Although the official welcoming ceremony will take place this morning, Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla, Holy Mother Church’s female protomartyr, the red carpet was rolled out onto the tarmac of Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, yesterday, Tuesday, September 22, 2015, September 22, 2015, the Feast of Saint Thomas of Villanova and the Commemoration of Saint Maurice and Companions, as the hideous Argentine Apostate stepped foot for the first time on the soil of the United States of America.
Each of the false “cardinals” and “bishops” (and I recognized two that I have known, Daniel “Cardinal” DiNardo, the conciliar “archbishop” of Galveston and Houston, and Joseph Kurtz, the “archbishop” of Louisville, Kentucky, and the president of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, while watching from a public library on my computer) who gathered to greet the man they believe is the Successor of Saint Peter beamed as they watched the Alitalia plane carrying their leader in apostasy land, and they were very jovial when greeting the pro-abortion, pro-perversion President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, after he had greeted Bergoglio when he had descended from the plane. Indeed, the conciliar “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia, Donald “Obergefell v. Hodges is the law of the land” Wuerl, was particularly happy to greet his fellow statist Obama and his cast of baby-killing socialists. Lords of the world that they are, the representatives of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Modernity have much in common.
Indeed, “Father” Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., made a point of saying three days ago now that “Pope Francis” will not be raising the issue of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, when he meets with our reigning caesar this morning. Rosica’s comments are a catechism, if you will, of the false gospel that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has come to the United States of America to preach in his effort to sway the masses that a “safe” Catholicism, one that makes no moral demands upon the people or their civil leaders, is here to stay:
(CNSNews.com) – If you’re expecting Pope Francis to address the Obamacare contraceptive mandate or religious freedom when he visits the nation’s capital on Tuesday, Father Thomas Rosica, adviser to the Vatican, said that won’t happen. In an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” Rosica said the pope’s “playbook” for the visit will not be “a political manual,” but rather “the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
“What I do think is going to happen … is that he's coming as the cardinal said, as a pastor of souls, and his playbook for this visit, the lexicon, if you will, is not a political manual, it's not the handbook of a particular party, it's the gospel of Jesus Christ, which cuts across all divisions, which cuts across all of our categories,” Rosica said.
“But in dealing with those real problems, Father Rosica, one thing about this pope, is that he’s willing to step on feet on all sides of various issues. He's also going to be meeting with President Obama, and I don't have to tell you the Catholic Church is in something of a struggle with the Obama administration about the issue of religious freedom and the debate about the Obamacare mandate when it comes to contraception and insurance coverage of that, birth control by church-related groups. Do you expect him to bring that up with the president?” Fox host Chris Wallace asked.
“No,” Rosica said, “but what I do think is going to happen … is that he's coming as the cardinal said, as a pastor of souls, and his playbook for this visit, the lexicon, if you will, is not a political manual, it's not the handbook of a particular party, it's the gospel of Jesus Christ, which cuts across all divisions, which cuts across all of our categories.
“The beauty of this pope is we can't pigeonhole him. He's a gentleman. He deals with heads of state with great grace and dignity,” said Rosica.
“The visit to the White House, the president and his wife, and the whole team at the White House are doing a very good job, and they have a certain decorum that's required of them at that stage to welcome the pope as the greatest, I should say, not just the great, the greatest moral leader in the world right now, and this is an opportunity for the president and his whole team to welcome him and to listen to the message of a peacemaker,” he added.
“The backdrop of this whole visit is not what's happening in American politics or a presidential campaign. The backdrop is a world steeped in violence and bloodshed and rancor and hatred, and here we have coming to your city, to our diocese, a real prince of peace. If there's any princely title that should be associated with Francis, it's a prince of peace, it's a bringer of peace,” Rosica said.
“When peacemakers come, they upset those who are not at peace. So, if people are going to be upset in any side of the spectrum here, let them look inside themselves and see what those issues are first, because in the presence of Francis, as you know and as I know, you're in the presence of extraordinary goodness, of kindness, of intelligence and of humanity. So, humanity is coming to teach us how to be more human,” he added. (Vatican Adviser: Pope's Playbook for DC Is Not a Political.)
"So, humanity is coming to teach us to be more human"?
Mark my words, Bergoglio is going to be "canonized" as soon as he dies.
This is sickening. However, it is also a very accurate reminder that the the great, holy, kind, humble, "peacemaker" from Buenos Aires preaches the Judeo-Masonic gospel of "man," which is, of course, the gospel of Antichrist.
Since when is opposing moral evils part of a "political agenda" and not a duty of one who professes to believe in the Sacred Deposit Faith and believes himself to be charged with Its defense?
No, Jorge has come to the United States of America to teach us to be "more human."
"So, humanity is coming to teach us to be more human."
This is as self-revealing a statement that a conciliar official is ever going to be. The counterfeit church of conciliarism is not about calling Catholics to be holy or exhorting non-Catholics to convert. It is about reaffriming everyone in their "goodness" as God "loves" them just as they are, yes, even in their unrepentant sins.
There are two points that need to be made about "Father" Thomas Rosica's" incredible misrepresentation of the apostolic mission given to a true Successor of Saint Peter and to each bishop as a successor of the Apostles.
First, Rosica, speaking the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio perfectly, asserted that opposition to the Obama administration’s mandate for all employers to provide “family planning services” is a “political matter,” that is alien to the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Second, Rosica also implied that it would be “discourteous” and “undiplomatic” for the alleged “peacemaker,” “Pope Francis,” to mention “controversial” issues with the man who has imposed his “family planning services” agenda upon the institutions that are associated with what is thought to be the Catholic Church in this country, a man who has gone to great lengths to fund the mass murderers at Planned Barrenhood here and around the world.
Here is a question for thuggish brute from Canada, “Father” Thomas Rosica, who threatened to sue one of his critics earlier this year.
Was it discourteous of “Saint John Paul II” to challenge, albeit by using conciliarspeak's mania for "construcive dialogue" and by invoking a variation of Jacques Maritain's "integral human development," the licentious, womanizing, pro-abortion President of the United States of America, William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, as follows when he greeted him at Regis University, Denver, Colorado, on August 12, 1993, as he, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, arrived for a hootenanny that he himself had instituted, “World Youth Day”?
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am pleased Mr. President, that we have had this opportunity to talk together about some of the principal concerns of the world situation at this moment. The inalienable dignity of every human being and the rights which flow from that dignity – in the first place, the right to life, and the defense of life – as well as the well–being and full human development of individuals and peoples, are at the heart of the Church’s message and action in the world. Essentially, these are the themes on which the Church seeks a sincere and constructive dialogue with the leaders of the world’s nations and the representatives of the international community. I look forward to further contacts in the future, in the same spirit of mutual understanding and esteem which has always characterized relations between the United States and the Holy See.
I take this opportunity to thank you once more for welcoming me to the United States. I assure you that I pray each day for the leaders of Government, that they may be wise and far–seeing servants of the common good, and that their decisions and actions may bring justice and peace to the world. Thank you. (Greeting to the President of the United States of America Mr Bill Clinton during the visit to the Regis University of Denver, August 12, 1993.)
For believers, commitment to the spiritual and moral renewal which society needs is a gift of the Spirit of the Lord who fills the whole earth, for it is the Spirit who offers man the light and the strength to measure up to his supreme destiny (Cf. Gaudium et Spes, 10). This has been particularly evident in the prayer – filled attitude of the young people gathered here. As a result, they go away more committed to the victory of the culture of life over the culture of death. The culture of life means respect for nature and protection of God’s work of creation. In a special way it means respect for human life from the first moment of conception until its natural end. A genuine culture of life is all the more essential when – as I have written in the social Encyclical "Centesimus annus" – "human ingenuity seems to be directed more towards limiting, suppressing or destroying the sources of life – including recourse to abortion, which unfortunately is so widespread in the world – than towards defending and opening up the possibilities of life" (John Paul II Centesimus Annus, 39). (Greeting to the President of the United States of America Mr Bill Clinton during the visit to the Regis University of Denver, August 12, 1993.)
Was it “discourteous” of the man you believed to have been “Pope John Paul II” to have challenged then Vice President Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., a pro-abortion, pro-perversity womanizing pantheist whose junk science helped to shape your current “pope’s” Laudato Si, directly when departing the United States of America from the Denver International Airport on Sunday, August 15, 1993, the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary?
A culture of life means service to the underprivileged, the poor and the oppressed, because justice and freedom are inseparable and exist only if they exist for everyone. The culture of life means thanking God every day for his gift of life, for our worth and dignity as human beings, and for the friendship and fellowship he offers us as we make our pilgrim way towards our eternal destiny.
3. Mr. Vice-President, I leave the United States with gratitude to God in my heart. Gratitude for what has happened here in the World Youth Day. Gratitude to the American people for being open and generous, and for the many ways in which they continue to assist needy people around the world. I pray that America will continue to believe in its own noble ideals, and I express the hope that the United States will be a wise and helpful partner in the multilateral efforts being made to resolve some of the more difficult questions facing the international community.
My gratitude becomes an ardent prayer for the people of this great country, for the fulfillment of America’s destiny as one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all.
America, defend life so that you may live in peace and harmony.
God bless America! (Farewell ceremony at the International Airport of Denver, August 15, 1993.)
Was it “discourteous,” Father Rosica, for the “pope” who was personally “canonized” by Jorge Mario Bergoglio on April 27, 2014, to speak as follows on the Capitol Mall in Washington, District of Columbia, on Sunday, October 7, 1979, as he looked straight at the assembled justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America (Chief Justice Warren Burger, Associate Justices William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, Lewis Powell, Harry Blackmun, William Rehnquist, and John Paul Stevens) and exhorted in behalf of the inviolability of innocent human life (again couched in the false beliefs of conciliarism):
This very Sunday marks the beginning of the annual Respect Life Program, through which the Church in the United States intends to reiterate its conviction regarding the inviolability of human life in all stages. Let us then, all together, renew our esteem for the value of human life, remembering also that, through Christ, all human life has been redeemed.
3. I do not hesitate to proclaim before you and before the world that all human life—from the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages—is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person. Human life is not just an idea or an abstraction; human life is the concrete reality of a being that lives, that acts, that grows and develops; human life is the concrete reality of a being that is capable of love, and of service to humanity.
Let me repeat what I told the people during my recent pilgrimage to my homeland : "If a person's right to life is violated at the moment in which he is first conceived in his mother's womb, an indirect blow is struck also at the whole of the moral order, which serves to ensure the inviolable goods of man. Among those goods, life occupies the first place. The Church defends the right to life, not only in regard to the majesty of the Creator, who is the First Giver of this life, but also in respect of the essential good of the human person" (8 June 1979).
4. Human life is precious because it is the gift of a God whose love is infinite; and when God gives life, it is for ever. Life is also precious because it is the expression and the fruit of love. This is why life should spring up within the setting of marriage, and why marriage and the parents' love for one another should be marked by generosity in self-giving. The great danger for family life, in the midst of any society whose idols are pleasure, comfort and independence, lies in the fact that people close their hearts and become selfish. The fear of making permanent commitments can change the mutual love of husband and wife into two loves of self—two loves existing side by side, until they end in separation.
In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman—who at Baptism became members of Christ and hence have the duty of manifesting Christ's attitudes in their lives—are assured of the help they need to develop their love in a faithful and indissoluble union, and to respond with generosity to the gift of parenthood. (Mass at the Capitol Mall in Washington, October 7, 1979.)
Ah, that was then. I was there on the Capitol Mall. I applauded. I was only a blind fool for believing that "right order" had been established after the death of "Pope Paul VI" on August 6, 1978, in what I believed to be the Catholic Chuch.
Alas, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II’s opposition to the surgical execution of the innocent preborn on the grounds of “human dignity” is considered to be “controversial” and “undiplomatic” by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his crew of barbaric marauders who are laying waste to the remnants of anything recognizably Catholic doctrine on Faith and Morals in the name of “mercy,” “dialogue,” “compassion,” and “diplomacy” as they seek to “save the planet,” provide “rights” to individuals who enter nations illegally, and to propagandize in behalf of statist programs of income distribution to end “income inequality.”
Thus it is that the late Polish Modernist and Phenomenologist’s public opposition to abortion has had to be cast aside, thus making Wojtyla/John Paul II the victim of his own “living tradition” that was—and remains under the monicker of the “hermeneutic of continuity that was given to it by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on December 22, 2005—nothing other than the condemned Modernist proposition of the “evolution of doctrine.” Modernists such as Wojtyla/John Paul II used the “evolution of doctrine” as the means to jettison the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church without realizing that some future “pope” could use it just as easily to jettison their own particular takes on the conciliar revolution, which is precisely what Bergoglio has been doing for the past thirty months, ten days.
This “diplomatic” approach to supposedly “controversial” issues was used during Jorge’s now concluded trip to Cuba, which has been a prison island since January 1, 1959. Bergoglio, of course, refused to denounce Communism, and he did not even denounce the arrests and torture of innocent human beings who are opposed to the totalitarian rule of the Castros and their Marxist-Leninist oligarchy. The “brave” “peacemaker” even refused to meet dissidents for fear of “offending” his hosts, who continue to have the blood of the innocent on their “egalitarian” hands. The New York Post took note of this appeasement in a scathing editorial that was published yesterday, Tuesday, September 22, 2015, the Feast of Saint Thomas of Villanova and the Commemoration of Saint Maurice and Companions:
Pope Francis lands in the United States today for a whirlwind tour that brings him to the Big Apple Thursday evening. Hundreds of thousands — Catholic and otherwise — will welcome His Holiness.
Alas, this weekend’s visit to Cuba gives more than a few pause.
Francis never met with dissidents of the Castro regime — including those invited by the Vatican to meet the pope in a closed-door meeting. Nor did he explicitly denounce Cuba’s human-rights abuses.
Pope Francis was a key conduit between the Castros and the Obama administration in launching the current US-Cuban thaw. That gave him cards he could’ve played.
It’s not surprising that the Castro regime would move to block the few brave activists invited to attend Mass and meet with the pope. Yet Francis and his entourage could — and should — have insisted.
Send a personal escort from the papal entourage — and dare the secret police to interfere. Refuse to start until the pontiff’s guests were seated.
The Castros needed a papal visit in the “Plaza de la Revolución” far more than Francis did.
It’s sad to see Francis seeming to acquiesce in the Castros’ repression — even as his work to make the church more open and less judgmental has struck a chord with many on the left.
Perhaps the pope is distracted by other concerns — such as the promise of uniting with President Obama on the US leg of his trip on issues like climate change and inequality.
On the other hand, he may plan some surprise for his Thursday morning address before Congress. After all, no pope fits neatly in the boxes of American political thinking.
It would be good, at least, if Pope Francis makes it clear that evil takes many forms in the world — and money-worship is hardly its only face. (The Dissident Guests Jorge Failed to See.)
What the editorial board of the New York Post did not mention is the simple fact that each of the conciliar “popes,” excepting the short-lived presidency of the heretic named Albino Luciani/Pope John Paul I in 1978, has appeased Communist regimes.
Yes, even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who sternly denounced the measures taken at the direction of Soviet dictator Leonid Brezhnev to order his Polish Communist puppets to crack down on the Solidarity trade union in December of 1980, prompting Wojtyla/John Paul II to write to Brezhnev in Russian in his own handwriting to threaten to lay down the crown of Saint Peter (ironic, of course, because he was never crowned and never wore a papal tiara) to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with his fellow Poles if Soviet troops invaded Poland the way that they invaded Hungary in October of 1956 and Czechoslovakia in August of 1968, pulled his punches with the Red Chinese to begin the process of selling out Catholics of the underground church that was completed with Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Letter to the Bishops and Lay Faithful of China on June 29, 2007.
The appeasement of Communism and Communist regimes began, of course, with the first in the current line of antipopes, that is, with the great, corpulent usurper himself, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and the Metz Accord that was negotiated in his behalf by Eugene Cardinal Tisserant:
In preparation for the Council, Catholic bishops around the world were polled by mail by the Office of the Secretariat to learn their opinions on topics to be considered at the Council. Communism topped the list.
However, as documented in the previous chapter, at the instigation of Cardinal Montini, two months before the opening of the Council, Pope John XXIII approved the signing of the Metz Accord with Moscow officials, whereby the Soviets would permit two representatives from the Russian State Church to attend the Council in exchange for absolute and total silence at the Council on the subject of Communism/Marxism.
With the exceptions of Cardinal Montini, who instructed Pope John to enter into negotiations with the Soviets, Cardinal Eugene Tisserant, who signed the Accord, and Bishop Jan Willebrands, who made the final contacts with the representatives of the Russian State Church, the Church Fathers at the Council were ignorant of the existence and nature of the Metz Agreement and the horrendous betrayal that it represented. (Mrs. Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, pp. 1135-1136)
Why didn’t the last Ecumenical Council condemn Communism? A secret accord made at Metz supplies an answer.
Those who pass by the convent of the Little Sisters of the Poor in Borny - on the outskirts of the French city of Metz - never imagine that something of transcendental importance occurred in the residence of Fr. Lagarde, the convent’s chaplain. In a hall of this religious residence in August 1962 - two months before Vatican Council II opened - a secret meeting of the greatest importance between two high-ranking personalities took place.
One dignitary was a Cardinal of the Curia, Eugène Tisserant, representing Pope John XXIII; the other was metropolitan Nikodin, who spoke in the name of the Russian Schismatic Church.
This encounter had consequences that changed the direction of Council, which was already prepared to open. In effect, the meeting at Metz determined a change in the trajectory of the very History of the Church in the 20th century.
What was the matter of such great importance that was resolved at his meeting? Based on the documents that are known today, there it was established that Communism would not be condemned by Vatican Council II. In 1962, The Vatican and the Schismatic Russian Church came to an agreement. According to its terms, the Russian “Orthodox Church” agreed to send observers to Vatican II under the condition that no condemnation whatsoever of communism should be made there (1). 1. Ulysses Floridi, Moscou et le Vatican, Paris: France-Empire, Paris, 1979, pp. 147-48; Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, K.C., MO: Sarto House, 1996, pp. 75-76; Ricardo de la Cierva, Oscura rebelion en la Iglesia, Barcelona: Plaza & Janes, 1987, pp. 580-81. And why were the consequences of such a pact so far-reaching and important?
Because in the 20th century a principal enemy of the Catholic Church was Communism. As such, until Vatican II it had been condemned numerous times by the Magisterium. Moreover, in the early ’60s a new condemnation would have been quite damaging, since Communism was passing through a serious crisis, both internally and externally. On one hand, it was losing credibility inside the USSR since the people were becoming increasingly discontent with the horrendous administrative results of 45 years of Communist demagogy. On the other hand, outside the USSR Communism had not been able to persuade the workers and poor of free countries to take up its banner. In fact, up until that time it had never won a free election. Therefore, the leaders of international Communism decided that it was time to begin to change the appearances of the regime in order to retain the power they had and to experiment with new methods of conquest. So in the ‘60s President Nikita Khrushchev suddenly began to smile and talk about dialogue (2). 2. Plinio Correa de Oliveira, Unperceived Ideological Transshipment and Dialogue, New York: Crusade for a Christian Civilization, 1982, pp. 8-15. This would have been a particularly inopportune moment for the Pope or the Council to issue a formal condemnation, which could have either seriously damaged or possibly even destroyed the Communist regime..
A half secret act
Speaking about the liberty at Vatican II to deal with diverse topics, Professor Romano Amerio revealed some previously unpublished facts. “The salient and half secret point that should be noted,” he stated, “is the restriction on the Council’s liberty to which John XXIII had agreed a few months earlier, in making an accord with the Orthodox Church by which the patriarchate of Moscow accepted the papal invitation to send observers to the Council, while the Pope for his part guaranteed the Council would refrain from condemning Communism. The negotiations took place at Metz in August 1962, and all the details of time and place were given at a press conference by Mgr. Paul Joseph Schmitt, the Bishop of that Diocese [newspaper Le Lorrain, 2/9/63]. The negotiations ended in an agreement signed by metropolitan Nikodim for the Orthodox Church and Cardinal Tisserant, the Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals, for the Holy See.
“News of the agreement was given in the France Nouvelle, the central bulletin of the French communist party in the edition of January 16-22, 1963 in these terms: ‘Because the world socialist system is showing its superiority in an uncontestable fashion, and is strong through the support of hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the Church can no longer be content with a crude anti-communism. As part of its dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, it has even promised there will be no direct attack on the Communist system at the Council.’ On the Catholic side, the daily La Croix of February 15, 1963 gave notice of the agreement, concluding: “‘As a consequence of this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow carrying an invitation, on condition that guarantees were given concerning the apolitical attitude of the Council.’
“Moscow’s condition, namely that the Council should say nothing about Communism, was not, therefore, a secret, but the isolated publication of it made no impression on general opinion, as it was not taken up by the press at large and circulated, either because of the apathetic and anaesthetized attitude to Communism common in clerical circles or because the Pope took action to impose silence in the matter. Nonetheless, the agreement had a powerful, albeit silent, effect on the course of the Council when requests for a renewal of the condemnation of Communism were rejected in order to observe this agreement to say nothing about it” (3). 3. Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, pp. 65-66. Thus the Council, which made statements on capitalism and colonialism, said nothing specific about the greatest evil of the age, Communism. While the Vatican Monsignors were smiling at the Russian Schismatic representatives, many Bishops were in prison and innumerable faithful were either persecuted or driven underground for their fidelity to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The Kremlin-Vatican negotiations
This important information about Vatican-Kremlin negotiations is confirmed in an article ‘The mystery of the Rome-Moscow pact’ published in the October 1989 issue of 30 Dias, which quotes statements made by the Bishop of Metz, Paul Joseph Schmitt. In a February 9, 1963 interview with the newspaper Republicain Lorrain, Mgr. Schmitt said:
“It was in our region that the ‘secret’ meeting of Cardinal Tisserant with archbishop Nikodin occurred. The exact place was the residence of Fr. Lagarde, chaplain for the Little Sister of the Poor in Borny [on the outskirts of Metz]. Here for the first time the arrival of the prelates of the Russian Church was mentioned. After this meeting, the conditions for the presence of the Russian church’s observers were established by Cardinal Willebrands, an assistant of Cardinal Bea. Archbishop Nikodin agreed that an official invitation should be sent to Moscow, with the guarantee of the apolitical character of the Council” (4). 4. 30 Dias, October 1988, pp. 55-56.
The same source also transcribed a letter of Bishop Georges Roches regarding the Pact of Metz:
“That accord was negotiated between the Kremlin and the Vatican at the highest level .… But I can assure you …. that the decision to invite Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II was made personally by His Holiness John XXIII with the encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who was counselor to the Patriarch of Venice when he was Archbishop of Milan…. Cardinal Tisserant received formal orders to negotiate the accord and to make sure that it would be observed during the Council” (5). 5. Ibid. p. 57
In a book published some time after this, German theologian Fr. Bernard Häring - who was secretary-coordinator at the Council for the redaction of Gaudium et Spes - revealed the more profound reason for the ‘pigeon-holing’ of apetition that many conciliar Fathers signed asking Paul VI and the Council to condemn Communism: “When around two dozen Bishops requested a solemn condemnation of Communism,” stated Fr. Häring, “Msgr. Glorieux …. and I were blamed like scapegoats. I have no reason to deny that I did everything possible to avoid this condemnation, which rang out clearly like a political condemnation. I knew that John XXIII had promised Moscow authorities that the Council would not condemn communism in order to assure the participation of observers of the Russian Orthodox church” (6). . . .
1. Catholic doctrine has always emphatically condemned Communism. It would be possible, should it be necessary, to publish a small book composed exclusively of anti-communist pontifical documents.
2. It would have been natural, therefore, for Vatican Council II, which met in Rome from 1962 to 1965, to have confirmed these condemnations against the greatest enemy of the Church and Christian Civilization in the 20th century.
3. In addition to this, 213 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishop solicited Paul VI to have the Council make such a condemnation. Later, 435 Conciliar Fathers repeated the same request. The two petitions were duly delivered within the time limits established by the Internal Guidelines of the Council. Nonetheless, inexplicably, neither petition ever came up for debate. The first was not taken into consideration. As for the second, after the Council had closed, it was alleged that it had been “lost” by Mgr. Achille Glorieux, secretary of the commission that would have been entrusted with the request.
4. The Council closed without making any express censure of Communism. Why was no censure made? The matter seemed wrapped in an enigmatic fog. Only later did these significant facts on the topic appear. The point of my article is to gather and present information from several different sources for the consideration of my reader. How can the actions of the Catholic Prelates who inspired, ordered, followed and maintained the decisions of the Pact of Metz be explained? I leave the answer to my reader. (The Council of Metz)
The future Paul VI, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, directly betrayed Catholic priests sent behind the Iron Curtain by Pope Pius XII, effectively sentencing these priests to death or imprisonment:
An elderly gentleman from Paris who worked as an official interpreter for high-level clerics at the Vatican in the early 1950s told this writer that the Soviets blackmailed Montini into revealing the names of priests whom the Vatican had clandestinely sent behind the Iron Curtain to minister to Catholics in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet secret police were on hand as soon as the priests crossed over the Russian border and the priest infiltrators were either shot or sent to the gulag.
The extent to which Pope Paul VI was subject to blackmail by the enemies of the Church will probably never be known. It may be that, in so far as the Communists and the Socialists were concerned, blackmail was entirely unnecessary given Montini's cradle to grave fascination and affinity for the Left. On the other hand, the Italian Freemasons, M16, the OSS and later the CIA and the Mafia were likely to have used blackmail and extortion against Montini beginning early in his career as a junior diplomat, then as Archbishop of Milan and finally as Pope Paul VI. (Randy Engel, The Rite of Sodomy, p.1156.)
Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick engaged in a policy of Communist surrender known as Ostpolik (East politics) wherein he appointed men as "bishops" in Communist countries behind the Iron Curtain who were friendly to, if not actual agents of, the Communist authorities in those countries. These "bishops" had a perverse "apostolic mandate," if you will, given then sub secreto by Montini: never criticize Communism or any Communist officials. In other words, be good stooges for various "people's" and "democratic" republics in exchange for promoting the false "gospel" of conciliarism.
It was also Montini/Paul VI who sold out the courageous Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary and the Archbishop of Budapest, Josef Cardinal Mindszenty when the latter, after taking refuge in the American Embassy in Budapest for a decade following the Hungarian Revolution in October of 1956, was forced out of the American Embassy as a result of Vatican pressure and then, after being told by Montini/Paul VI that he remained as the Archbishop of Budapest, has his primatial see declared vacant by the theologically, liturgically and morally corrupt Montini.
This scenario was described over a decade ago now by a sedeplenist, Dr. Steve O'Brien, in a review of two motion pictures about the life of Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty:
The Prisoner, as it happened, was wrapped too soon because Mindszenty's story, which had seemed to be fini, had scarcely begun. By 1956 Stalin was dead and Khrushchev was making some unusual noises. In October the Hungarians rose in revolt. Mindszenty had no clue of what was happening on the street; his guards told him that the rabble outside the prison was shouting for his blood. A few days later he was released and indeed a mob of locals set upon him. But instead of ripping his flesh they grabbed at the liberated hero to kiss his clothes. When he returned to Budapest the deposed Reds quivered over this ghost who would not stay buried, but in a radio broadcast he counseled against revenge. The Soviets were not so forgiving, and tanks rumbled to crush this unpleasant incident. A marked man, Mindszenty sought asylum in the American embassy as his last resort. Now a second long Purgatory had begun. Pius spoke out repeatedly against this latest example of Soviet terror but the West, heedless of its own liberation rhetoric, was deaf.
When The Prisoner was released, the Church was still the implacable foe of communism. Frail Pius stood as a Colossus against both right and left totalitarianism. When Pius departed this world there ensued a moral void in the Vatican that has never been filled. By the early 1960s both the Western governments and the Novus Ordo popes decided that accommodation with the Communists was preferable to the archaic notions of Pius and Mindszenty. John XXIII and successor Paul VI welcomed a breath of fresh air into the Church, and that odor included cooperation with the Reds. The new Ostpolitik, managed by Paul's Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, hadn't room for Christian warriors of Mindszenty's stamp. The position of the Hungarian government was strengthened when Casaroli entered negotiations with the appalling regime of Janos Kadar. As the Cold War thawed, the freeze was put on Mindszenty. The American government made it understood that he was no longer welcome at the embassy. Worse still, Paul sent a functionary to persuade Mindszenty to leave, but only after signing a document full of stipulations that favored the Reds and essentially blaming himself for his ordeal. The confession that the Communists could not torture out of him was being forced on him by the Pope!
Driven from his native land against his wishes, Mindszenty celebrated Mass in Rome with Paul on October 23, 1971. The Pope told him, "You are and remain archbishop of Esztergom and primate of Hungary." It was the Judas kiss. For two years Mindszenty traveled, a living testament to truth, a man who had been scourged, humiliated, imprisoned and finally banished for the Church's sake. In the fall of 1973, as he prepared to publish his Memoirs, revealing the entire story to the world, he suffered the final betrayal. Paul, fearful that the truth would upset the new spirit of coexistence with the Marxists, "asked" Mindszenty to resign his office. When Mindszenty refused, Paul declared his See vacant, handing the Communists a smashing victory.
If Mindszenty's story is that of the rise and fall of the West's resistance to communism it is also the chronicle of Catholicism's self-emasculation. In the 1950s a man such as Mindszenty could be portrayed as a hero of Western culture even though both American and English history is rife with hatred toward the Church. When the political mood changed to one of coexistence and detente rather than containment, Mindszenty became an albatross to the appeasers and so the Pilates of government were desperate to wash their hands of him. Still, politicians are not expected to act on principle, and therefore the Church's role in Mindszenty's agony is far more damning.
Since movies, for good or ill, have a pervasive influence on American culture, perhaps a serious film that told Mindszenty's whole story could have some effect on the somnolent Catholics in the West. Guilty of Treason and The Prisoner are artifacts of their day. An updated film that follows the prelate through his embassy exile and his pathetic end would be a heart-wrenching drama. But knowing what we know now, the Communists, despicable as they are, would no longer be the primary villains. (Shooting the Cardinal: Film and Betrayal in the Mindszenty Case)
As we know, of course, no true pope of the Catholic Church sold out Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty. A conciliar revolutionary did so.
Another conciliar revolutionary, one who was present at the "beginning" of the conciliar revolution and helped to chart its course, Joseph Ratzinger, sold out the faithful Catholics of the underground Church in Red China, justifying his June 30, 2007, Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China partially on the assertion that "progress" was being made in that country. What progress? (Just as an aside, I believe that Bergoglio, fresh off his appeasement in Cuba, might ask Obama/Soetoro to put in a "good word" for with Red Chinese President Xi Jinping when the latter goes to White House on Thursday as Jorge leaves for the City of New York, York. Bergoglio would have to "open up" Red China to his brand of appeasement in the name of "encounter" and "mutual respect." Given the results in Cuba, which the Chicoms are doubtlessly monitoring, Bergoglio may just get his chance to take his appeasement act to the Great Wall of China.)
Bergoglio’s appeasement of the Communist tyrants in Cuba comes straight from the lineage of the conciliar “popes.” It is in their blood to appease most tyrants, noting once again Wojtyla/John Paul II’s opposition to Soviet interventionism in Poland that saw him denounce Wojeich so much that the latter’s hands trembled and his knees knocked when trying to deliver his own marks in the false “pope’s” presence in July of 1983. Bergoglio has come by his appeasing ways very naturally, although the Argentine Apostate has no problem denouncing his straw men army of supposed “Pelagians” who adhere to the “no church” of yesterday and of denouncing what he calls the “abuse of creation” while remaining mostly silent about the slaughter of the preborn and while serving as an enabler of the homosexual collective.
Unlike the sticky, gooey, greasy, grimey (that’s for the Boris Badenov aficionados out there amongst the readership) sap that “Father” Thomas Rosica passes over as the “leadership” of a “peacemaker,” our true popes have been very direct and to the point when condemning those in public life who support evil and/or have enabled it.
Pope Pius XI denounced those in public life who supported the slaughter of the preborn by using language that was prophetic, not “diplomatic." He was not prone to compromise, and, most unlike Thomas Rosica's hero, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, he boldly spoke truth to those in civil power:
"There was no shade of weakness in him", Cardinal Merry del Val wrote, "He had the inflexible firmness of a ruler convinced of the responsibilities his high office imposed on him, and he was determined to fulfill them, cost what it might."
The Russian ambassador to the Vatican once discovered the firmness of the Pope. Shortly before his death [in 1914], Pius X granted this ambassador an audience. But he received him sternly, without a trace of a smile on his face. Full of majesty, he turned to his visitor. "I cannot accept good wishes from the representative of a power that fails to keep the promises it makes. Until now Russia has not kept a single one of the promises she made to the Catholics of Russia."
The ambassador had not expected such a greeting, and he was frightened. "Holy Father," he stammered, "this is not true!"
The Holy Father rose from his throne and, with a gesture that betrayed deep indignation, cried, "I will repeat what I have said: not a single promise has been kept! And you dare to say that I lie, Mr. Ambassador! I must ask you to leave this room!"
As pale as death, the ambassador stumbled out the door.
So with firmness and mercy, Pope Saint Pius X carried on his work--a worthy successor to Peter, of him it was said, "Upon this rock I will build my church." (Father Walter Diethelm, Saint Pius X: The Farm Boy Who Became Pope, published originally by Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, Inc., in 1956, republished by Ignatius Press in 1994.)
Pope Pius XI denounced those in public life who supported the slaughter of the preborn by using language that was prophetic, not “diplomatic”:
Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)
There will be no such language heard out of Jorge's mouth at any time in any venue, including currently here in the United States of America.
Well, it must be remembered that concilairism is not Catholicism, that the counterfeit church of concilairism is not the Catholic Church.
Our Lord founded the Catholic Church upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, to save souls.
The adversary founded the counterfeit church of conciliarism to serve “man,” something that the homosexual appeaser of Communism, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick made clear in his "encylical letter" commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1971:
23. Through the statement of the rights of man and the seeking for international agreements for the application of these rights, progress has been made towards inscribing these two aspirations in deeds and structures (16). Nevertheless various forms of discrimination continually reappear-ethnic cultural, religious, political and so on. In fact, human rights are still too often disregarded, if not scoffed at, or else they receive only formal recognition. In many cases legislation does not keep up with real situations. Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equity. In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due to the poor and the special situation they have in society: the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others. If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an overemphasis of equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.
In this field, everyone sees the highly important contribution of the Christian spirit, which moreover answers man's yearning to be loved. "Love for man, the prime value of the earthly order" ensures the conditions for peace, both social peace and international peace, by affirming our universal brotherhood (17). (Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick, Octagesima Adveniens, May 15, 1971.)
This was nothing other than an attempt to graft a Marxist diatribe onto the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer, and it is exactly what Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself believes and has come to the United States of America to preach after having done so in Communist-controlled Cuba
Love for "man, the prime vaulue of the earthly order," not love of Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us exclsively through His true Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.
"Love for man," of course is one of the chief tenets of Marxism, something that the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn noted at his famous commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:
As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "communism is naturalized humanism.'
This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.
The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism's crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)
Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick believed in "man" as he attempted in Octagesima Adveniens, May 15, 1971, to graft graft a Marxist diatribe onto the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King that had nothing to do with commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891. Montini/Paul VI's ideological sloangeering helped to let loose a series of Soviet armed and financed and Cuban trained revolutions throughout Central America in the name of serving the "Gospel."
No, I am not suggesting that Montini/Paul the Sick intended to start those revolutions, only that he, a thorough doctrinal, liturgical, social and moral revolutionary, helped revolutionary movements to find a pretext for garnering the support of "the people" who had been the victims of repressive military juntas and economic injustices. Montini/Paul the Sick made "liberation theology" a fashionable way for Soviet-backed and Cuban-trained guerillas who were more brutally murderous than the governments they were attempting to overthrow.
Behold the "rights of man" that have flowed forth from Luther's revolt, which made possible, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, the triumph of naturalistic philosophies such as those that precipitated the French Revolution that is still convulsing France and almost every other part of the world with its lies and violence:
But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)
The same Pope Leo XIII put matters quite directly and bluntly exactly twenty-five years later in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God. That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which, please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" (John xii., 32). (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
Pope Leo XIII also warned us to judge the Masonic tree by its fruit:
Would that all men would judge of the tree by its fruit, and would acknowledge the seed and origin of the evils which press upon us, and of the dangers that are impending! We have to deal with a deceitful and crafty enemy, who, gratifying the ears of people and of princes, has ensnared them by smooth speeches and by adulation. Ingratiating themselves with rulers under a pretense of friendship, the Freemasons have endeavored to make them their allies and powerful helpers for the destruction of the Christian name; and that they might more strongly urge them on, they have, with determined calumny, accused the Church of invidiously contending with rulers in matters that affect their authority and sovereign power. Having, by these artifices, insured their own safety and audacity, they have begun to exercise great weight in the government of States: but nevertheless they are prepared to shake the foundations of empires, to harass the rulers of the State, to accuse, and to cast them out, as often as they appear to govern otherwise than they themselves could have wished. In like manner, they have by flattery deluded the people. Proclaiming with a loud voice liberty and public prosperity, and saying that it was owing to the Church and to sovereigns that the multitude were not drawn out of their unjust servitude and poverty, they have imposed upon the people, and, exciting them by a thirst for novelty, they have urged them to assail both the Church and the civil power. Nevertheless, the expectation of the benefits which was hoped for is greater than the reality; indeed, the common people, more oppressed than they were before, are deprived in their misery of that solace which, if things had been arranged in a Christian manner, they would have had with ease and in abundance. But, whoever strive against the order which Divine Providence has constituted pay usually the penalty of their pride, and meet with affliction and misery where they rashly hoped to find all things prosperous and in conformity with their desires. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)
"Modern" man has indeed striven against the order which Divine Providence has constituted. The Modernists of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have made their "reconciliation" with the rebellion against the Divine Plan, scoffing at the mention of the Social Reign of Christ the King as "obsolete" while endorsing falsehoods such as "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" that have been rejected by true pope after true pope, but will celebrated anew by yet another "servant of humanity," the "diplomatic" "peacemaker, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who believes that it is possible to realize peace in the world when men are at war with God by means of their own unrepentant Mortal Sins.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio will not bring up the "moral issues" with the statist pro-abort and enabler of perverted behavior and of rank criminal behavior, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who is one of the most vicious race-baiters that the world has ever known, as these are said to be "political matters" by Thomas Rosica.
"Humanity," that is, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has come here to reaffirm sinners in their path to Hell, and he has come here to help prepare the way for the coming of the Antichrist by preaching a false gospel that was denounced as such by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:
To reply to these fallacies is only to easy; for whom will they make believe that the Catholic Sillonists, the priests and seminarists enrolled in their ranks have in sight in their social work, only the temporal interests of the working class? To maintain this, We think, would be an insult to them. The truth is that the Sillonist leaders are self-confessed and irrepressible idealists; they claim to regenerate the working class by first elevating the conscience of Man; they have a social doctrine, and they have religious and philosophical principles for the reconstruction of society upon new foundations; they have a particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood; and, in an attempt to justify their social dreams, they put forward the Gospel, but interpreted in their own way; and what is even more serious, they call to witness Christ, but a diminished and distorted Christ. Further, they teach these ideas in their study groups, and inculcate them upon their friends, and they also introduce them into their working procedures. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Although we pray for the conversion of the likes of Obama/Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, et al., each of those who support the moral evils of our day will have to reckon with those words of Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii that were quoted earlier, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is enabling their evil policies by slapping them on the back and heaping words of praise upon them, thereby heaping red hot coals upon his own head if he does not convert before he dies.
Keep close to Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary. Figures of Antichrist walk amongst us. We need to be about the business of sanctifying our own souls and of making reparation for our sins as the consecrated slave of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary,
Well, it's nearly two o'clock in the morning on Wednesday, September 23, 2015. Check back tomorrow for commentary on the events as they will be unfolding later today,
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva 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.
Pope Saint Linus, pray for us.
Saint Thecla, pray for us.