Jean-Claude Hollerich Wants to Listen to "The People," The Catholic Church Speaks for God

One of the consistent themes on this site in the past sixteen years since I came, most belatedly, to be sure (and after several people had heated arguments with me dating back to 1975), to accept the fact that the men who had been “elected” since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, were heretics and that what appeared to be the Catholic Church was actually her counterfeit ape is that dogmatic evolutionism is the foundation of the entire false enterprise that tries to passes itself off as the Catholic Church. Over three hundred fifty articles on this site in the sixteen years either centered or touched upon the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s foundational warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than an open attack upon the nature of God Himself and His immutability.

One conciliar revolutionary after another has been kind enough to state this openly in the past nine years, five months, seven days since Jorge Mario Bergoglio appeared on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, bedecked in his masquerade party costume as “Pope Francis.”

This attack on the nature of dogmatic truth is nothing other than an attack upon then nature of God Himself, Who is without any shadow of change or alteration.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries, imbued with the Modernist heresy of dogmatic evolutionism, have used various euphemisms to mask the fact that they are indeed dogmatic evolutionists. “Saint John Paul II,” for example, masqueraded the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolutionism by referring to as “living tradition,” meaning that everything in Sacred Deposit of Faith was open to reinterpretation and “adaptation” as the circumstances require:

5. Today the Church rejoices at the renewed confirmation of the prophet Joel's words which we have just heard: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). You, present here, are the tangible proof of this "outpouring" of the Spirit. Each movement is different from the others, but they are all united in the same communion and for the same mission. Some charisms given by the Spirit burst in like an impetuous wind, which seizes people and carries them to new ways of missionary commitment to the radical service of the Gospel, by ceaselessly proclaiming the truths of faith, accepting the living stream of tradition as a gift and instilling in each person an ardent desire for holiness.

Today, I would like to cry out to all of you gathered here in St Peter's Square and to all Christians: Open yourselves docilely to the gifts of the Spirit! Accept gratefully and obediently the charisms which the Spirit never ceases to bestow on us! Do not forget that every charism is given for the common good, that is, for the benefit of the whole Church.  (Meeting with ecclesial movements and new communities.)

It is not therefore a matter of inventing a "new programme". The programme already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as ever. Ultimately, it has its centre in Christ himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in him we may live the life of the Trinity, and with him transform history until its fulfilment in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is a programme which does not change with shifts of times and cultures, even though it takes account of time and culture for the sake of true dialogue and effective communication. This programme for all times is our programme for the Third Millennium.

But it must be translated into pastoral initiatives adapted to the circumstances of each community. The Jubilee has given us the extraordinary opportunity to travel together for a number of years on a journey common to the whole Church, a catechetical journey on the theme of the Trinity, accompanied by precise pastoral undertakings designed to ensure that the Jubilee would be a fruitful event. I am grateful for the sincere and widespread acceptance of what I proposed in my Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente. But now it is no longer an immediate goal that we face, but the larger and more demanding challenge of normal pastoral activity. With its universal and indispensable provisions, the programme of the Gospel must continue to take root, as it has always done, in the life of the Church everywhere. It is in the local churches that the specific features of a detailed pastoral plan can be identified — goals and methods, formation and enrichment of the people involved, the search for the necessary resources — which will enable the proclamation of Christ to reach people, mould communities, and have a deep and incisive influence in bringing Gospel values to bear in society and culture.

I therefore earnestly exhort the Pastors of the particular Churches, with the help of all sectors of God's People, confidently to plan the stages of the journey ahead, harmonizing the choices of each diocesan community with those of neighbouring Churches and of the universal Church. (Apostolic LetteNovo Millennio Ineunte.)

It should be noted furthermore that Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II note specifically in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had placed the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (more commonly known as the Society of Saint Pius X) into schism with what is purported to be the Catholic Church by consecrating four priests as bishops without a “papal” mandate and for refusing to accept what the “canonized pope” said was “the living character of tradition”:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. (Karol Wojytla/John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II was absolutely correct to state that the teaching of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be contrary to Tradition. Some in the Society of Saint Pius X have posited a nonexistent conflict between the “authoritative magisterium” and the “governing magisterium.” There is no such distinction as no such division in the magisterium exists. It is a fabrication. The universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach error, something that was reviewed most recently in Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.

Unfortunately, for “Saint John Paul II,” however, his very argument in favor of the continuity between the “Second” Vatican Council and the Tradition of the Catholic Church is based upon an admission that that false council’s texts might be too obscure to understand properly “especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.” Holy Mother Church teaches clearly. There is nothing “new” in her teaching. The “Polish Pope” was trying to have it both ways by referring to the “living character of Tradition” to call the Society of Saint Pius X to obedience while at the same time unwittingly admitting that that there are “new” points of doctrine that need to be “understood.” This is not from the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable.

What was a "living tradition" for Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II mutated into Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who had championed dogmatic evolutionism by means of his Hegelian reasoning over the course of thirty-four years prior to doing so as in capacity as the fifth in the current line of antipopes on December 22, 2005, when he gave it the name of "the heremeutic of continuity":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me remind you:

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

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

As we know, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and some of his chief comrades including Christoph Schonborn and Lorenzo Baldisseri, have cast aside any pretense of hiding the fact that dogmatic evolutionism is anything than what it is, thus openly admitting what has been the case from the very beginnings of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

This is what Lorenzo Baldisseri said during the midst of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio at the conclusion  of the 2014 "extraordinary synod" of conciliar "bishops" was to be was a year for his false religious sect to "mature" with respect to administering what purports to be Holy Communion to divorced and civilly "remarried" Catholics who lack a decree of conciliar nullity, a "maturity" that was realized with the issuance of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016 (see Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: A Brief OverviewJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: Another Brief OverviewJorge's Exhortaion of Self-Justification Before Men, part threeThe Conciliar Chair of Disunity and DivisionJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part fourInspector Jorge Wants to See DocumentsJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part fiveJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part sixJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part sevenJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part eightJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part nineJorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part ten, THE END!):

“Therefore, there’s no reason to be scandalized that there is a cardinal or a theologian saying something that’s different than the so-called ‘common doctrine.’ This doesn’t imply a going against. It means reflecting. Because dogma has its own evolution; that is a development, not a change.” 

The cardinal added that it is “right that there is a reaction” and that “this is exactly what we want today. We want to discuss things, but not in order to call things into doubt, but rather to view it in a new context, and with a new awareness. Otherwise, what’s theology doing but repeating what was said in the last century, or 20 centuries ago?” (Lorenzo Baldiserri Admits Communion for Adulters is Dogmatic Evolution.)

Matters of Catholic dogma are never to a subject of any kind of discussion or debate. Then again, the entirety of the conciliar revolution is premised upon attacking the nature of dogmatic truth thereby creating the illusion that everything is subject to debate and change to suit the circumstances of the times.

The latest conciliar official to announce his support for the ontological impossibility of “changing” Catholic teaching is none other than Jean-Claude Hollerich, who was the subject of Modernism’s Own Geiger Counter six months ago. The conciliar potentate in Luxembourg, Hollerich openly said that what he thinks is the Catholic Church must listen to “the people” on matters of Faith and Morals, especially as it relates to unnatural acts of perversity:

CHICAGO (LifeSiteNews) – The openly pro-homosexual head of the European bishops’ commission has again cast doubt on the perennial Catholic doctrine on homosexuality and appeared to suggest that he thinks the Catholic Church can change its teaching through the worldwide “Synod on Synodality,” and claimed that he knows that he is “in full agreement with Pope Francis” on the issue.

In a 90-second exchange captured on video Sunday at Holy Child Jesus parish in Chicago, Illinois, Jesuit Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, who plays an important role in Pope Francis’ Synod on Synodality as the Relator General, said that “we have to give an interpretation to the Bible teaching” when asked for his thoughts regarding a possible change in the Catholic doctrine on sexual ethics. . . .

During Hollerich’s visit to the U.S., lay Catholic activist Richard Smaglick asked whether the high-ranking cardinal thinks sodomy might no longer be considered a grave sin in Catholic doctrine following the worldwide synodal process.

“I do not know what the synod will bring,” Hollerich answered, “we now listen to the people of the world, what they express.”

“I start getting in reports. As you know, I’m the Relator General of the synod and so, reading all of that, in September we will make a first draft for the continental meetings which will take place,” explained the cardinal, who also serves as Archbishop of Luxembourg, later adding that he “would never consider sexuality separated from love.”

Attempting to draw clarity from Hollerich’s comments, Smaglick noted that the Sacred Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church have “taught for 2,000 years that sodomy is a sin, an abomination that cries out to heaven.”

However, in response to Smaglick’s comment, the cardinal appeared to cast doubt on the clear and ancient Scriptural teaching on homosexual acts as sinful, stating that “the Bible also said we should stone the woman who is adulterous.”

“The Bible said that the sun turns around the earth,” Hollerich continued. “So, the Bible is … [we] have to give an interpretation to the Bible.” (Pro-LGBT cardinal claims Pope Francis is in 'full agreement' with his stance.)

Apart from his clear disbelief in the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, every word of which was written under the Divine inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, and his hideous attempt to use the precepts of the Mosaic Law that were superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday to “prove” that Holy Writ is unreliable, Jean-Claude Hollerich’s belief that his false religious sect must listen to the “people” on such matters as sodomy is a direct endorsement of subjective morality that is contrary to right reason and was condemned by Pope Pius XII as follows on September 14, 1957:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies. 

Jean-Claude Hollerich wants to listen to “the people.” That’s rich. The Catholic Church has always taught what she has received from God, Who is immutable. The voices of contingent beings can never change anything about Catholic Faith and Morals. It is not up to what purports to be (but is not) the Catholic Church to listen to the “people.” It is up to us all to listen to the voice of God as He speaks us through Holy Mother Church, she who is the sole explicator of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and the infallibly authoritative interpreter of all that is contained in the Natural Law.

Saint Paul’s Second Epistle to Saint Timothy described efforts to placate “the people,” who are always ready to make excuses for their sins, as follows:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine[3] 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: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables[5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

Jean-Claude Hollerich is a latter Aesop, a man who spins fables for the unrepentant, a man who seeks to curry favor with men without a thought of offending God. That men such as Jean-Claude Hollerich do not understand this is one of the many proofs that the conciliar revolutionaries truly believe in God. Men such as Hollerich are pagans who project their concepts of what they believe God should be like even though their falsehoods have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church:

For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward

  • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
  • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  1. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, (Chapter  4, On Faith and Reason, Nos. 13-14, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Vatican Ecumenical Council, April 18, 1870.)
  2. If anyone says that ​it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Canons: Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, Dogmatic Constitution of the Catholic Faith, Vatican Ecumenical Council, April 18, 1870.)

The entire fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is premised upon the great façade of dogmatic evolutionism, which, no matter how it has been labeled by the conciliar “popes” and their apparatchiks (“living tradition,” “hermeneutic of continuity,” “fidelity to tradition in newness”). The counterfeit church of conciliarism has reached such a state of degermation at present as to justify dogmatic evolutionism in open and frank terms even though it is a philosophically absurdity and has been condemned solemnly in its incipient forms by Holy Mother Church at the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Pius X in  Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907 and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in  Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, each of which has been quoted in this website hundreds of time.

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

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

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.) 

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

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

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar revolutionaries do not believe in God, as their false deity is but a mutable figure of their own pantheistic imagination. “Pope Francis’s religion is nothing other than a phantasm of the demons who whisper in his ear without ceasing.

One can only be willfully blind at this point not to see that it is all or nothing with Catholicism, including acceptance of the fact that heretics have never served on the Throne of Saint Peter despite what keeps being repeated on certain “conservative” and “pro-life” websites. Those who keep repeating the contention about “heretical popes” continue to ignore the simple fact Saint Robert Bellarmine dispelled this falsehood and that the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council examined this matter thoroughly before pronouncing dogmatically on Papal Infallibility, July 18, 1870.

It was a hundred years later that author Robert Leckie, who wrote American and Catholic, saw some problems with what was happening after the “Second” Vatican Council and was disturbed enough to make some observations that are worth repeating here to demonstrate that even though things may not have been clear fifty-twoyears ago, they are eminently clear today.

Mind you, Mr. Leckie was a partisan of Father Isaac Thomas Hecker, the founder of the Society of Saint Paul (the Paulist Fathers), whose writing and life's work helped to propagate the heresy of Americanism. Leckie was of the erroneous belief that Americanism was a "phantom heresy." This is very ironic as Americanism is indeed a celebration of the "world" and of the Catholic's taking his place in it while being content to practice his Faith quietly even though he was very critical and concerned about the "Second" Vatican Council's own celebration of the "world." He did not see that the Potomac had flowed into the Tiber just as surely as had the Rhine. And he was confused on a number of points, including his erroneous belief that the Council of Trent had placed the Church in a "spiritual strait-jacket."

Despite these errors and confusion, however, Mr. Leckie did ask some very pertinent questions that are even more relevant today. The questions that Leckie raised are very relevant now as he considered himself a dispassionate observer, a journalist, who was concerned about the future of Holy Mother Church. Although he was sympathetic to the "traditionalist" cause, he was not really a traditionalist, simply a Catholic who was concerned about the future of the Church. If one who was not a traditionalist could ask such questions in 1970, just five years after the end of the "Second" Vatican Council and one year after the introduction of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service, how can anyone, pretend as though the problems that Leckie saw forty-one years ago are not the result of the rise of a counterfeit religion headed men by who have defected from the Catholic Faith?

Permit me, therefore, to present a few the closing pages from Robert Leckie's American and Catholic. The text really speaks for itself. What is remarkable is that Mr. Leckie was given the graces by Our Lady to see the problems and to write about them publicly when so few others were doing so: 

Traditionally, the Christian or at least the Catholic teaching on a man's duties toward society was expressed by Thomas More's remark that the world will be good when men are good, thus placing the emphasis on the individual, on the gospel of salvation. But now the American Church under the impetuous urging of the New Breed appears to be shifting toward the social gospel advocated by liberal Protestantism during its gallant but unsuccessful attempt to confront modernity. In effect, they are dividing the indivisible Christian recipe for salvation--faith and good works--and giving precedence to good works. Reversing Christ, they put Martha over Mary. And here, in this American Catholic cold war, there has entered on the side of authority, if not necessarily on the side of the hierarchy, a huge, unheard-from group of Catholics who are in some ways comparable to President Nixon's "great, silent majority."

These are the traditionalists. They are not conservative, they are not reactionary, and they are just as intelligent and informed as the intellectuals of the New Breed. Unhappily, few of them edit "impartial" journals of opinion or have columns to write. In the main, they are middle-aged or elderly Catholics, priests and laymen, who are afraid that the "fresh air" which Pope John wanted to let into the Church had turned into a tornado. They fear that "renewal" is actually the kind of reform that empties out the baby with the bath. It seems to them that the New Breed are trying to get Christ out of Christianity, and they are mindful of the Protestant theologian H. Richard Niebuhr's judgment on the "liberalization," i.e., watering-down of his own faith: "A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross." To those innovators who appear so zealous to reform the work of Jesus Christ, they might quote the cynical Talleyrand's remark to a member of the Directory who wished to form his own faith based on reason: "To found his religion, Jesus Christ suffered and died. I suggest you do something of the same." The traditionalist view is another word for accommodation. In Jacques Maritain's phrase it is a "genuflection to the world."

If religion is not a criticism, it is nothing; and hen it ceases to criticize what is loosely called "the world," it ceases to be a religion. True enough, this concept may be open to the charge of being based on "old-fashioned morality," but the fact is that the American Church was until recently the last major repository of any reasoned or reasonable concept of morality in the United States, and that, if the Universal Church should decide to submit to the current moral fashion of permissiveness, she will have abandoned her authority at the one critical period in history when it was needed most. To say "authority," of course, is not to say the medieval or autocratic authority wielded by a prelate like Cardinal McIntyre [of Los Angeles]. But neither is the solution to the abuse of authority a swing of the pendulum to the extreme of permissiveness. Furthermore, the world judges itself by its own standards, and these are as much a compound of sin, selfishness and blind materialism as of nobility, energy and efficiency. In truth, the world has only one standard: success. Is the Church founded by the Divine Failure to make the standard of success the norm to which it must adapt itself? Can it really "secularize" Christianity, as so many spokesmen for the New Breed are urging, without become secular--even as liberal Protestantism?

Again to quote Maritain, a thinker whose theories had much to do with the advent of aggiornamento: "Like Christ, the Church is of God, not of the world. And we have to choose to be friends of the world, or friends of God." This is a hard saying, but since when was Christianity a facile faith? From Jesus Christ himself came repeated warnings against the world. The Gospel of St. John is full of them. "The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth: because I give testimony of it, the works thereof are evil." "In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world." "My kingdom is not of this world." St. James, Christ's own kinsman, was ever harsher. "Adulterers, know you know that the friendship of the world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God." "Love not the world or the things of the world."

It may well be argued by the New Breed that it would be cowardly for the Church not to confront modernity, that it would be a betrayal of the Holy Spirit for her not to divest herself of the spiritual strait jacket laced about her by the defensive strictures of the Council of Trent [Droleskey note: the Council of Trent, of course, met under the direction of God the Holy Ghost]. To this, none but an ostrich could say anything other than "Amen!" Nevertheless, both rapport and rapprochement imply an exchange of views between parties meeting under their own standards. Anything else is submission. Thus, if the world's standard is success, then the Church should strive to understand it more clearly; she should belittle it less and also abandon her own emphasis on resignation or the traveler complex. But she must never forget that her own standard is the Cross, the crucified Christ, "unto the Jews indeed a stumbling block and unto the Gentiles foolishness." Is it possible that today's Gentiles, for which read secularism or modernity, are preparing to alter this attitude? Hardly. The religious revival of the late forties and the fifties is already on the wane, dying quickly down like a paper fire. The twentieth century no longer appears a particularly auspicious one for religion. In the Catholic Church, conversions have fallen off sharply and attendance and collections, under the impact of the defection of many of the older Catholics who feel that they have been turned out of their ancestral home by the innovations of the New Breed, are also down. Other religions report similar hard times. At an interfaith meeting in Istanbul in February of 1969, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto and Zoroastrian representatives all testified to a reduction in growth.

The problems appear to be one of indifferentism, a kind of religious leveling which regards any faith as just as good as the next one, and all as the product of human speculation and regulation. No creed, says indifferentism, can speak with authority or certainty. The Catholic Church, of course, always did--claiming Christ as its invisible and the Pope as its visible head. but now, Christ and his cross are glossed over and the Pope is ignored. The scrape the barnacles of the centuries from the bark of Peter the New Breed appears willing to stove in the planking as well, and Christianity is cleansed by washing Christ away. This is not exaggeration. In many Catholic colleges and universities today the teaching of the Pope counts for so little that his decisions on such matters as birth control are not only discounted or defied by his very magisterium is made a debatable question. [Droleskey note: This was because the "pope," Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, was no pope at all. He was a man who defied anathematized propositions and embraced errors and heresies that had been condemned consistently by the Catholic Church.]

As for Jesus Christ, one might well enter any of these institutions or one of the new Catholic churches and say, with Mary Magdalene: "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him." True enough, the colleges are ending an era when lay teachers were looked upon as clerical employees rather than associates, or when all scholarship had to be undertaken "under correction," and in the simplicity, grace and function of some contemporary church architecture one might well say that here are wood, stone and steel speaking with the very spirit of our times. Nevertheless, one must still ask: Where is Christ? Is he at Notre Dame, now under lay control, where one professor of theology attacks the resurrection and another the papal pronouncements on birth control, or at St. Peter's College [in Jersey City, New Jersey], where a third teaches "Marxist Christianity," whatever that is? Is he on the Catholic campus at all? One must doubt it, if one judges from the poll of students of sixty-nine Catholic colleges which put Jesus Christ as the fifth most important man in history and John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert as Numbers One and Two. Here is Christianity not only cleansed of its Founder, here is the testimony to the absolute failure of the history departments in Catholic education. If not Christ first in history, then certainly Alexander or Augustus, Moses or Buddha, Socrates or Aristotle, Galileo or Columbus, Lenin or Luther, or any of those geniuses after whom mankind was never the same--but the Kennedy brothers? Is this the New Breed's triumph over parochialism?

To seek for Christ on many college campuses, then, appears to be a vain search indeed. If He is there at all, it is often as a simple man, a fanatic perhaps, who only gradually became conscious of His having issued from God, and whose virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, etc., all may be reduced to the natural order. To find Him in the writings of the New Breed, except as a perfunctory bow in some final or omnibus paragraph, is most difficult indeed. One may read chapter after chapter in a New Breed apostle such as Father Greeley (who offers John Kennedy as a Doctor of the Church!) and not see His name at all, nor that of God, His Almighty Father. One will find, however, frequent allusions to the Holy Spirit, which seems suggest that the "renewed" American Church might be preparing to come down heavily on the third person of the Holy Trinity.

Although the Holy Spirit is frequently mentioned in the New Testament, He may actually be quite acceptable to the modern world. He has no virgin birth, no reincarnation, no hypostatic union, or resurrection, or miracles or ignominious death to be defended against the doubters of modernity. Nor is a creator God like the Father Almighty, which removes all necessity to defend design against accident; or the deity who made a compact with the Jews, thus making His uncomfortable entry into human history, His unseemly entry, even, if one remembers Him as "the God of Battles." But the Holy Spirit has never appeared on earth, like Jesus Christ who trod the soil and drank the wine of Judea; or the Father Almighty, who spoke to Abraham and Isaac, changed Jacob's name to Israel and appeared to Moses in the form of a burning bush. It is true that the Virgin Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit [Droleskey note: Our Lady was preserved from all stain of Original and Actual Sin as she was conceived in the natural manner; Our Lord was conceived in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost], but inasmuch as the virgin birth is already in question, this does not seem too great a difficulty in the way of reconciling Catholicism with the modern world. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit does not do anything. He merely "inspires" and "comes upon" people is "received" by them, or else He is invoked. But he is not an actor in human history, and He is therefore a much more comfortable or convenient God than the other members of the Holy Trinity. thus, one may expect to hear rather more about Him and less about Christ from the missionaries of the New Breed. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 364-368.) 

One will see that Leckie was confused on a number of points, not the least of which was concerning the working God the Holy Ghost in the life of the Church as it is He Who is our Sanctifier, He Whose working through the Sacraments makes it possible for us to receive Sanctifying Grace. The point that Leckie seems to have been making, however imprecise in terminology, is nevertheless valid. That is, the conciliar revolutionaries, of whom the then Father Joseph Ratzinger was a leading light, emphasized the "direct" impulse of God the Holy Ghost within souls as a means to ignore and then totally override the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church. Even though he seems not to have realized the contradiction, Leckie was criticizing the very phenomenon of Americanism that he had dismissed as but a "phantom heresy" earlier in his book. Mr. Leckie was incapable of realizing that the very problems he critiqued in the final pages of his book were the result of the Americanist seeds that had been planted in the Nineteenth Century by the Americanist cardinals and bishops whom he viewed as attempting to "release" the Church from the "strait jacket" that had been "imposed" by the Council of Trent, which was indeed the work of God the Holy Ghost.

Pope Leo XIII understood the false prophetic spirit of Americanism's penchant for relying upon the "direct inspiration" of God the Holy Ghost in souls as though He did not speak definitively to men through the magisterium of the Holy Church, which can never contradict itself as there not a shadow of contradiction, change or paradox within the Most Blessed Trinity:

And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs- and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints-dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness? Not to dwell upon this point, there is no one who calls in question the truth that the Holy Spirit does work by a secret descent into the souls of the just and that He stirs them alike by warnings and impulses, since unless this were the case all outward defense and authority would be unavailing. "For if any persuades himself that he can give assent to saving, that is, to gospel truth when proclaimed, without any illumination of the Holy Spirit, who give's unto all sweetness both to assent and to hold, such an one is deceived by a heretical spirit."-From the Second Council of Orange, Canon 7.

Moreover, as experience shows, these monitions and impulses of the Holy Spirit are for the most part felt through the medium of the aid and light of an external teaching authority. To quote St. Augustine. "He (the Holy Spirit) co-operates to the fruit gathered from the good trees, since He externally waters and cultivates them by the outward ministry of men, and yet of Himself bestows the inward increase."-De Gratia Christi, Chapter xix. This, indeed, belongs to the ordinary law of God's loving providence that as He has decreed that men for the most part shall be saved by the ministry also of men, so has He wished that those whom He calls to the higher planes of holiness should be led thereto by men; hence St. Chrysostom declares we are taught of God through the instrumentality of men.-Homily I in Inscrib. Altar. Of this a striking example is given us in the very first days of the Church.

For though Saul, intent upon blood and slaughter, had heard the voice of our Lord Himself and had asked, "What dost Thou wish me to do?" yet he was bidden to enter Damascus and search for Ananias. Acts ix: "Enter the city and it shall be there told to thee what thou must do."

Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one's self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.

A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenuous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruitfulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself? (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

The "New Breed" about which Robert Leckie complained so much in the final pages of American and Catholic was not so "new" after all. The members of this "new breed" were simply the embodiment of an ethos that had been promoted by American bishops for a long time, an ethos that Pope Leo XIII recognized as false and condemned in a true prophetic sense as being opposed to the good of souls and thus of the civil state itself.

Leckie, though, certainly had some interesting insights concerning the revolution that had been brewing for centuries but had made itself fully manifest in the 1960s and thereafter. The problems that Leckie cited have not improved. They have worsened. They must continue to worsen in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as that which is false cannot help but worsen over the course of time.

Two more sets of excerpts from the final pages of American and Catholic will be provided to demonstrate the fact that even a man who was confused about the root causes of the problems he critiqued had a few insights that are as true today as they were forty-nine years ago now:

Whether or not this shift in emphasis is conscious or deliberate is difficult to say. In fairness, it should be suggested that many who embrace it are perhaps not aware of the consequences more than they perceive the destructiveness of the popular new theories advanced by the late French Jesuit, Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. They apparently are not disturbed by theories which turn Christianity upside-down. Teilhard has gotten rid of the Fall and Original Sin and the consequent need for a Redeemer. Catholic Christianity always held to the Incarnation, the proposition that God who made man became man to save what He had made. The story of Adam and Eve and the Fall shows that man was not equal to God's great gamble of free will. He preferred himself to God. This was the first sin, Original Sin, and after it man was unable to help himself. He had to have a Redeemer, and he was Christ the Savior. To Teilhard, however, the God-man is not Jesus the Savior but "the evolutionary principle of universe in motion." To simplify, and admittedly only a trained philosopher or theologian should attempt to simplify a writer as difficult as Teilhard, he has put perfection at the end of creation, not at the start, where it was lost and only to be regained through the merits of Christ the Redeemer. In short, the is really no need for Jesus Christ.

Again looking for Christ: is he in the Churches? Certainly he is present in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar [Droleskey note: well, not really], and some "old-fashioned" churches still represent him on their crucifixes or in their stained-glass windows. But there are many Catholic parishes in America where the crucifix has been taken down, along with those too-disturbing stations of the cross so crudely daubed with red paint, and a Catholic of another century entering some contemporary churches could be forgiven if he thought he had stumbled by accident into, say, a Quaker meetinghouse. Charming in a chaste and simple way, some of the new design seems to arrive at this quiet beauty by the simple expedient of excluding anything powerful, harsh, or provactive--especially the crucifix--which might suggest a religion based on sacrifice and suffering. Once again, the baby has vanished with the bath; and so, the new design is not actually simply but only bland. Our God is no longer a Jealous God. he is the Permissive One, and we must not embarrass Him with anything but the must demure devotion. Yearning for the old atmosphere of the sacral and the reverent, the traditionalist had better get him to a bank or a brokerage house, where the Sons of Mammon, at least, still take their god seriously. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, p. 368.) 

These are excellent insights of a believing Catholic. Robert Leckie was sixty years of age when he wrote American and Catholic. He saw that something was happening, and many of his insights, such as the ones in the paragraph just above, save for his belief that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was still in the tabernacles of Catholic churches, were profound and even prophetic. What’s the excuse for others not seeing this today?

Even though Mr. Leckie believed that Mass in the vernacular was commendable, he did see that the new order of things liturgically had introduced a bewildering spectacle resembling the worship of Ba’al atop Mount Carmel:

Even the sacrifice of the Mass has become a source of dismay to the traditionalist. For the liturgical reformers to have achieved their great objective of having Latin all but abolished form the Roman rite and the various vernaculars put in its place was truly an attainment of the highest order, and one on which they would deserve congratulation, had they not celebrated their success by introducing such indecencies as the "tom-tom mass," the so-called "folk mass" accompanied by guitars in the hands of youths who know ever so much more about Christianity that their elders. Apparently, to the New Breed, the acorn is worth more than the oak, and the adult is the ruination of the child. As a result, many older Catholics, devout people who suffered social ostracism or lost advancement or employment because of their courageous witness to their religion, men and women who sacrificed for years for the faith that they loved, have simply walked out of the American Church in disgust. For them, all the awe and reverence and mystery has gone out of the Mass. Chesterton said that all drama must be a foot above the ground, but the drama of the new Mass is now on everybody's level--and perhaps even a little lower.

The new liturgy, they feel, is soulless. It may be more accurate as a result of biblical scholarship, but it has no poetry in it. Thus, many older Catholics say, in effect, that if they were asked to swear on the new Bible they would not feel obliged to the truth. Traditionalist horror, however, only amuses some of the New Breed, especially the members of the New Breed, specially members of the so-called "Underground Church," who find any attachment to "old-fashioned" ritual or "archaic" parochialism a kind of quaint Neaderthalism. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 368-370.)

The “new liturgy” is soulless because it is not of God and results in the loss of Faith and an increase of agnosticism and atheism to the point that the naturalism preached by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of rebels, miscreants, dreamers, and heretics is the foundation to the false doctrines, invalid and sacrilegious liturgical rites and moral relativism they preach and make the basis for liturgy and pastoral practice.

Robert Leckie could not see this in 1970, but he sure saw a lot of the problems back then that many of us did not see—and that some of us, including this writer, refused to see clearly despite the admonitions of others for a very long time thereafter. At this point, however, one must be culpably blind not to see and to admit the apostasy that is at hand and that that in Catholicism it is black and white, yea or nay, “this” or “that,” truth or error, Christ or chaos.

The work of the conciliar revolutionaries is one of destruction. They have devasted the vineyard of Our Blessed Lord and Jesus Christ and thus helped to contribute mightily to the worsening of the state of the world-at-large. These wretched men, some of whom are perhaps demons dressed up to look like men, have sowed chaos of the sort that makes the work of the George Soros-funded nihilists in the cities of the United States of America seem like so much child’s play as there is nothing so devastating to the state of men and their nations than to not only to plant the seeds of doubt in the souls of the Catholic faithful but to seek to extirpate the Faith entirely from the souls of men, who must perforce, barring a deep and abiding devotion to Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary, fall into line with the forces of the world, the flesh, and the devil in short order.

Yesterday, August 19, 2022, was the one hundred fifth anniversary of Our Lady's fourth apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin Lucia dos Santos. This particular apparition was delayed for six days because the children were being held by the Mayor of Ourem, Portugal, who tried to intimidate them into recanting their testimony about what they had seen and heard on the thirteenth of each of the preceding three months.

As is well known, Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin Lucia dos Santos were spirited away by the atheistic Mayor of Ourem, Portugal Artur de Oliveira Santos, the founding president of the local Masonic lodge, on August 13, 1917, in order to intimidate them into denouncing the apparitions of the "beautiful Lady" in the Cova da Iria in Fatima. The three children were thrown into jail, where they prayed Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary at around noontime on August 13, the time that Our Lady was scheduled to appear to them in the Cova da Iria. The Mayor of Ourem then took the children to his own home, where he threatened to boil them alive in oil. His threats were to no avail. He had to give up when the children preferred to face death rather than to renounce their beautiful Lady, who had shown them a vision of Hell a month before and had asked them to promote devotion to Her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Perhaps it is no accident that a major wildfire started spontaneously in Ourem, Portugal, on August 1, 2022, with smoke that has combined with that of other wildfires in Portugal to be carried aloft of Madrid, Spain, where some residents thought that Madrid itself was on fire (see Portugal declares emergency as wildfires spread close to capital Lisbon and Portuguese wildfire envelops Madrid skyscrapers in smoke 400 km away).

Artur de Oliveira Santos had the sense to give up when he knew that he could not get anywhere with Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia, whose own parents had their doubts about the Heavenly visions they claimed to have seen in the Cova da Iria. Although Artur Santos released the three children on the Feast of the Assumption, August 15, 1918, he refused to believe in Our Lady of Fatima even after the Miracle of the Sun, working to thwart a procession to the Cova da Iria on May 13, 1920, and involved in the plot that resulted in the roof of the chapel in the Cova being blown off on March 6, 1921 (the date of my own late mother's birth in Kansas City, Missouri), as two bombs near the holm oak tree atop which stood Our Lady during her visits failed to explode.(See The 1921 Bombing of the Shrine of Fatima by the Freemasons.) The Mayor of Ourem, a bitter atheist, hated the Mother of God and wanted to do everything in his power to stop belief in the Fatima Message.

It is no accident, therefore, that Our Lady chose to appear to the three shepherd children on August 19, 1917, after they had been freed as each of the dates on which she appeared had a connection with the liturgical feast of the day. Specifically, August 19 was the feast of Blessed John Eudes, who would be canonized by Pope Pius XI on May 31, 1925, a date that Pope Pius XII would designate in 1954 for the Feast of the Coronation of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Our Lady's delayed apparition to Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia on the feast of Blessed John Eudes, therefore, is highly significant as he helped to propagate devotion to Our Lady's Most Pure Heart, which he taught was inseparable from the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. 

Saint John Eudes, whose feast was celebrated yesterday, Friday, August 19, 2022, helped to establish formal devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus some thirty years before the revelations that Our Lord gave to Sister Margaret Mary Alacoque. He also promoted devotion to the Holy Heart of Mary. His own priestly heart was such that he stressed the importance of priests to have the very Hearts of Jesus and Mary in the confessional, exhorting sinners to amend their lives, to be sure, but doing so with an understanding of the frailties of fallen human nature and the manner in which Our Lord wants His Mercy to be extended to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. Saint John Eudes will help us to trust in the tender Mercies of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary during these times of apostasy and betrayal, especially as we pray the Holy Rosary to which he was so personally devoted.

The readings for Matins in yesterday's Divine Office taught us about the remarkable life of this great apostle of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Most Pure Heart of Mary:

John was born in the year 1601, of pious and respectable parents, at a village commonly known as Ri, in the diocese of Seez. While still a boy, when he was fed with the bread of Angels, he cheerfully made a vow of perpetual chastity. Having been received at the College of Caen, directed by the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, he was conspicuous for a remarkable piety; and, committing himself to the protection of the Virgin Mary, when still a youth he signed with his own blood, the special covenant he had entered into with her. Having completed his courses of letters and of philosophy with great distinction, and having spurned opportunities of marriage which had been arranged for him, he enrolled himself with the Congregation of the Oratory de Bérulle, and was ordained priest at Paris. He was on fire with a marvellous love towards his neighbour: for he took the most constant pains in caring for both the souls and bodies of those smitten with the Asiatic plague, in many different places. He was made Rector of the Oratorian house at Caen, but since he had been thinking for a long time of educating suitable young men for the ministry of the Church, earnestly asking for the divine assistance, with a brave spirit he most regretfully departed from the associates with whom he had lived for twenty years.

Accordingly, associating five priests with himself, in the year 1643, on the feastday of the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary, he founded a Congregation of Priests, to whom he gave the most holy names of Jesus and Mary, and opened the first seminary at Caen; and a great many others followed immediately in Normandy and Brittany, also founded by him. For the recalling of sinful women to a Christian life, he founded the Order of Our Lady of Charity; of which most noble tree, the Congregation of the Good Shepherd of Angers is a branch. Furthermore, he founded the Society of the Admirable Heart of the Mother of God, and other charitable institutions. He was the author of many excellent treatises, and laboured as an Apostolic Missionary to the very end of his life, preaching the Gospel in very many villages, towns, and cities, and even in the royal court.

His matchless zeal was very conspicuous in promoting the salutary devotion towards the most sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, whose liturgical worship he was the first of all to devise, although not without some divine inspiration. He is therefore held to be the father, the teacher, and the apostle of that worship. Courageously withstanding the doctrines of the Jansenists, he preserved unalterable obedience towards the Chair of Peter, and he constantly prayed to God, both for his enemies as well as for his brethren. Broken by so many labours, rather than by years, desiring to be freed and to be with Christ, on the 19th day of August, 1680, frequently repeating the sweet names of Jesus and Mary, he died in peace. As he became illustrious by many miracles, Pope Pius X added him to the list of the Blessed, and as he still shone forth with new signs and wonders, Pope Pius XI, in the holy year and on the day of Pentecost, placed him among the Saints, and extended his Office and Mass to the universal Church. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint John Eudes.)

Perhaps we can, in honor of Saint John Eudes and his deep connection to Our Lady, recite this salutation of his to Our Lady, who is meant to reign as the Queen of all men and all nations here on earth:

Hail Mary! Daughter of God the Father.

Hail Mary! Mother of God the Son.

Hail Mary! Spouse of God the Holy Ghost.

Hail Mary! Temple of the Most Blessed Trinity.

Hail Mary! Pure Lily of the Effulgent Trinity. God.

Hail Mary!! Celestial Rose of the ineffable Love of God.

Hail Mary! Virgin pure and humble, of whom the King of Heaven willed to be born and with thy milk to be nourished.

Hail Mary! Virgin of Virgins.

Hail Mary! Queen of Martyrs, whose soul a sword transfixed.

Hail Mary! Lady most blessed: Unto whom all power in Heaven and earth is given.

Hail Mary! My Queen and my Mother! My Life, my sweetness and my Hope.

Hail Mary! Mother most Amiable.

Hail Mary! Mother most Admirable.

Hail Mary! Mother of Divine Love.

Hail Mary! IMMACULATE! Conceived without sin!

Hail Mary Full of Grace. The Lord is with Thee! Blessed art Thou amongst Women and Blessed is the Fruit of Thy Womb, Jesus!

Blessed be thy Spouse, St. Joseph.

Blessed be thy Father, St. Joachim.

Blessed be thy Mother, St. Anne.

Blessed be thy Guardian, St. John.

Blessed be thy Holy Angel, St. Gabriel.

Glory be to God the Father, who chose thee.

Glory be to God the Son, who loved thee.

Glory be to God the Holy Ghost, who espoused thee.

O Glorious Virgin Mary, may all men love and praise thee.

Holy Mary, Mother of God! Pray for us and bless us, now, and at death in the Name of Jesus, thy Divine Son

As noted above, today, Saturday, August 20, 2022, is the Feast of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, who helped to revive devotion to Our Lady in the Twelfth Century, five hundred years before the birth of Saint John Eudes.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., summarized the virtues of Saint Bernard as follows:

The valley of wormwood has lost its bitterness; having become Clairvaux, or the bright valley, its light shines over the world; from every point of the horizon vigilant bees are attracted to it by the honey from the rock which abounds in its solitude. Mary turns her glance upon its wild hills, and with her smile sheds light and grace upon them. Listen to the harmonious voice arising from the desert; it is the voice of Bernard, her chosen one. “Learn, O man, the counsel of God; admire the intentions of Wisdom, the design of love. Before bedewing the whole earth, he saturated the fleece; being to redeem the human race, he heaped up in Mary the entire ransom. O Adam, say no more: ‘The woman whom thou gavest me offered me the forbidden fruit;’ say rather: ‘The woman whom thou gavest me has fed me with a fruit of blessing.’ With what ardor ought we to honor Mary, in whom was set all the fullness of good! If we have any hope, any saving grace, know that it overflows from her who today rises replete with love: she is a garden of delights, over which the divine South Wind does not merely pass with a light breath, but sweeping down from the heights, he stirs it unceasingly with a heavenly breeze, so that it may shed abroad its perfumes, which are the gifts of various graces. Take away the material sun from the world: what would become of our day? Take away Mary, the star of the vast sea: what would remain but obscurity over all, a night of death and icy darkness? Therefore, with every fiber of our heart, with all the love of our soul, with all the eagerness of our aspirations, let us venerate Mary; it is the will of him who wished us to have all things through her.”

Thus spoke the monk who had acquired his eloquence, as he tells us himself, among the beeches and oaks of the forest, and he poured into the wounds of mankind the wine and oil of the Scriptures. In 1113, at the age of twenty-two, Bernard arrived at Citeaux, in the beauty of his youth, already ripe for great combats. Fifteen years before, on the 21st of March, 1098, Robert of Molesmes, had created this new desert between Dijon and Beaune. Issuing from the past, on the very feast of the patriarch of monks, the new foundation claimed to be nothing more than the literal observance of the precious Rule given by him to the world. The weakness of the age, however, refused to recognize the fearful austerity of these new comers into the great family, as inspired by that holy code, wherein discretion reigns supreme; for this discretion is the characteristic of the school accessible to all, where Benedict “hoped to ordain nothing rigorous or burdensome in the service of God.” Under the government of Stephen Harding, the next after Alberic, successor of Robert, the little community from Molesmes was becoming extinct, without human hope of recovery, when the descendant of the lords of Fontaines arrived with thirty companions, who were his first conquest, and brought new life where death was imminent. “Rejoice, thou barren one that bearest not, for many will be the children of the barrn.” La Ferté was founded that same year in Châlonnais; next Pontigny, near Auxerre; and in 1115 Clairvaux and Morimond were established in the diocese of Langres; while these four glorious branches of Citeaux were soon, together with their parent stock, to put forth numerous shoots. In 1119 the Charter of charity confirmed the existence of the Cistercian Order in the Church. Thus the tree, planted six centuries earlier on the summit of Monte Cassino, proved once more to the world that in all ages it is capable of producing new branches which, though distinct from the trunk, live by its sap, and are a glory to the entire tree.

During the months of his novitiate, Bernard so subdued nature that the interior man alone lived in him; the senses of his own body were to him as strangers. By an excess, for which he had afterwards to reproach himself, he carried his rigor, though meant for a desirable end, so far as to ruin the body, that indispensable help to every man in the service of his brethren and of God. Blessed fault, which heaven took upon itself to excuse so magnificently. A miracle (a thing which no one has a right to expect) was needed to uphold him henceforth in the accomplishment of his destined mission.

Bernard was as ardent in the service of God as others are for the gratification of their passions. “You would learn of me,” he says in one of his earliest works, “why and how we must love God. And I answer you: The reason for loving God is God himself; and the measure of loving him is to love him without measure.” What delights he enjoyed at Citeaux in the secret of the face of the Lord! When, after two years, he left this blessed abode to found Clairvaux, it was like coming out of Paradise. More fit to converse with Angels than with men, he began, says his historian, by being a trial to those whom he had to guide: so heavenly was his language, such perfection did he require surpassing the strength of even the strong ones of Israel, such sorrowful astonishment did he show on the discovery of infirmities common to all flesh.

While absent from Clairvaux he wrote to his monks: “My soul is sorrowful and cannot be comforted till I see you again. Alas! Must my exile here below, so long protracted, be rendered still more grievous? Truly those who have separated us have added sorrow upon sorrow to my evils. They have taken away from me the only remedy which enabled me to live away from Christ; while I could not yet contemplate his glorious Face, it was given me at least to see you, you his holy temple. From that temple the way seemed easy to the eternal home. How often have I been deprived of this consolation? This is the third time, if I mistake not, that they have torn out my heart. My children are weaned before the time; I have begotten them by the Gospel and I cannot nourish them. Constrained to neglect those dear to me and to attend to the interests of strangers, I scarcely know which is harder to bear, to be separated from the former or to be mixed up with the latter. O Jesus, is my whole life to be spent in sighing? It were better for me to die than to live; but I would fain die in the midst of my family; there I should find more sweetness, more security. May it please my Lord that the eyes of a father, how unworthy soever of the name, may be closed by the hands of his sons; that they may assist him in his last passage; that their desires, if thou judge him worthy, may bear his soul to the abode of the blessed; that they may bury the body of a poor man with the bodies of those who were poor with him. By the prayers and merits of my brethren, if I have found favor before thee, grant me this desire of my heart. Nevertheless, thy will, not mine, be done; for I wish neither to live nor to die for myself.”

Having received what the Psalmist calls ‘understanding concerning the needy and the poor,” Bernard felt his heart overflowing with the tenderness of God for those purchased by the divine Blood. He no longer terrified the humble. Beside the little ones who came to him attracted by the grace of his speech might be seen the wise, the powerful, and the rich ones of the world, abandoning their vanities, and becoming themselves little and poor in the school of one who knew how to guide them all, from the first elements of love to its very summits. In the midst of seven hundred monks receiving daily from him the doctrine of salvation, the Abbot of Clairvaux could cry out with the noble pride of Saints: “He that is mighty has done great things in us, and with good reason our soul magnifies the Lord. Behold we have left all things to follow thee: it is a great resolution, the glory of the great Apostles; yet we too, by his great grace have taken it magnificently. Perhaps, even if I wish to glory therein, I shall not be foolish, for I will say the truth: there are some here who have left more than a boat and fishing nets.”

“What more wonderful,” he said on another occasion, “than to see one who formerly could scarce abstain two days from sin, preserve himself from it for years, and even for his whole life? What greater miracle than that so many young men, boys, noble personages, all those, in a word, whom I see here, should be held captive without bonds in an open prison by the sole fear of God, and should persevere in penitential macerations beyond human strength, above nature, contrary to habit? What marvels we should discover, as you well knew, were we allowed to seek out the details of each one’s exodus from Egypt, of his passage through the desert, his entrance into the monastery, and his life within its walls.”

But there were other marvels not to be hidden within the secret of the cloister. The voice that had peopled the desert was bidden to echo through the world; and the noises of discord and error, of schism and the passions, were hushed before it; at its word the whole West was precipitated as one man upon the infidel East. Bernard had now become the avenger of the sanctuary, the umpire of kings, the confidant of sovereign Pontiffs, the thaumaturgus applauded by enthusiastic crowds; yet, at the very height of what the world calls glory, his one thought was the loved solitude he had been forced to quit. “It is high time,” he said, “that I should think of myself. Have pity on my agonized conscience: what an abnormal life is mine! I am the chimera of my time; neither clerk nor layman, I have the habit of a monk and none of the observances. In the perils which surround me, at the brink of precipices yawning before me, help me with your advice, pray for me.”

While absent from Clairvaux he wrote to his monks: “My soul is sorrowful and cannot be comforted till I see you again. Alas! Must my exile here below, so long protracted, be rendered still more grievous? Truly those who have separated us have added sorrow upon sorrow to my evils. They have taken away from me the only remedy which enabled me to live away from Christ; while I could not yet contemplate his glorious Face, it was given me at least to see you, you his holy temple. From that temple the way seemed easy to the eternal home. How often have I been deprived of this consolation? This is the third time, if I mistake not, that they have torn out my heart. My children are weaned before the time; I have begotten them by the Gospel and I cannot nourish them. Constrained to neglect those dear to me and to attend to the interests of strangers, I scarcely know which is harder to bear, to be separated from the former or to be mixed up with the latter. O Jesus, is my whole life to be spent in sighing? It were better for me to die than to live; but I would fain die in the midst of my family; there I should find more sweetness, more security. May it please my Lord that the eyes of a father, how unworthy soever of the name, may be closed by the hands of his sons; that they may assist him in his last passage; that their desires, if thou judge him worthy, may bear his soul to the abode of the blessed; that they may bury the body of a poor man with the bodies of those who were poor with him. By the prayers and merits of my brethren, if I have found favor before thee, grant me this desire of my heart. Nevertheless, thy will, not mine, be done; for I wish neither to live nor to die for myself.”

Greater in his Abbey than in the noblest courts, Bernard was destined to die at home at the hour appointed by God; but not without having had his soul prepared for the last purification by trials both public and private. For the last time he took up again, but could not finish, the discourses he had been delivering for the last eighteen years on the Canticle. These familiar conferences, lovingly gathered by his children, reveal in a touching manner the zeal of the sons for divine science, the heart of the father and his sanctity, and the incidents of daily life at Clairvaux. Having reached the first verse of the third chapter, he was describing the soul seeking after the Word in the weakness of this life, in the dark night of this world, when he broke off his discourses, and passed to the eternal face to face vision, where there is no more enigma, nor figure, nor shadow. (Dom Prosper Guranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, August 20.)

Here is an account of the life of this wonderful client of Our Lady, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, a defender of the Catholic Faith and a Doctor of Holy Mother Church, as found in the readings for Matins in the Divine Office for his feast, August 20:

Bernard was born (in the year of salvation 1091) at a decent place in Burgundy called Fontaines. On account of extraordinary good looks, he was as a boy very much sought after by women, but he could never be turned aside from his resolution to keep chaste. To fly from these temptations of the devil, he determined at two-and-twenty years of age to enter the Monastery of Citeaux, whence the Cistercian Order took its rise. When this resolution of Bernard's became known, his brothers did all their diligence to change his purpose, but he only became the more eloquent and happy about it. Them and others he so brought over to his mind, that thirty young men entered the same Order along with him. As a monk he was so given to fasting, that as often as he had to eat, so often he seemed to be in pain. He exercised himself wonderfully in watching and prayer, and was a great lover of Christian poverty. Thus he led on earth an heavenly life, purged of all care and desire for transitory things.

He was a burning and shining light of lowliness, mercifulness, and kindness. His concentration of thought was such, that he hardly used his senses except to do good works, in which latter he acted with admirable wisdom. Thus occupied, he refused the Bishoprics of Genoa, Milan, and others, which were offered to him, declaring that he was unworthy of so high a sphere of duty. Being made Abbat of Clairvaux in 1115, he built monasteries in many places, wherein the excellent rules and discipline of Bernard long flourished. When Pope Innocent II., in 1138, restored the monastery of St Vincent and St Anastasius at Rome, Bernard set over it the Abbat who was afterwards the Supreme Pontiff Eugene III., and who is also the same to whom he addressed his book upon Consideration.

He was the author of many writings, in which it is manifest that his teaching was rather given him of God, than gained by hard work. In consequence of his high reputation for excellence, he was called by the most exalted Princes to act as arbiter of their disputes, and for this end, and to settle affairs of the Church, he often went to Italy. He was an eminent helper to Pope Innocent II., in putting down the schism of Peter Leoni, and worked to this end, both at the Courts of the Emperor and of Henry King of England, and in the Council of Pisa. He fell asleep in the Lord, (at Clairvaux, on the 20th day of August,) in the year 1153, the sixty-third year of his age. He was famous for miracles, and Pope Alexander III. numbered him among the Saints. Pope Pius VIII., acting on the advice of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, declared and confirmed St Bernard a Doctor of the Universal Church. He also commanded that all should use the Mass and Office for him as for a Doctor, and granted perpetual yearly plenary indulgences to all who should visit Churches of the Cistercian Order upon the Feastday of this Saint. (The Divine Office, Matins, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger elaborated on Saint Bernard’s love of Our Lady and his efforts to revive devotion to her in the Twelfth Century:

It was fitting to see the herald of the Mother of God following so closely her triumphal car; entering heaven during this bright Octave, thou delightest to lose thyself in the glory of her whose greatness thou didst proclaim on earth. Be our protector in her court; attract her maternal eyes towards Citeaux; in her name save the Church once more, and protect the Vicar of Christ.

But today, rather than to pray to thee, thou invitest us to sing to Mary and pray to her with thee; the homage most pleasing to thee, O Bernard, is that we should profit by thy sublime writings and admire the Virgin who, ‘today ascending glorious to heaven, put the finishing touch to the happiness of the heavenly citizens. Brilliant as it was already, heaven became resplendent with new brightness from the light of the virginal torch. Thanksgiving and praise resound on high. And shall we not in our exile partake of these joys of our home? Having here no lasting dwelling, we seek the city where the Blessed Virgin has arrived this very hour. Citizens of Jerusalem, it is but just that, from the banks of the rivers of Babylon, we should think with dilated hearts of the overflowing river of bliss, of which some drops are sprinkled on earth today. Our Queen has gone before us; the reception given to her encourages us who are her followers and servants. Our caravan will be well treated with regard to salvation, for it is preceded by the Mother of mercy as advocate before the Judge her Son.

“Whoso remembers having ever invoked thee in vain in his needs, O Blessed Virgin, let him be silent as to thy mercy. As for us, thy little servants, we praise thy other virtues, but on this one we congratulate ourselves. We praise thy virginity, we admire thy humility; but mercy is sweeter to the wretched; we embrace it more lovingly, we think of it more frequently, we invoke it unceasingly. Who can tell the length and breadth and height and depth of thine, O Blessed one? Its length, for it extends to the last day; its breadth, for it covers the earth; its height and depth, for it has filled heaven and emptied hell. Thou art as powerful as merciful; having now rejoined thy Son, manifest to the world the grace thou hast found before God: obtain pardon for sinners, health for the sick, strength for the weak, consolation for the afflicted, help and deliverance for those who are in any danger, O clement, O merciful, O sweet Virgin Mary!’ (Dom Prosper Guranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, August 20.)

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux’s words below should give us great confidence in this time when we can see the convergence of the forces of Antichrist in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

Whoever you are, when you find yourself tossed by storms and tempests upon this world's raging waters, rather than walking upon firm dry land, never take your eyes from the brightness of this start lest you be overwhelmed by the storm. When the winds of temptation blow, when you run upon the rocks of disaster, look the star. Cry out to Mary! If you are cast away upon the waves of pride or ambition, of detraction or jealousy, look to the star. Cry out to Mary!! When anger, avarice, or the lusts of the flesh assail the ship of your mind, look up to Mary. When you are worried by the enormity of your sins, troubled by a confused conscience, or terrified by the horrors of the judgment to come, when you begin to drown in the bottomless pit of sorrow or sink in the abyss of despair, think of Mary.

In danger, in difficulties, think of Mary. Call upon Mary! Never let her name be absent from your lips or absent from your heart. If you would obtain the help of her prayers, do not neglect to follow the example of her conduct. If you follow her, you will not stray; if you pray to her, you need not despair. If you think of her, you will not err; sustained by her, you will never fall; protected by her, you need not fear; guided by her, you will walk without weariness. If she smiles upon you, you will succeed. You will experience in your own heart with what justice it is said And the Virgin's name was Mary.

With confidence in Our Lady and praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, therefore, we continue our defense of the Faith as we also seek to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as her consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. We bear each of the crosses of the present moment with joy and gratitude, knowing that the only thing that matters is dying in a state of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Our Lady seeks the conversion, not the reaffirmation, of sinners. We must beg her for our own conversion on a daily basis so that we will be better able to offer her all that we have and do during the course of a day to be disposed of as she sees fit the honor and glory of God and for the conversion of other poor sinners.

Most Pure Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Saint John Eudes, pray for us.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, pray for us.