The old Pantheon that was built by the Roman emperors for the worship of their false idols was transformed in the Eighth Century A.D. into a church in honor of Our Lady, which is known today as the Basilica of Santa Maria sopra Minevera (Saint Mary over [the ruins of the pantheon of] Minerva).
The pagans of ancient Rome adored their false idols on the grounds of the Pantheon. Many Catholic martyrs in the time between the persecutions begun by Emperor Nero in 67 A.D. and the time of the Edict of Milan in the 313 A.D. were told that they could place a bust of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in such places of false worship if only they burned some grain of incense to the images of their false idols. As is attested to by the blood of over eleven million martyrs, our spiritual ancestors refused to acknowledge the false gods of Rome as being anything other than devils, whom they mocked and reviled to the very faces of their accusers and as they suffered the most cruel sorts of torture imaginable prior to their receiving their crown of martyrdom from the King of Martyrs Himself.
The revolutionaries of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, however, have made their “official reconciliation” with the idols of false religions. This is only logical as their corrupted version of Catholicism is an equally false religion, albeit one that presents itself to a credulous world as being Catholicism when it is nothing of the sort.
Nonetheless, however, men who are considered to be officials of the Catholic Church, including so-called “popes,” have, quite literally, gone out of their way to burn figurative grains of incense in temples of false worship.
“Pope Saint John Paul II,” of course, participated in numerous pagan rituals, including having the diabolical “Mark of Shiva” placed on his forehead during his trip to Delhi, India, on February 2, 1986, kissed the Mohammedan’s blasphemous Koran, praised a voodoo witch doctor in Benin on February 6, 1993, entered into the Rome Synagogue on April 13, 1986, permitting himself to be treated as an inferior and listening patiently to a Talmudic hymn expressing a desire for the first coming of the Messias, was “purified” a an urn of ashes was burned before him an Aztec ritual in Mexico City, Mexico, on August 1, 2002, and gave endless speeches praising the “values” of false religions as instruments to build up his mythical “civilization of love”.
Indeed, the images are legion of the now “canonized” “Saint John Paul II” engaging in similar acts of false worship during the course of his 9,666 day false “pontificate,” including the Aztec “purification” that took place in the modern basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City, a ritual that mocked the simple fact that Our Lady’s apparition to Juan Diego, whom the false “pontiff” was about to “canonize,” converted the Mexican people away from the superstitious idolatry of the Aztecs, who were devoted to the worship of the sun and to cannibalism as part of human sacrifice. And what further needs to be added to what has been written on this site in the past concerning Assisi I, October 27, 1986, and Assisi I (in Rome), January 24, 2002?
Although there have been instances when those "beatified" and/or "canonized" by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI "canonized" 482 people from the first "canonization" ceremony at which he officiated, on June 20, 1922, to his last extravaganza, which was held on his eighty-fourth birthday, May 16, 2004 (see Table of the Canonizations during the reign of John Paul II). He “beatified” 996 people between April 29, 1979 and October 3, 2004. The "heroic virtue" listed for one woman 'beatified by John Paul II in the early-1990s was that she prayed her Rosary every day! This prompted me to tell a then-friend in the conciliar clergy, "Hey, I got a shot at this!" (I was joking.) My now former friend laughed heartily after I had made comment. Saying one's prayers every day is not "heroic." It is our duty.
As is well known, the counterfeit church of conciliarism's ideological manipulation of the "beatification" and "canonization" has sought to raise to the Cranmer tables on which the abominable Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is staged its own progenitors and exemplars as a means of placing the stamp of "sanctity" upon rank liars who sought to advance every single tenet of the Modernism in defiance of the various solemn anathemas and papal condemnations that were issued prior to the "election" of "canonized" Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (see Two For The Price Of One, part one).
A careful distinction needs to be made before proceeding: there have been truly worthy candidates for beatification and canonization who have been advanced by the conciliarists. The "wheat" of authentic sanctity (such as belonged to Jacinta and Francisco Marto, Father Junipero Serra, Father Miguel Augustin Pro, Venerable Anne Katherine Emmerich, Pauline Jaricot, Kateri Tekakwitha, Elizabeth Ann Seton, Bishop John Neumann, Juan Diego, Padre Pio, Father Maximilian Kolbe, who opposed all forms of naturalism, including both "national" socialism and "international" socialism) will have to be separated from the "chaff" of Modernism (Josemaria Escriva Balaguer y Albas, Mother Teresa, Karol Wojtyla, Angelo Roncalli, Antonio Rosmini et al.) by a true pope when the conciliarists are removed by the very hand of God Himself as the fruit of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The inclusion of truly worthy candidates to be considered for canonization has permitted the conciliarists to attempt to promote their own number (Escriva, Roncalli, Wojtyla, Montini, Mother Teresa) to the ranks of the “blessed” and/or “canonized.”
In other words, you see, the inclusion of worthy candidates in the "saint factory" of conciliarism has provided a "cover," if you will, for the inclusion of the progenitors of the conciliar agenda in the canonization process. Although an indulterer at the time, even I knew that the "beatification" of Pope Pius IX and the decrepit Modernist named Angelo Roncalli, who had his corpulent corpus preserved artificially so as to make it appear that it was "incorrupt" to those investigating his "cause" after his death, on the same day, September 3, 2000, was an exercise in Hegelianism. After all, how can one "reconcile" heralding Pope Pius IX and Angelo Roncalli on the same day when the former, Pope Pius IX, condemned the very propositions that were at the foundation of the life's work of the latter, Roncalli?
Wojtyla/John Paul II's successor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, used his own false "pontificate" to advance the cause of Father Antonio Rosmini even though it was in 1887 that Pope Leo XIII had personally condemned forty of the latter's propositions each of which has become standard "orthodoxy" within the counterfeit church of conciliarism. It is important to dwell on this case for a bit as the conciliar manipulation of the beatification and canonization processes did not start with Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
“Cardinal” Ratzinger knew full well what he was doing with Rosmini. The man who became “Pope Benedict XVI” sought to make it possible to “beatify” Rosmini, and by so doing to “bless” the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned proposition that of dogmatic evolutionism, no matter how much That a man who had forty of his propositions condemned by a true pope was considered by the supposed “restorer of tradition,” Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, to be a fit candidate for "beatification" is a telling statement on how far the revolutionaries will go to raise to their "tables" those who made possible the triumph of their Modernist propositions of contradiction and "continuity in discontinuity" that Ratzinger/Benedict himself championed as early as 1971. The "beatification" of Father Antonio Rosmini, whose genuine love for the poor and unfortunate must be placed in the context of his philosophical warfare against the very nature of God and His Holy Truths, was just part of a revolutionary process by which the Modernist mind is exalted and its adherents "venerated" as holy men and women of the Catholic Church.
Enter Mother Teresa of Calcutta
The recent “canonization” of Mother Teresa, the founder of the Missionaries of Charity, by Jorge Mario Bergoglo (aka “Pope Francis”) on Sunday, September 4, 2016, the Sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost, was a perfect example of the confusion of right principles wrought by the counterfeit church of concilairism’s relentless warfare against every element of Catholic Faith, Morals, and Worship.
Care must be taken to avoid any caricature of Mother Teresa and her work that others have attempted to paint as her case is truly tragic in that she, contrary to some claims to the contrary, really thought that she was serving Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by means of her works of charity for the poor of Calcutta and elsewhere in the world.
Mother Teresa made it clear that her intention was to serve Our Lord in the persons of the poor, the suffering, the forgotten, the homeless, and yes, the unborn. Good intentions, however, do not redeem false understandings and misrepresentations of the nature of Our Lord’s Incarnation or His Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross.
Mother Teresa believed, quite like Jorge Mario Bergoglio, that Our Lord died simply to make it possible for us to “do good to each other,” which is both heretical and blasphemous as He, the New Adam, paid back the sin of the first Adam in His Sacred Humanity to redeem us and thus to make it possible for us to have eternal life in the glory of Heaven if we die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church.
Indeed, Mother Teresa’s confusion of principles was evident when she spoke to the "National Prayer Breakfast" on February 3, 1994, as she spoke of a “theology” of Our Lord’s Incarnation and Passion and Death that is, truth be told, very naturalistic even though she did not think so herself and, worse yet still, none of the priests and presbyters who advised her said was mistaken.
Mother Teresa said explicitly at that "prayer breakfast" in 1994 that her sisters were not social workers:
We are not social workers. We may be doing social work in the eyes of some people, but we must be contemplatives in the heart of the world. For we are touching the body of Christ and we are always in his presence.
You too must bring that presence of God into your family, for the family that prays together, stays together. (Address to National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1994.)
Alas, Mother Teresa's understanding of what constitutes the love of God was tragically erroneous, something that the following excerpt from that address illustrates amply:
Let us thank God for the opportunity He has given us today to have come here to pray together. We have come here especially to pray for peace, joy and love. We are reminded that Jesus came to bring the good news to the poor. He had told us what that good news is when He said: "My peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you." He came not to give the peace of the world which is only that we don't bother each other. He came to give the peace of heart which comes from loving - from doing good to others. (Address to National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1994.)
This is erroneous.
Before elaborting on this point, however, it should be noted that Mother Teresa had no business being at something called the "National Prayer Breakfast as "ecumenical prayer" is a direct violation of the First Commandment and is thus offensive to the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. The Catholic Church has consistently condemned such apostasy:
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)
8. This being so, it is clear that the Apostolic See cannot on any terms take part in their assemblies, nor is it anyway lawful for Catholics either to support or to work for such enterprises; for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ. Shall We suffer, what would indeed be iniquitous, the truth, and a truth divinely revealed, to be made a subject for compromise? For here there is question of defending revealed truth. Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into the whole world in order that they might permeate all nations with the Gospel faith, and, lest they should err, He willed beforehand that they should be taught by the Holy Ghost: has then this doctrine of the Apostles completely vanished away, or sometimes been obscured, in the Church, whose ruler and defense is God Himself? If our Redeemer plainly said that His Gospel was to continue not only during the times of the Apostles, but also till future ages, is it possible that the object of faith should in the process of time become so obscure and uncertain, that it would be necessary to-day to tolerate opinions which are even incompatible one with another? If this were true, we should have to confess that the coming of the Holy Ghost on the Apostles, and the perpetual indwelling of the same Spirit in the Church, and the very preaching of Jesus Christ, have several centuries ago, lost all their efficacy and use, to affirm which would be blasphemy. But the Only-begotten Son of God, when He commanded His representatives to teach all nations, obliged all men to give credence to whatever was made known to them by "witnesses preordained by God," and also confirmed His command with this sanction: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned." These two commands of Christ, which must be fulfilled, the one, namely, to teach, and the other to believe, cannot even be understood, unless the Church proposes a complete and easily understood teaching, and is immune when it thus teaches from all danger of erring. In this matter, those also turn aside from the right path, who think that the deposit of truth such laborious trouble, and with such lengthy study and discussion, that a man's life would hardly suffice to find and take possession of it; as if the most merciful God had spoken through the prophets and His Only-begotten Son merely in order that a few, and those stricken in years, should learn what He had revealed through them, and not that He might inculcate a doctrine of faith and morals, by which man should be guided through the whole course of his moral life. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Lastly, the beloved disciple St. John renews the same command in the strongest terms, and adds another reason, which regards all without exception, and especially those who are best instructed in their duty: "Look to yourselves", says he, "that ye lose not the things that ye have wrought, but that you may receive a full reward. Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine the same hath both the Father and the Son. If any man come to you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, nor say to him, God speed you: for he that saith to him, God speed you, communicateth with his wicked works". (2 John, ver. 8)
Here, then, it is manifest, that all fellowship with those who have not the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "a communication in their evil works" — that is, in their false tenets, or worship, or in any act of religion — is strictly forbidden, under pain of losing the "things we have wrought, the reward of our labors, the salvation of our souls". And if this holy apostle declares that the very saying God speed to such people is a communication with their wicked works, what would he have said of going to their places of worship, of hearing their sermons, joining in their prayers, or the like?
From this passage the learned translators of the Rheims New Testament, in their note, justly observe, "That, in matters of religion, in praying, hearing their sermons, presence at their service, partaking of their sacraments, and all other communicating with them in spiritual things, it is a great and damnable sin to deal with them." And if this be the case with all in general, how much more with those who are well instructed and better versed in their religion than others? For their doing any of these things must be a much greater crime than in ignorant people, because they know their duty better. (Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
The spirit of Christ, which dictated the Holy Scriptures, and the spirit which animates and guides the Church of Christ, and teaches her all truth, is the same; and therefore in all ages her conduct on this point has been uniformly the same as what the Holy Scripture teaches. She has constantly forbidden her children to hold any communication, in religious matters, with those who are separated from her communion; and this she has sometimes done under the most severe penalties. In the apostolical canons, which are of very ancient standing, and for the most part handed down from the apostolical age, it is thus decreed: "If any bishop, or priest, or deacon, shall join in prayers with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion". (Can. 44)
Also, "If any clergyman or laic shall go into the synagogue of the Jews, or the meetings of heretics, to join in prayer with them, let him be deposed, and deprived of communion". (Can. 63) (Bishop George Hay, (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)
Mother Teresa did not realize this as she was in perfect conformity with the false teaching of a false church that she believed to be the Catholic Church, and she was enabled and abetted in this false teaching by the "pope" with whom she worked very closely, "Saint John Paul II," whose own acts of apostasy, blasphemy and sacrilege were, as mentioned before, as numerous as they were scandalously offensive to God and harmful to the eternal welfare of the souls redeemed by every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of His Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross.
No amount of service that Mother Teresa gave to the poor can vitiate the offenses she gave to God and the harmful example she gave to others, and the "pope" and "theologians" who applauded, supported or reaffirmed her in these actions can be excused before God. Her reaffirmation of infidels in their false religions stands in great contrast with the teaching and work of a true missionary of charity, Saint Francis Xavier, who sought to eradicate the very same false religions in India with which Mother Teresa made her peace:
As to the numbers who become Christians, you may understand them from this, that it often happens to me to be hardly able to use my hands from the fatigue of baptizing: often in a single day I have baptized whole villages. Sometimes I have lost my voice and strength altogether with repeating again and again the Credo and the other forms. The fruit that is reaped by the baptism of infants, as well as by the instruction of children and others, is quite incredible. These children, I trust heartily, by the grace of God, will be much better than their fathers. They show an ardent love for the Divine law, and an extraordinary zeal for learning our holy religion and imparting it to others. Their hatred for idolatry is marvellous. They get into feuds with the heathen about it, and whenever their own parents practise it, they reproach them and come off to tell me at once. Whenever I hear of any act of idolatrous worship, I go to the place with a large band of these children, who very soon load the devil with a greater amount of insult and abuse than he has lately received of honor and worship from their parents, relations, and acquaintances. The children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage. (St. Francis Xavier: Letter from India, to the Society of Jesus at Rome, 1543.)
It is bad enough that true and false clerics reaffirmed Mother Teresa in her violations of the First Commandment. What is worse, however, is that they permitted her to speak about matters of precise theology such as Our Lord's Incarnation and Redemptive Act in such an erroneous way as to reduce them to naturalistic levels. They did so, of course, because they adhered to such confusion themselves.
To wit, Mother Teresa's reference to Our Lord's "peace of heart" in her 1994 "National Prayer Breakfast" address displayed no understanding of Catholic truth. The peace of heart of which Our Lord promised comes from being in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of His Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. It is not merely a “peace of heart” that comes from “doing good to others.” Truth be told, of course, this is identical to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself has said on numerous occasions, including early in his false "pontificate" (see Francis Do-Right.)
Father Frederick William Faber discussed the worthlessness of mere philanthropy in The Precious Blood:
Even in religious and ecclesiastical matters they incline to measure progress, or test vigor, by other standards rather than that of holiness. These men will consider the foregoing picture of the world without the Precious Blood as overdrawn and too darkly shaded. They do not believe in the intense malignity of man when drifted from God, and still less are they inclined to grant that cultivation and refinement only intensify still further this malignity. They admit the superior excellence of Christian charity; but they also think highly of natural philanthropy. But has this philanthropy ever been found where the indirect influences of the true religion, whether Jewish or Christian, had not penetrated? We may admire the Greeks for their exquisite refinement, and the Romans for the wisdom of their political moderation. Yet look at the position of children, of servants, of slaves, and of the poor, under both these systems, and see if, while extreme refinement only pushed sin to an extremity of foulness, the same exquisite culture did not also lead to a social cruelty and an individual selfishness which made life unbearable to the masses. Philanthropy is but a theft from the gospel, or rather a shadow, not a substance, and as unhelpful as shadows are want to be. (Father Frederick Faber, The Precious Blood, published originally in England in 1860, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, p. 59.)
Pope Saint Pius X put matters this way in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910 as he condemned the false principles of The Sillon that are at the root of the conciliar approach to the world and that were adhered to by the then Father Angelo Roncalli even after Papa Sarto had condemned them:
Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
Catholicism is clear. Heresy and error demand complexity and paradox. This is why the conciliar revolutionaries recoil at the clarity of Saint Paul the Apostle’s Second Epistle to the Timothy:
 I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom:  Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine.  For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:  And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.  But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Timothy 1: 1-5.)
Behold the false teachers who have upon us, and Mother Teresa followed them while giving witness to their false teaching, especially by teaching her sisters to help "Hindus die as good Hindus" and "Buddhists to die as good Buddhists," etc. This religious indifferentism is one of the essential building blocks of Modernism, and it is to Mother Teresa's discredit in the objective order of things that she became one of the world's most influential exmplars of a heresy that our true popes condemned repeatedly (see the appendix below).
I thought that stories of Mother Teresa's indifferentism were untrue until a traditional Catholic from Long Island in whose house I had taught several homeschooling children once a week in the 1990s. I found this hard to believe until I did the research to find the undeniable truth of the matter. Yes, I know how easy it is to believe in the illusions created by the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
You see, I preferred to belive in a hagiography of Mother Teresa at the time of her death that was premised upon her apparent devotion to Eucharistic piety and her well-known opposition to baby-killing. I knew personally from having chauffered the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J., to her convent in the South Bronx and from several conciliar presbyters who worked closely with Mother Teresa that she insisted that her sisters spend an hour in prayer before was she believed to be Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament before they served the poor. "If you want to be Jesus for others," she said to her sisters, "then you must spend time with Jesus in prayer." This was more than a saying as a steady stream of sisters would spent time in prayer before what they (and I) believed to be the Most Blessed Sacrament on the times that I visited the convents of the Missionaries Sisters of Charity. Furthermore, Mother Teresa worked with Karol Wotyla/John Paul II to open what purported to be chapels of Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration around the world, including on the Piazza Venezia in Rome itself. "What was not to admire," I thought at the time.
Well, little did I know in the 1980s and 1990s that one of Mother Teresa's former coworkers, Dr. Rama Coomerswamy, who had served as her own personal physician for a time, had conducted correspondence with her in an attempt to convince her of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service (Rama Coomaraswamy Correspondence with Mother Teresa). I knew the Novus Ordo service to be unbearable and sought refuge in the "indult" offerings/stagings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, but invalid? I was not ready yet to admit the plain truth of the matter, which is one of the reasons that I offered praise for Mother Teresa upon her death as I thought that she really was a disciple of authentic Eucharistic piety. I was wrong. No one can have true love for Our Lord if he prays with infidels and heretics, no less reaffirms them in their false religions.
Yes, Mother Teresa opposed abortion, and did so courageously in the presence of world potentates, including when she delivered the Nobel Prize for Peace on December 10, 1979:
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.
And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.
By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.
And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.
Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
Many people are very, very concerned with the children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about all the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions who are being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today - abortion which brings people to such blindness.
And for this I appeal in India and I appeal everywhere - "Let us bring the child back." The child is God's gift to the family. Each child is created in the special image and likeness of God for greater things - to love and to be loved. In this year of the family we must bring the child back to the center of our care and concern. This is the only way that our world can survive because our children are the only hope for the future. As older people are called to God, only their children can take their places.
But what does God say to us? He says: "Even if a mother could forget her child, I will not forget you. I have carved you in the palm of my hand." We are carved in the palm of His hand; that unborn child has been carved in the hand of God from conception and is called by God to love and to be loved, not only now in this life, but forever. God can never forget us.
I will tell you something beautiful. We are fighting abortion by adoption - by care of the mother and adoption for her baby. We have saved thousands of lives. We have sent word to the clinics, to the hospitals and police stations: "Please don't destroy the child; we will take the child." So we always have someone tell the mothers in trouble: "Come, we will take care of you, we will get a home for your child." And we have a tremendous demand from couples who cannot have a child - but I never give a child to a couple who have done something not to have a child. Jesus said. "Anyone who receives a child in my name, receives me." By adopting a child, these couples receive Jesus but, by aborting a child, a couple refuses to receive Jesus.
Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child and be loved by the child.
From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3000 children from abortion. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents and have grown up so full of love and joy. (National Prayer Breakfast, February 3, 1994.)
Again, this was very good, especially considering the fact that Mother Teresa shared the same dais with none other than then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and his wife, a certain Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton, who headed a militantly pro-abortion regime.
Unfortunately, Mother Teresa proeeeded to praise "natural family planning," which is based on the personalist philsophy of the late Father Herbert Dos and the late Dietrich von Hildebrand that inverts the ends proper to marriage that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944, that he reiterated in his on October 31, 1951, as the "alternative" to contraception, which she condemned. Once again, therefore, Mother Teresa both defended and undermined Catholic doctrine at the same time. (For a review of the illicit nature of "natural family planning" as taught by the counterfeit church of conciliarism, please see (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change, Jorge Puts On His "Catholic Hat"? Don't You Believe It and "Rabbits" to Jorge, God's Blessings to Pope Pius XII). This is of the essence of Modernism as a a bit of Catholic doctrine is mixed with its denial.
As important as defending the life of the innocent preborn is, offenses against the First, Second, and Third Commandments lead to violations of all the rest, including the Fifth and the Sixth. Mother Teresa did not realize that her offenses against the First Commandment thus made more possible the daily slaughter of the preborn that she tried to fight with the conciliar church's reliance upon "natural family planning."
In all of this, though, Mother Teresa was considered by the conciliar authorities as a paragon of orthdooxy. As noted earlier, this is what I thought at the time of her death as well, especially since I had spoken to her on the phone at the request of Father Hardon in March of 1994 to request her to speak with "Pope" John Paul II to stop his impending approval of altar girls. "This will be a disaster for the Church. They will be pushing for women priests next." She agreed to call Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, reaching his omnipotent secretary, the then Monsignor Stanislaw Dziwisz, now the retired conciliar "cardinal" archbishop of Krakow, Poland, being told that the decision had been made. I was told by Father Hardon that Mother Teresa was flabbergasted by the turnaround. Boy, if only that "pope" had known, huh?
I was a fool as conciliarism is incompatible with apostasy, and acts of apostasy make anyone an unfit candidate for beatification and canonization by the Catholic Chuch, and this includes Mother Teresa of Calcutta. It as simple as that.
Accept the Conciliar Church, Accept Its "Canonizations"
No one who believes that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church can, however, reject Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "canonization" of Mother Teresa. Even the supposed "restorer of tradition," Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, noted in 1989 that canonizations are infallibly guaranteed acts of the Catholic Church:
In 1989, in fact, when the motu proprio “Ad tuendam fidem” of John Paul II was promulgated, in a subsequent “doctrinal note” connected to it and signed by then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger “the canonizations of saints” were explicitly cited among “the doctrines infallibly proposed” by the Church “in a definitive way,” together with other doctrines like the reservation of priestly ordination for men only, the illicit nature of euthanasia, the illicit nature of prostitution and fornication, the legitimacy of the election of a pope or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the declaration of Leo XIII on the invalidity of Anglican orders. (Vatican Diary: In a few months, six new saints canonized outside the rules.)
This is one instance in which the retired antipope, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, actually agreed with the plain teaching of the Catholic Church, which was summarized on the Novus Ordo Watch site in July of 2013 as the late theologian, Monsignor Gerardus von Noort was quoted as follows:
PROPOSITION: When the teaching office of the Church hands down decisions on matters of faith and morals in such a way as to require of everyone full and absolute assent, it is infallible.
This is a dogma of faith. [...]
In the definition given above the object of infallibility was expressed in these words borrowed from the Vatican Council: “when it defines a doctrine of faith or morals.” It remains now to fix more accurately the meaning and the scope of this formula. This will be done on the basis of the words of Christ and of the apostles cited in the course of the proof; and on the basis, too, of the purpose for which the privilege of infallibility was granted.
It is important to pay attention above all to the word doctrine; for infallibility concerns the teaching office and so has as its special object doctrines, or at least doctrinal decisions by which some truth is presented to be believed or maintained by everyone.
The formula, “a doctrine of faith or morals,” comprises all doctrines the knowledge of which is of vital concern to people if they are to believe aright and to live uprightly in accordance with the religion of Christ. Now doctrines of this sort have either been revealed themselves or are so closely allied with revelation that they cannot be neglected without doing harm to the latter. Consequently the object of infallibility is twofold: there is a primary and a secondary object. [...]
PROPOSITION 2: The secondary object of infallibility comprises all those matters which are so closely connected with the revealed deposit that revelation itself would be imperilled unless an absolutely certain decision could he made about them.
The charism of infallibility was bestowed upon the Church so that the latter could piously safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation, and thus could be in all ages the teacher of Christian truth and of the Christian way of life. But if the Church is to fulfill this purpose, it must be infallible in its judgment of doctrines and facts which, even though not revealed,are so intimately connected with revelation that any error or doubt about them would constitute a peril to the faith.Furthermore, the Church must be infallible not only when it issues a formal decree, but also when it performs some action which, for all practical purposes, is the equivalent of a doctrinal definition.
One can easily see why matters connected with revelation are called the secondary object of infallibility. Doctrinal authority and infallibility were given to the Church’s rulers that they might safeguard and confidently explain the deposit of Christian revelation. That is why the chief object of infallibility, that, namely, which by its very nature falls within the scope of infallibility, includes only the truths contained in the actual deposit of revelation. Allied matters, on the other hand, which are not in the actual deposit, but contribute to its safeguarding and security, come within the purview of infallibility not bytheir very nature, but rather by reason of the revealed truth to which they are annexed. As a result, infallibility embraces them only secondarily. It follows that when the Church passes judgment on matters of this sort, it is infallible only insofar as they are connected with revelation.
When theologians go on to break up the general statement of this thesis into its component parts, they teach that the followingindividual matters belong to the secondary object of infallibility: 1. theological conclusions; 2. dogmatic facts; 3. the general discipline of the Church; 4. approval of religious orders; 5. canonization of saints. [...]
Assertion 5: The Church’s infallibility extends to the canonization of saints.This is the common opinion today.
Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration. It differs from beatification, which is a provisional rather than a definitive decree, by which veneration is only permitted, or at least is not universally prescribed. Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible. Still, there are some theologians who take a different view of the matter.
1. From the solid conviction of the Church. When the popes canonize, they use terminology which makes it quite evident that they consider decrees of canonization infallible. Here is, in sum, the formula they use: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the apostles Peter and Paul and by our own authority, we declare that N. has been admitted to heaven, and we decree and define that he is to be venerated in public and in private as a saint.”
2. From the purpose of infallibility. The Church is infallible so that it may be a trustworthy teacher of the Christian religion and of the Christian way of life. But it would not be such if it could err in the canonization of saints. Would not religion be sullied if a person in hell were, by a definitive decree, offered to everyone as an object of religious veneration? Would not the moral law be at least weakened to some extent, if a protégé of the devil could be irrevocably set up as a model of virtue for all to imitate and for all to invoke? But it cannot be inferred: therefore the Church must also be infallible in authenticating the relics of the saints; for (a) the Church never issues so solemn a decree about relics; and (b)the cases are not parallel, for in the case of relics, it is a question of relative cult, while in that of the saints it is one of absolute cult. (Mgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ’s Church [Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957], pp. 104, 108-110, 117-118.) (As found at Roncalli/Wojtyla “Canonization”.)
The examples conciliar "saints" such as Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Mother Teresa stand in great contrast to the heroic witness of Holy Mother Church's martyrs and confessors, including the saints whose feast is celebrated today, the North American Martyrs, The North American Martyrs gave up their lives rather than pray to the devils of the Iroquois. Many of the conciliar "saints" have made it it their business to pray alongside, if not exactly “with” as they like point out, those who worship false gods or are part of heretical sects that deny one or more articles contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Each of the North American Martyrs (Saints Isaac Jogues, Rene Goupil, Jean Lalande, Gabriel Lalemant, Noel Chabanel, Anthony Daniel, Charles Garnier, and John de Brebeuf) were devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mary, especially through her Most Holy Rosary. Our Lady has vanquished all heresies, and she will vanquish the heresies of conciliarism to which Mother Teresa adhered and in which she participated while being enabled by her "pope."
Today is also the Feast of Saints Cyprian and Justina, although it is commemorated in the United States of America because of the liturgical precedence of the Feast of the North American Martyrs. Like the North American Marytrs more than thirteen centuries later, Saints Cyprian and Justina refused to make any kind of concessions to falsehood or to serve the adversary in any way:
Cyprian was firstly a warlock and lastly a Martyr. A certain young man having a violent lust after a Christian maiden named Justina, employed him to excite her to join in this lewdness, by dint of incantations and philters. Cyprian thereupon asked counsel of the devil, how he might best gain that end. But the devil answered him that these arts are only thrown away upon true worshippers of Christ. This answer troubled Cyprian, and he began to repent heartily of the course of life he had hitherto led. And then he forsook his arts magic, and gave himself wholly up to the faith of the Lord Christ. For this cause, he and the Virgin Justina were arrested together, beaten with blows and scourging, and cast into prison, if haply they might change their mind. Being brought out of the prison, but still standing fast in their Christian religion, they were dipped in a vessel full of hot pitch, fat, and wax, and in the end beheaded, at Nicomedia, on the 26th day of September, in the year of our Lord 304.Their bodies were thrown out, and lay unburied for the space of six days, at the end of which time some sailors took them secretly by night on board a ship and carried them to Rome. They were first buried on the farm of the noble Lady Rufina, but afterwards brought into the city, where they lie hard by the Baptistery in the Church of (the Saviour, built by) Constantine. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saints Cyprian and Justina.)
No matter what it might cost us in terms of human respect or even financial security, we must reject the nonexistent legitimacy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism as place our complete trust in the simple fact that the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end. All we need to do is to offer up the difficulties of the moment as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the same Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must remain faithful to the end, and for this we need Our Lady's constant help.
Vivat Christus Rex!
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the North American Martyrs, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Isaac Jogues, S.J., pray for us.
Saint Rene Goupil, S,J., pray for us.
Saint John Lalande, S,J., pray for us.
Saint Gabriel Lalemant, S.J., pray for us.
Saint Noel Chabanel, S.J., pray for us.
Saint Charles Garnier, S.J., pray for us.
Saint Anthony Daniel, S.J., pray for us.
Saint John De Brebeuf, S.J., pray for us.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
The Popes Against Indifferentism and Religious Liberty
The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.
But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?
After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil?And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …
Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …
“Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.” (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791;Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right“).
For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)
Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim thatit is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?"
"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again? (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)