Philippe report, a source available for the examination that was proposed of the doctrinal errors of the time. His criticism of the “integrists,” on the other hand, was considered completely counterproductive. 

On 20 March 1958, Fr. Tromp presented a first draft, a 64-page outline, which began with the words Instaurare omnia in Christo, the motto of St. Pius X. Fr. Philippe also presented another draft. Both are to be published by Sister Sabine Schratz and Daniele Premoli.

In May 1958, the Holy Office had a decision to make: given the significance of the material gathered by the commission, should a single document or several documents be published? Cardinal Ottaviani wanted to reserve the question of the relations between Church and State for a specific document, the substance of which had been in preparation since 1950 (Fr. Gagnebet was its main author) and had in fact aimed to recall the traditional doctrine against ideas which were forerunners of the doctrine of religious liberty developed by Fr. Courtney Murray, an American Jesuit, and Jacques Maritain, the French philosopher. During the preparation of Vatican II, the document of the Holy Office served as the basis for chapter 9 of the De Ecclesia outline prepared by the theology commission and taken up for the occasion by Father Gagnebet[5]. The entire outline was eventually discarded and replaced by the one that would become the constitution, Lumen Gentium. As for the content of chapter 9, it was invalidated by the declaration Dignitatis humanæ. Regarding all the material gathered by the commission, Pius XII, who was kept informed of the preparatory work every step of the way, made it known that he wanted to publish a single text rather than several encyclicals.

The commission, reduced to Philippe, Piolanti, Bea, Tromp, Balić, and Gagnebet, met a third time on 10 June 1958, and formulated recommendations that Fr. Tromp incorporated into his second version of the preparatory outline. It now began with the words: Cultum Regi Regum, Worship of the King of Kings. This final draft was communicated to the other members of the commission on 27 September 1958. But Pius XII died twelve days later, on the 9^th of October. Since the subsequent archives are not available for consultation, it is unknown whether the draft encyclical was presented to John XXIII, which is highly probable. In any case, it was without consequence.

The content of the Cultum Regi Regum outline

In fact, the draft took the form of a continuation of Humani generis as well as of a more in-depth study of the matters which it had addressed. The text addressed all areas of ecclesial, moral, and social life, exposing, 50 years after Pascendi, “the overall heresy of modernity”[6], namely, the acceptance of society’s rupture with God. It did so in six chapters:

1. The nature of religion.
2. Liturgical worship and private devotions (worship whose social significance explained the title that the encyclical would have received).
3. Moral theology.
4. The profession of faith.
5. The relationship between authority and freedom in the Church.
6. The relationship between the religious order and the secular order.

The draft encyclical recalled that religion is a virtue by which man, recognizing divine excellence, worships God as creator and master of the entire natural order, which God transcends. It is not a purely sentimental and emotional reality, nor is it the opium of the people.

The treatment of the liturgical question in the second chapter took up themes from the 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei and addressed various errors, including the one according to which “the celebration of a single Mass, attended religiously by a hundred priests, is the same thing as a hundred Masses celebrated separately by a hundred priests.”[7] The outline also emphasized the seriousness and social harm of not respecting the sanctification of Sunday through divine worship and rest.

In the moral section, the traditional doctrine on natural law was recalled and the most controversial issues examined: the dangers of materialism, both communist and capitalist; the sovereign character of the judgment of the Church, whose authority was established by God Himself, enabling the Church to shed light on difficult moral questions and to decide on issues that are controversial today, such as that of the primacy of procreation in the hierarchy of the ends of marriage, with virginity for the Kingdom of God remaining a more perfect state than marriage.

The fourth chapter addressed the theme of ecumenism, focusing on collaboration with Christians of other denominations with a view to opposing atheistic communism. It highlighted the problematic nature of setting aside what separates Catholicism from these denominations, particularly the hatred of the Church upon which the latter had been founded. More generally, collaboration between Catholics and non-Catholics for laudable goals, while acceptable in principle, raised significant reservations: “If a healthy doctor collaborates with a doctor suffering from leprosy in order to combat leprosy, he will honor his colleague, but the closer the collaboration with his partner, the more vigilant he will need to be for fear of contracting the disease himself.”

The fifth chapter of the draft dealt with the relationship between authority and freedom, that is, between the magisterium and theologians: the Kingdom of God can only be reached through “the path of authority and obedience”; however, the latter, especially after the fall of totalitarianism in Germany and Italy, had entered into crisis, not only within the State, but also within the Catholic Church. Cultum Regi Regum strongly reaffirmed that the munus docendi, the duty to teach in the Church, resided solely in the hierarchy, consisting of the Roman Pontiff and the episcopate.

The text added: “Far be it from us to deny that theologians have a special vocation within the Mystical Body of Christ, to which correspond the grace and light of the Holy Spirit. For it is to them that the Bride of Christ entrusts the formation of the future clergy; they are called by the sacred Magisterium itself to prepare doctrinal documents; it is their task to bring depth and precision to the decisions made by the authentic Magisterium; it is their task above all to manifest to the world the wonderful and divine harmony by which divinely revealed truths harmonize with one another and with the various human sciences. It is also the duty of theologians to determine for what reason and to what extent such truths are contained in the deposit of faith, or are proposed by the Magisterium as being necessary to be believed or professed; and, consequently, in what sense and to what extent it is appropriate to qualify contrary errors. If theologians act in this way under the supervision of the Pastors, they in no way arrogate to themselves the competence of the Magisterium, but rather contribute greatly to preserving the purity of the faith.”

The last chapter of the document, entitled Ordo religiosus et ordo profanus, was in fact a kind of anticipation of the aforementioned document which had been in preparation by the Holy Office since 1950, which dealt with the relations between the two perfect societies (each possessing everything necessary for the fulfillment of its end), distinct but united societies, namely the Church and the State[8].

Did Pius XII thus wish to crown his pontificate with a kind of great testamentary text, which would have taken up the themes he had dealt with in his various encyclicals, and which would have attempted to stem the flood he sensed was coming after him? Our allusion to the words attributed to Louis XV, “après moi, le deluge” (“after me, the flood”), is intentional. The abundant activity of Pius XII, including the defense and the in-depth study of doctrine, through a series of great encyclicals (Mystici Corporis in 1943, on the Mystical Body of Christ; Divino afflante, also in 1943, on biblical studies; Mediator Dei in 1947, on the principles of liturgy; Humani generis in 1950, on the errors of our time); the counter-current definition of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in body and soul; as well as the canonization of Pius X in 1954, is reminiscent, all things being equal, of the attempt by Louis XV, at the end of his reign, to consolidate what was to become the Ancien Régime, at least on one point, that of justice, this endeavor being interrupted by the death of the monarch in 1774.

For want of having resumed the Vatican Council convened by Pius IX, Pius XII would have sealed his pontificate through the continuation of Pius X’s Pascendi, which would have been accompanied by a document from the Holy Office closing the door to the theses that would become the doctrine of religious freedom. But God, in the mysterious arrangements of His Providence, had decided to chastise his people. (Fr. Claude Barthe (The Last Anti-Modern Encyclical Planned by Pius XII - Res Novae - Perspectives romaines.)

What Father Barthe does not accept is that the chastisement that has been sent us consists not only in the promulgation of the very errors that had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X and by Pope Pius XII at different times but in the papal see being vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII. This chastisement has confused many Catholics around the world while others found the “changes” to be their “liking” as it may things “easier” and more “relaxing” for them. Still others bury their heads in the sand and refuse to the see or admit the apostasy or continue their fight “from within” in their own little Mindanaos (see Still Hunkered Down In Mindanao (And In The Wrong Church)—I actually a reader who lives in Mindanao whom we knew years ago from Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in Monroe, Connecticut).

The conciliar revolutionaries, living in their imaginary universes where illegal immigrants do not commit violent crimes or, if they do, should not face deportation, and where Catholics who hold fast to traditional Catholic doctrine on Faith, Worship, and Morals are said to be guilty of “rigidity”:

It is urgent ad intra, because communion in the Church always remains a challenge that calls us to conversion. At times, beneath an apparent calm, forces of division may be at play. We can fall into the temptation of swinging between two opposite extremes: uniformity that fails to value differences, or the exacerbation of differences and viewpoints instead of seeking communion. Thus, in interpersonal relationships, in internal office dynamics, or in addressing questions of faith, liturgy, morality and more besides, there is a risk of falling into rigidity or ideology, with their consequent conflicts. (Christmas Greetings of the Holy Father to the Roman Curia.)

How many times did we have to listen to Jorge Mario Bergoglio lecture us about “rigidity” and “ideology” when referring to the truth that Catholic doctrine is irreformable. For it to be otherwise, of course, then God the Holy Ghost did not direct the Council Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council when they condemned the notion that doctrine could change accord to time and failed Pope Saint Pius X when issued Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: “These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.” On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ”Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason”; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: “The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.” Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: “Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries — but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Each of the conciliar “popes,” including Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, has believed in everything condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, and solemnly with the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, by Pope Saint Pius X in Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, and they also rejected the following clear statements about the immutable nature of Catholic doctrine:

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

8. As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, June 25, 1834.)

The papacy is the guarantor of the preservation of the Holy Faith in its entirety. Although individual popes might have been poor administrators, poor judges of character, too weak to discipline the wayward or too blind to recognize nascent or immediate threats to Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals, a true pope is the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth and is to be venerated, not scoffed at as a heretical buffoon and a veritable forerunner of Antichrist.

Like his six predecessors in the current line of antipopes, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV considers that the past must be “purified” and, in total conformity with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he believes that we must bow down “before the humanity of the other”:

This is the way of mission: a path toward others. In God, every word is an addressed word; it is an invitation to conversation, a word never closed in on itself. This is the renewal that the Second Vatican Council promoted, which will bear fruit only if we walk together with the whole of humanity, never separating ourselves from it. The opposite is worldliness: to have oneself at the center. The movement of the Incarnation is a dynamics of conversation.  There will be peace when our monologues are interrupted and, enriched by listening, we fall to our knees before the humanity of the other. In this, the Virgin Mary is the Mother of the Church, the Star of Evangelization, the Queen of Peace. In her, we understand that nothing is born from the display of force, and everything is reborn from the silent power of life welcomed.  (Solemnity of Christmas – Holy Mass during the Day (25 December 2025.)

The shepherds tending their flocks at Midnight on Christmas morning bowed down before God in the very Flesh as did Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar at the Epiphany. They were not bowing down before a mere human being but the Word who was made Incarnate in His Most Blessed Mother’s Virginal and Immaculate Womb at the Incarnation.

This is all very reminiscent of what “Bishop” Robert Nugent Lynch, the former conciliar “bishop” of Saint Petersburg, Florida, who enabled the execution by starvation and dehydration of the late Mrs. Theresa Maria Schindler-Schiavo, wrote in a “pastoral letter” on June 12, 2000, opposing Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration within his diocese that was the subject of my last “hard” news story in The Wanderer:

"Although exposition of the Blessed Sacrament may help foster devotion to Christ's presence in the Eucharist, a parish's first priority is well-planned and well-celebrated Masses. Parishes seeking to inaugurate or restore eucharistic devotions should reflect on their practices during the communion rite and their commitment of time and money (stewardship) to social services. Are they as respectful and reverent toward Christ's presence in the gathered Body, the Church, as they are to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament? Is the fuller expression of the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine being offered to the faithful at all Masses? Does the eucharistic bread look like bread? Does the parish carefully prepare enough communion for the gathered assembly instead of routinely going to the tabernacle? Does the eucharistic procession take its own time or is the focus to try to get through the communion rite as efficiently and expediently as possible? Do the eucharistic ministers reflect the parish, i.e., inclusive of age, ethnicity, and gender? Have the eucharistic ministers been properly trained and is their formation ongoing? Is the Eucharist being brought to members of the parish who cannot gather on Sunday because of sickness or advanced age? When these issues have been addressed, then the deeper understanding that Christ intended in the Eucharist will be achieved."

This is what I wrote on September 15, 2000, mindful that I was an indulterer twenty-five years ago:

That statement stands on its own demerits. Any implication that Christ is present in others in the same way that He is present in His Real Presence is contrary to Church teaching. We do not genuflect to our neighbor, even though he bears within his soul the divine impress. Yes, we are called to be respectful of others, no doubt. Worship and adoration belong to God alone. The other statements simply speak for themselves. (From: NEWS: ST PETERSBURG DIOCESE ENDS PERPETUAL EXPOSITION OF EUCHARIST.)

My Wanderer article twenty-five years ago prompted a priest from the Diocese of Brooklyn, Father Joseph Wilson, to write a column for The Wanderer suggesting that Robert Lynch should erect large, glass encased monstrances so that selected parishioners could be “adored” on a rotational basis by other parishioners, thus mocking Lynch’s heretical beliefs stated in his June 12, 2000, pastoral letter. I always imagined that such a display could be conducted on the basis of how the celebrities were stacked on top of one another in The Hollywood Squares, 1966-1981.

Robert Francis Prevost may not actually believe in precisely what Robert Nugent Lynch wrote twenty-five years ago, but his contention that we are to “fall to our knees in front of the humanity of the other” is blasphemous as bow down before Christ the King alone in His Real Presence, noting that it is protocol to bow down before a true pope as the Vicar of Christ or a king as Our Lord’s viceroy in a civil government but never because of the “humanity of the other.” We are to treat others we would treat Our Lord in the very Flesh but never fall prey to the deification of men by arrogating unto mere creatures what belongs to God alone.

The hour is late (or early) on the Feast of the Holy Innocents on the Fourth Day of the Octave of Christmas.

No, once again, I am not going to tell jokes, but I do want to remind the readers of this website that the apostasy of the present time is no joking matter at all.

Begging Our Lady’s protection through her Most Holy Rosary and asking Saint Joseph to help us as the Protector of the Faithful, may the Holy Innocents pray for us to be ready to die, if only the death of white martyrdom of being rejected by friends and family members, to defend the truth that, calling to mind the words of the [First] Vatican Council quoted by Pope Saint Pius X above:

“The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 7, 1907.)

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us

The Holy Innocents, pray for us.