Jorge Mario Bergoglio is Only the End Product of a False Religion, "Father" Missigbeto

The charges of heresy against "Pope Francis" keep coming almost as fast as the charges of bribery a against his globalist, statist brother in the conciliar religion, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. It was just a little over three months ago that Austrian philosopher Josef Seifert, who was one of the authors of a 2018 “Correctio” issued against Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, pleaded with the “cardinals” of what he thinks to be the Catholic Church to do something about Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s efforts to “destroy” the foundations of Catholic Faith and Morals.

Quick upon the heels of Seifert's condemnation of the man he believes is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter comes a formal declaration of heresy against Senor Jorge made by an African presbyter who is part of the former "personal prelature," Opus Dei, "Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto, who was suspended from the conciliar presbyterate in March of 2021 for his criticism of the Argentine Apostate’s expression of support for civil union status for those engaged in perverse sins against nature and against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Missigbeto’s “suspension” is itself a telling feature of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s intolerance for “diversity” within the ranks of his false religious sect as only a handful of people were ever suspended or excommunicated by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, Karol Josef Wojtyla, or Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, each of whom had a high level of toleration for those who openly dissented from the received teaching of the Catholic Church and/or promoted the sort of Jacobin/Bolshevik view of conciliarism (the so-called “Milan School” of ultra-progressivism) such as Father Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who has remained in good standing despite his open dissent from Montini/Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, Sister Theresa Kane of the Sisters of Mercy, who publicly castigated Wojtyla/John Paul II to his face at the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Washington, District of Columbia, on Sunday, October 7, 1979, Father Hans Kung, who maintained a teaching position in a different department at Tubingen University even after Wojtyla/John Paul II stripped his ability to teach theology in the university’s Department of Theology, Father Robert Drinan, S.J., who publicly supported the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in Roe v. Wade, January 22, 1973, as well as any and all bishops, true and false, priests/presbyters and consecrated religious who openly supported the agenda of the homosexual collective. To cite just one example, Matthew Clark, the conciliar "bishop" of Rochester, New York, from 1979 to 2012, who said in the 1990s that the Catholic Church would have to find a way to "bless" same-gender "unions." “Pope John Paul II” was so furious with Clark that he asked one of his aides, “Who appointed this man? Who appointed this man?” The aide’s reply was a sheepish, “Your Holiness, you did.” Yet Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II never did a thing to censure or remove Clark, who died on January 22, 2023.

Indeed, Godfried “Cardinal” Danneels and Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin both retained their positions under Wojtyla/John Paul even after they said, in effect, in 1993 in an article published in The New York Times Magazine that they distributed what purports to be Holy Communion to civilly divorced and remarried Catholics during their stage of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo abomination of desolation.

No so, Senor Jorge, however. The Argentine Apostate takes his stage role of “Pope Francis” very seriously when it comes to discipling “conservative” dissenters from his antipapal teaching. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has a very itchy trigger finger, and he has made it clear that critics of his on the “right” are either investigated, marginalized, suspended, or removed even without any canonical due process. The man who believes in collegiality and synodality is not afraid to act monarchically to rid himself and his false religious sect of refuseniks who reject Amoris Laetitia, Laudato’ Si, the Declaration on Human Fraternity and Friendship, and his program for letting the “people” “decide” matters of Faith and Morals over which they have no authority whatsoever.

Bergoglio’s imperious mode of governing his false religious sect, however, demands obedience from his subjects as no one can dissent legitimately from the pronouncements and decisions of one they believe is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, something that I will discuss in greater detail later in this commentary. Suffice it for the moment, though, to note that it is never necessary to “correct” a true pope, who is the guarantor of doctrinal orthodoxy, not its enemy. A true Roman Pontiff can never be a “destroyer” of the Catholic Faith.

The Specifics of “Father” Jesusmary Missigbeto’s Denunciation of “Pope Francis”

I. Holy Matrimony and Its Perversion

Although “Father” Jesusmary Missigbeto’s denunciation of “Pope Francis” contains many of the same points raised by Dr. Josef Seifert three months ago, the former’s primary area of emphasis centers on Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s efforts to normalize the administration of “Holy Communion” to Catholics who are divorced and civilly remarried and his efforts to legitimize sodomite behavior, which Missigbeto rightly terms as moral relativism:

On 19 March 2016, on the subject of remarried divorcees, you stated that “in such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy are lacking, ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’” (Amoris laetitia note 329).

On 5 September 2016, with the bishops of the Pastoral Region of Buenos Aires, you affirmed that “the commitment to live in continence can be proposed. Amoris laetitia does not ignore the difficulties of this option… the mentioned option may not, in fact, be feasible.”

On 5 June 2017, you ordered that these three sentences be published as “Magisterium authenticum” (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 108; pp. 1071-1074;

Since when has a pope affirmed that the virtue of chastity is an option and present fidelity and the good of children as excuses for committing adultery or fornication, acts that are intrinsically and morally evil? Never! You have thus allowed certain Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist without repenting of their serious sins. You have fallen into three heresies: rejection of the universality of the sixth commandment (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1956, 1958); rejection of the absolute character of the sixth commandment (cf. Exodus 20:14; Mark 10:11-12); rejection of the resolution to struggle to avoid sin, which is an absolutely necessary condition for receiving the Sacrament of Confession (cf. Council of Trent, Doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance, 14th session, 25 November 1551, DS 1676 and 1678; Catechismo di San Pio X, Della Dottrina Cristiana, Parte IV, 731; Catechism of the Catholic Church 1451; Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church 303; John Paul II, Familiaris consortio 84; Document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 14 September 1994; Tradimento della sana dottrina attraverso “Amoris laetitia”, Tullio Rotondo, March 2022; my 2nd open letter)

On 10 December 2018, together with Cardinal Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer SJ (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) and Archbishop Giacomo Morandi (Secretary), you authorized hysterectomy (removal of the uterus) on the pretext of the agreement of medical experts who would ensure that no future pregnancy could come to term. Since when has a pope accepted such a practice? Never! As the state of the uterus poses no present or future danger to the woman’s health, you have allowed direct sterilization, an intrinsically and morally evil act (cf. Humanae vitae 14; Document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 31 July 1993), now taught in Catholic universities and practiced in Catholic hospitals. It is also the first anti-natalist measure of the Catholic Church and the first error of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. my 3rd open letter). You have fallen into a heresy: rejection of the divine law on procreation (cf. Genesis 1:28; 38:9-10)

On 21 October 2020, in the international documentary Francesco (available on Discovery+ Channel from 28 March 2021), you publicly called for homosexual civil cohabitation laws, saying: “What we have to do is a civil coexistence law; they have the right to be covered legally. I defended this.” You agreed to this documentary being made by your friend Evgeny Afineevsky, a militant homosexual who in 2009 made a film promoting homosexuality (Oy Vey! My son is gay!).

On 15 September 2021, 5 February 2023 and 10-11 March 2023, you called for these same laws on the pretext of the legal sharing of socio-economic benefits. Since when has a pope acted in this way, asking humanity to adopt homosexual cohabitation laws? Never! You have thus committed the most publicized papal error and “a gravely immoral” act (Document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 3 June 2003), by authorizing an intrinsically evil sexual cohabitation.

In fact, you have eliminated three important aspects concerning homosexuals. The first is the distinction between “cohabitation laws” and “protection laws.”

Cohabitation laws are linked to LGBTQ ideology, while protection laws are linked to human discrimination. There are protection laws for children, women, the disabled, migrants, prisoners and so on. All these people are entitled to consideration and humane treatment, which does not require sexual cohabitation laws (cf. my 1st open letter).

The second aspect is that homosexuals can have recourse “to the common law to protect legal situations of mutual interest” (Document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 3 June 2003), which does not require sexual cohabitation laws.

The third aspect is the moral principle of avoiding close occasions for sin and keeping them far away (cf. Ecclesiasticus 21:2; Matthew 5:29-30; Mark 9:43-48; Catechism of the Catholic Church 2340, 2359 ; Adolphe Tanquerey, The spiritual life: a treatise on ascetical and mystical theology 36, 83, 215, 262, 326, 333, 362, 587, 636, 638-641, 706, 745, 755, 827, 876, 878-879, 912, 919, 957-958, 963, 1026, 1107-1108, 1111, 1336. 

By confining himself to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s patent rejection of the necessity of maintaining chastity and continence according to one’s state of life, “Father” Missigbeto, apart from not making proper distinctions between heresy and error, ignores the fact that the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s entire teaching on the Sacrament of Matrimony is based on heretical inversion of the ends proper to marriage. He fails to recognize that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI, Albino Luciani/John Paul I, who was a dissenter on the commission established by Montini/Paul to determine if there were circumstances in which the use of the abortifacient birth control pill could be morally licit, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI each taught a doctrine about marriage that is opposed to both the Divine and Natural Laws:

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English:  1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1.)

The entire fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is built on the fabric of the inversion of the ends of marriage that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1944, a condemnation that he cited and reiterated in the strongest terms possible in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951:

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)

The ends proper to the married state are immutable, making anyone's continued insistence on the “orthodoxy” of Montini/Paul VI’s Humane Vitae, July 25, 1968, without any foundation as it stands truth on its in head, an immutable truth that Pope Pius XI noted as follows in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

10. Now when We come to explain, Venerable Brethren, what are the blessings that God has attached to true matrimony, and how great they are, there occur to Us the words of that illustrious Doctor of the Church whom We commemorated recently in Our Encyclical Ad salutem on the occasion of the fifteenth centenary of his death:[9] "These," says St. Augustine, "are all the blessings of matrimony on account of which matrimony itself is a blessing; offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament."[10] And how under these three heads is contained a splendid summary of the whole doctrine of Christian marriage, the holy Doctor himself expressly declares when he said: "By conjugal faith it is provided that there should be no carnal intercourse outside the marriage bond with another man or woman; with regard to offspring, that children should be begotten of love, tenderly cared for and educated in a religious atmosphere; finally, in its sacramental aspect that the marriage bond should not be broken and that a husband or wife, if separated, should not be joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This we regard as the law of marriage by which the fruitfulness of nature is adorned and the evil of incontinence is restrained."[11]

11. Thus amongst the blessings of marriage, the child holds the first place. And indeed the Creator of the human race Himself, Who in His goodness wishes to use men as His helpers in the propagation of life, taught this when, instituting marriage in Paradise, He said to our first parents, and through them to all future spouses: "Increase and multiply, and fill the earth."[12] As St. Augustine admirably deduces from the words of the holy Apostle Saint Paul to Timothy[13] when he says: "The Apostle himself is therefore a witness that marriage is for the sake of generation: 'I wish,' he says, 'young girls to marry.' And, as if someone said to him, 'Why?,' he immediately adds: 'To bear children, to be mothers of families'."[14]

12. How great a boon of God this is, and how great a blessing of matrimony is clear from a consideration of man's dignity and of his sublime end. For man surpasses all other visible creatures by the superiority of his rational nature alone. Besides, God wishes men to be born not only that they should live and fill the earth, but much more that they may be worshippers of God, that they may know Him and love Him and finally enjoy Him for ever in heaven; and this end, since man is raised by God in a marvelous way to the supernatural order, surpasses all that eye hath seen, and ear heard, and all that hath entered into the heart of man.[15] From which it is easily seen how great a gift of divine goodness and how remarkable a fruit of marriage are children born by the omnipotent power of God through the cooperation of those bound in wedlock.

13. But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household,[16] that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.

14. For although Christian spouses even if sanctified themselves cannot transmit sanctification to their progeny, nay, although the very natural process of generating life has become the way of death by which original sin is passed on to posterity, nevertheless, they share to some extent in the blessings of that primeval marriage of Paradise, since it is theirs to offer their offspring to the Church in order that by this most fruitful Mother of the children of God they may be regenerated through the laver of Baptism unto supernatural justice and finally be made living members of Christ, partakers of immortal life, and heirs of that eternal glory to which we all aspire from our inmost heart.

15. If a true Christian mother weigh well these things, she will indeed understand with a sense of deep consolation that of her the words of Our Savior were spoken: "A woman . . . when she hath brought forth the child remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world";[17] and proving herself superior to all the pains and cares and solicitudes of her maternal office with a more just and holy joy than that of the Roman matron, the mother of the Gracchi, she will rejoice in the Lord crowned as it were with the glory of her offspring. Both husband and wife, however, receiving these children with joy and gratitude from the hand of God, will regard them as a talent committed to their charge by God, not only to be employed for their own advantage or for that of an earthly commonwealth, but to be restored to God with interest on the day of reckoning. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

There is a straight path from inverting the ends proper to Holy Matrimony to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s promotion of “civil unions” for “married” sodomites, which "Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto Professor rightly criticized, and for “rites of blessings” to be administered by various conciliar “bishops” upon those “wedded” in a very united march to eternal perdition as to defect in one thing of the Holy Faith leads to a welter of unforeseen errors, the magnitude of which keeps growing over time. Conciliarism is not Catholicism. (Please see  for a discussion about that "encyclical's revolutionary nature. The analysis is also the first entry in Life, Death, and Truth: Under Attack by Medicine and Law.)

The “personalist” view of marriage that had been condemned personally by Pope Pius XII in 1944 after it had been promoted by Father Herbert Doms and Dr. Dietrich von Hildebrand also played a fundamental role in Montini/Paul the Sick’s decision to “liberalize” the grounds by which Catholic married couples could obtain a decree of nullity from a diocesan marriage tribunal. Although attempting to maintain the Catholic doctrine that favors the presumption of the validity of a marriage bond until proved with mortal certainty to the contrary, Montini/Paul VI’s “liberalization” merely gave lip service to that presumption as it included the same sort of “psychological” grounds that had been included as justification for the use “natural family planning.”

Leaving aside the relatively few cases of ratum et nonconsummatum, which are reserved to the Apostolic See alone, a valid, ratified and consummated marriage is indissoluble. A legitimate decree of marital nullity is a finding, reached after investigations and interviews, that the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony was not exchanged at the time of a marriage ceremony given the existence of one or more impediments. A book written in 1959 and published by Sheed and Ward outlined some of the legitimate reasons for decrees of nullity as contained in the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law that was promulgated by Pope Benedict XV in 1917 (see F. J. Sheed, Nullity of Marriage. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1959).

Montini/Paul VI’s “natural family planning” and his “liberalization” of the grounds for a decree of marital nullity destabilized Catholic married and family life every bit as much as had the false and heretical Anglican sect’s Lambeth resolution of 1930 that endorsed the use of contraceptives by married couples who felt a “morally sound reason” for doing so. Montini/Paul VI effectively helped to increase incidences of marital infidelity and divorce. That Montini/Paul VI is considered to this day by many within the conciliar structures to have been a “defender of marriage” is nothing other than a joke.

There are some Catholics among this group who have later come to accept the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal must conduct themselves according to the counsel offered under priestly seal by a true priest. Mr. Michael Creighton analyzed some of the situations wherein the traditional clergy can be of assistance (see Modern Problems of Marriage) . In many cases, however, those who acted upon a decree of nullity in good faith to marry again but later came to accept the papal vacancy that has existed since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958 must simply live in a Josephite manner. Just as some of the conciliar “canonizations,” such as that of Padre Pio and of Father Maximilian Kolbe, whose apostolic work in behalf of the City of Mary Immaculate and his firm opposition to all forms naturalism and to false ecumenism itself is why he had been imprisoned by the Nazis in Auschwitz in the first place, would have to be ratified by a true pope, so is it the case that most of those Catholics who have left the conciliar church after having received conciliar decrees of nullity will have to await a papal restoration for a determination of their cases if they live long enough to see such a restoration. Love of God and of his truth comes first. Nothing else.

A caveat must be offered at this point, however.

Although it is easy to demagogue the matter, as some have in cyberspace have done, there are many thousands of Catholics who are still within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who have sought decrees of marital nullity after they had been advised to do so by men they supposed to be their pastors or chancery officials. These Catholics have tried to act in good faith by following the rules of what they believe, albeit erroneously, to be the Catholic Church without engaging in adultery or having undergone a civil divorce in order to remarry illicitly, and some of them still conduct themselves within those structures as married Catholics even after having initiated a civil divorce, sometimes at the suggestion of a pastor or a chancery official, or having been victimized by a civil divorce until such time as a decree of nullity is issued.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, long ago threw such Catholics under the bus, treating their fidelity to what they believe mistakenly to be the rules of the Catholic Church as nothing other a vestige of the “Pelagian” past that is best forgotten. As has been noted frequentlyon this website, Bergoglio and his fellow servants of Antichrist make a mockery of those Catholics who have stayed within the confines of the conciliar "Code of Canon Law," including those, such as the late Genevieve Gleason and Nancy Sinatra, Sr., both of whom conducted themselves properly as married persons long after their spouses had obtained a "civil divorce" (see ).

Jorge Mario Bergoglio cares nothing for such Catholics, no matter how few or many in number they may be in comparison to the large preponderance of nullity cases in the conciliar church, whose cases would have withstood scrutiny under the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law. He is all about rewarding soothing the consciences of those who sought to live lives of sin. Indeed, Bergoglio would have granted the lecherous, adulterous, bigamous drunkard King Henry VIII a decree of marital nullity, and he would have been more than happy to have made up some false pretext for doing so.

II. Beroglio and Pro-Abortion Politicians

"Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto also criticized "Pope Francis" for the support he has given to pro-death politicians, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, throughout the world:

On 15 September 2021, on the pretext that “Communion is not a prize for the perfect” (press conference on return from trip to Slovakia), you authorized all publicly pro-abortion politicians to receive the Holy Eucharist without the need for them to reject their attachment to abortion (cf. my 4th open letter).

Since when has a pope given such authorization? Never! You have thus allowed certain Catholics to receive the Holy Eucharist without repenting of their serious sins and have failed in your duty as pastor to form the conscience of Christians to the moral good (Lumen Gentium 25, Code of Canon Law 749).

You have fallen into two heresies: rejection of the necessity of the Sacrament of Penance for access to the Eucharist in the case of grave sin (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:27-29; Code of Canon Law 915, 916, 1347§2); rejection of the moral gravity of abortion, an intrinsically and morally evil act (cf. Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 19:10). 

I do not know how old "Father" Missigbeto is, but his contention that no "pope" has ever authorized the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty is very misleading as one conciliar "pope" after another has done nothing to stop pro-abort Catholics in public life from being given what is thought to be Holy Communion. 

The names of the pro-abortion politicians and public officials who have maintained their "good standing" within the conciliar structures to the time of their deaths are legion, and they include Mario Matthew Cuomo, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Peter Rodino, Edward Moore Kennedy, Thomas Foley, Thomas P. O'Neill, Geraldine Anne Ferraro-Zacarro, Father Robert Drinan, S.J., and former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America William Brennan.

Among the living politicians, including those who are retired, who have maintained their “good standing” within the conciliar structures are: Andrew Mark Cuomo, Christopher Dodd, Edward Markey, John Kerry, Thomas Harkin, Carol Mosely Braun, Richard Durbin, Kathleen Hochul, Kirsten Gillebrand, Robert Menendez, Robert Torricelli, Michelle Lujan Grisham, Patricia Murray, Susan Collins, Barbara Mikulski, Gavin Newsom, Susan Molinari, Rick Lazio, Rudolph William Giuliani, George Elmer Pataki, Thomas Ridge, Gray Davis, Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Leon Panetta, who was praised by none other than Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict upon the latter’s retirement as United States Secretary of Defense on January 16, 2013. This is what I wrote at the time after citing the news story about the scandal:

ROME — On what is probably his last trip as defense secretary, Leon E. Panetta had an audience on Wednesday morning at the Vatican with Pope Benedict XVI, who told him, Mr. Panetta said, “Thank you for helping to protect the world.” Mr. Panetta said he replied, “Pray for me.”

Mr. Panetta, the son of Italian immigrants who attends Mass every Sunday, is halfway through a weeklong trip to Europe meant as a goodbye tour of American allies. Later on Wednesday he is to meet with the Italian prime minister, Mario Monti, as well as the president of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano.

Mr. Panetta’s audience with the pope was far from private, although he had a close-up view. Mr. Panetta sat in the front row of the Pope Pius VI Audience Hall, where 7,000 others had gathered for the pope’s weekly audience. After an hourlong service, Mr. Panetta filed up with several dozen people, including a bride, to receive a blessing from the pope, who spoke to him at that time.

Defense officials said Mr. Panetta previously had an audience with Pope John Paul II when Mr. Panetta, who was a budget director and a chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, accompanied Mr. Clinton to Rome. He also had an audience with John Paul in Washington. (Panetta, at Vatican, Says Pope Thanks Him for Service.) 

What an unspeakable outrage.

Leon Edward Panetta supported chemical and surgical baby-killing as a member of the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 1977, to January 21, 1993. Representative Panetta voted to fund the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent children by means of domestic and international "family planning" programs. He supported the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. He made the "I am personally opposed to abortion but cannot impose my morality upon others" argument to do so.

Leon Edward Panetta supported chemical and surgical baby-killing as the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget in the administration of the fully pro-abortion William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.. from January 21, 1993, to July 17, 1994. This means that he was responsible for overseeing budgetary requests to fund fetal tissue experimentation and the testing of the human pesticide, RU-486, both of which became administration policy when Clinton signed executive orders on January 22, 1973, the twentieth anniversary of the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton.

Leon Edward Panetta supported chemical and surgical baby-killing when he served as the White House Chief of Staff for President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton from July 17, 1994, to January 20, 1997.

Leon Edward Panetta has backed one pro-abortion, pro-perversity candidate for public office after another.

Leon Edward Panetta remained completely pro-abortion when he served as the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency from February 13, 2009, to June 30, 2011.

Leon Edward Panetta has been fully supportive of contraception and abortion as the United States Secretary of Defense from July 1, 2011, to the present time, although he will leave office upon confirmation of his successor, who is likely to be former United States Senator Charles Timothy Hagel (R-Nebraska) (see Our Slave Drivers Are In Liberation Mode Again.) This means that Secretary Leon Edward Panetta has overseen and approved the distribution of contraceptive pills and devices to American troops. It means as well that he has presided over a policy that permits innocent babies to be sliced and diced by surgical means at hospitals operated by the armed forces of the United States of America in cases where it is alleged that a mother's life is endangered. Secretary Panetta has also enforced the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy instituted by his pro-abortion, pro-perversity master, President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro.

Leon Edward Panetta was permitted by the now retired conciliar "bishop" of Monterey, California, Sylvester Ryan, to remain in "good standing" in the Diocese of Monterey despite his support or the daily slaughter of the preborn under cover of the civil law by chemical and surgical means. Panetta was even appointed  in 2002 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to serve on the advisory board to review the handling of clerical abuse cases. Panetta's support for baby-killing under cover of the civil law meant nothing, and he puts in a pretty good piece of coin at the Basilica of Saint Charles Borromeo in Carmel, California, where he is a parishioner (and where the body of Father Junipero Serra is buried in the sanctuary). What's next? "Papal" "knight" Leon Edward Panetta.

Then again, "Pope" Benedict tells us that Leon Edward Panetta has helped to "protect the world." Go tell that to the innocent preborn.

How can those who voted to fund and who support as a matter of principle the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn children be "thanked" for "helping" to "protect the world"?

He cannot not.

Despite this, of course, Leon Edward Panetta was permitted to found the Panetta Institute for Public Policy at his alma mater, Santa Clara University in Santa Clara, California, and he has been permitted to teach at this Jesuit university despite supporting the slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means.

Wake up, “Father” Missigbeto. Wake up, and learn your history, please.

While I admit full well that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s open and in-your-face support of pro-abortion politicians and criticism of “conservative” “pro-life” politicians is a new phenomenon (see, for example, Jorge Orders Protection for His Pro-Abortion, Pro-Perversity Statist Comrades, Not Exactly from the Excommunication Scene in BecketJorge "Claps Back" at Salvatore Cordileone and Stands Up for Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi and Her Pro-Abort Ilk,  and Georgie "The Chin" Bergoglio Strikes Again on Behalf of the Pro-Aborts) of truly epic proportions, the inaction of Bergoglio’s predecessors in the conciliar seat of apostasy against pro-death, pro-perversity Catholics in public life is even more scandalous because these men, especially Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II condemned abortion, albeit mostly in conciliarspeak, even in front of the likes of William Jefferson Blythe Clinton in 1993 and 1995.

Moreover, how many people remember that it was back in early January of 1995, twenty-eight years ago now, that the conciliar "bishop" of Evreux, Normandy, France, Jacques Gaillot, was removed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II after years upon years of protests by Catholics about his words and actions, including his open and unapologetic support for the human pesticide, the French abortion pill, RU-486? (See Farley Clinton's February 2, 1995, article in The WandererGaillot Stripped of His Bishopric. I had my own commentary on the matter at the time that ran in the same newspaper.) That it took something approaching a revolution from Catholics attached to the conciliar structures in France to effect Gaillot's removal after years of complaints--and even admonitions from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II himself--speaks volumes about the paralysis caused by the conciliar novelty of episcopal collegiality, one of the triumphs of the Modernist spirit in favor of democracy that had been described so clearly by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II was presented with an ultimatum by about forty Catholic members of the United States House of Representatives, including then Representative Robert K. Dornan (Republican, California), who threatened to go to Rome en masse to insist on Drinan's removal from electoral politics if Rome did not act to do beforehand. (Dornan has spoken about this publicly, including at a panel I hosted for the Society of Catholic Social Scientists at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C., in 1997.) Drinan went on to support the winner of the Democratic Party primary, held in September of 1980, to replace him in the House of Representatives, a chap by the name of Barney Frank. Drinan openly supported then Representative Geraldine Ferraro's (Democrat, Queens, New York) views on abortion in the 1984 general elections, pitting him on a Crossfire program on the Cable News Network (CNN), hosted by that program's original co-hosts, Tom Braden and Patrick J. Buchanan, in August of that year against Father Vincent P. Miceli (who had been a Jesuit until 1983), who eviscerated him in their debate.

Drinan was the president of the pro-abortion Americans for Democratic Action for a few years in the 1980s, giving a blistering speech in behalf of "reproductive rights" in the summer of 1984 in that capacity. Despite this, however, he has been honored by several "Catholic" universities, including the Saint John's University School of Law, Jamaica, New York, where he gave the commencement address in 1995, and at Saint Joseph's College, Brentwood, New York, in 1998, two years after he supported then President William Jefferson Clinton's veto of the conditional, partial ban on partial-birth abortions. That Drinan remained in good standing in the conciliar church, which professes its opposition to baby-killing, and had been accorded such accolades by "Catholic" institutions was just another symptom of the bankruptcy of Faith, especially as it pertains in this instance to the conciliar novelty of Collegiality, that permeates the conciliar structures.

Pro-abortion Catholics in public life during the reign of both Wotyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI lived and died as "Catholics" in perfectly good standing in what they thought was the Catholic Church but is actually her counterfeit ape. And they were lauded by alleged prelates and clerics long after their deaths.

You want a review of some of the more notorious examples of Catholics in public life who received the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo "Mass of Christian Burial" despite their support for baby-killing and/or perversity during the years of the "pro-life" Wojtyla and the "traditional" Ratzinger.

Why, of course, I am more than happy to oblige the twelve of you who will be reading this article:

The late New York State Senator Edward Speno was permitted to have a "Mass of Christian Burial" at Saint Raphael Church in East Meadow, Long Island, New York, in 1972, two years after he had voted in favor of the bill to permit surgical baby-killing-on-demand in the first trimester of pregnancy following his death from a sudden heart attack. (See the appendix below for material I unearthed about Speno in an article published some years ago now.)

The late Thomas P. O'Neill was eulogized as a splendid Catholic by the man who later served as the conciliar archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, the protector of perverted priests, including one who started an organization to promote something so unspeakable that it will not be repeated here, by the name of Bernard "Cardinal" Law, in 1994 despite O'Neill's constant support for abortion "rights."

The aforementioined Father Robert Drinan, S.J., known as "Father Death," who served in the United States House of Representatives from January 3, 1971, January 3, 1981, remained a priest in "good standing" in the conciliar church until his death on January 28, 2007 despite his unrepentant support of surgical baby-killing under cover of law, including the procedure known as "partial-birth abortion." Drinan was also instrumental in helping the Kennedy clan to plot a strategy to separate their "private" beliefs about abortion from their public policies ( See - Opinion: How Support for Abortion Became Kennedy Dogma).  Drinan's "Mass of Christian Burial" was held at the Jesuit church in downtown Washington, D.C., Saint Aloysius Church, on February 1, 2007. Edward Moore Kennedy was one of those who "eulogized" "Father Death. Nancy Pelosi was another:

Sen. Edward Kennedy noted, "Here on earth, God's work must be our own" and said that Drinan did that work "armed with moral clarity and courage." Speaker Pelosi said of Drinan, "It was because of his faith that he was one of our greatest champions for human rights," and she quoted him as telling Georgetown students "to go forth into society not as mere legal tradesmen, but as moral architects." (Robert Drinan, Infanticide, and the "Unthinkable" | First Things)

Edward Moore Kennedy believed that supporting abortion was "God's work." Ah, yes, just some more of Kennedy's "accomplishments" praised by Sean "Cardinal" O'Malley (see Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite).

The late Associate Justice William Brennan of the Supreme Court of the United States of America was given a "Mass of Christian Burial" at Saint Matthew's Church on July 29, 1997. This was permitted by the then conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, D.C., James "Cardinal" Hickey, despite the fact that Brennan cast one of the seven affirmative votes in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, and despite the fact that Brennan served also as one of the seven affirmative votes in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965, that invalidated a long-unenforced Connecticut state statute that banned the sale of contraceptives to married couples, a case that provided a good deal of the "legal reasoning," such as it was, for the Roe and Doe cases, especially by inventing the so-called "right to privacy" as found in what were called the "penumbras" (little shadows or emanations) from could be found various provisions of the Bill of Rights and made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's liberty and due process of law clauses.

William Brennan's "Mass of Christian Burial" was a travesty from beginning to end. The pro-abortion, pro-Communist, pro-Fidel Castro, pro-South Central Los Angeles rioters United States Representative Maxine Waters was so impressed by that travesty, which featured an auxiliary "bishop," William Lori, now the conciliar "bishop" of Bridgeport, Connecticut, in attendance as the official representative of the archdiocese, that she asked that its program be inserted into the Congressional Record (see Appendix A below).

One of those who gave a "eulogy," a tribute that used to be forbidden, at least formally, even by the rules of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, at this travesty was then President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. United States Senator Edward Moore Kennedy did so as well. Another featured eulogist was none other than Father "Death" himself, the pro-abortion Reverend Robert Drinan, S.J., who was himself buried as a Catholic priest in "good standing" in the conciliar structures following his death on January 20, 2007.

The late United States Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-New York) was permitted to have a "Mass of Christian Burial" at Saint Patrick's Cathedral in the Borough of Manhattan of the City of New York, New York, in 2003 despite his consistent support for abortion "rights," mitigated, some believe, because he did vote to partially ban partial-birth abortions. To oppose a particular form of child-killing while maintaining the "right" of women to murder their children by other means does not constitute a "mitigation" of one's support for a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance.

Noting the fact that Mario Matthew Cuomo died on January 1, 2015, during the conciliar presidency, shall we say, of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a final example from the Wojtyla-Ratzinger years of a pro-abort being buried in good standing out of Catholic church in conciliar captivity was the notorous pro-abort named Geraldine Ann Ferraro-Zaccaro, who died on March 26, 2011 (see To Fall Into The Hands of the Living God and  Just Another Ordinary Outrage Permitted by a Conciliar "Ordinary").

Get the idea?

I hope that "Father" Missigbeto is disabused of his ignorance about how Jorge Mario Bergoglio's predecessors enabled Catholic pro-aborts in public life by omission and thus leaving ordinary Catholics with the belief that one can support grave moral evils with absolute impunity and continue to remain in "good standing" in what is thought to be the Catholic Church.

Finally on the doctrines pertaining to marriage and the family, "Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto is indeed quite correct to note that no pope, including the men after the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, who have laid claim to the papacy, has ever endorsed direct sterilization before Jorge Mario Bergoglio authorized his fellow lay Jesuit revolutionary, Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, to do in 2018. Then again, it is an easy thing to dismiss the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church on matters of marriage and the family when one has dispensed with the very nature of dogmatic truth.

III. Truth Matters, and Truth Has Been Under Attack From Roncalli to Bergoglio, "Father" Missigbeto

"Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto's singular focus on Jorge Mario Begoglio caused him to refuse to reflect on the fact the foundation of the false conciliar religion's unrelenting warfare on the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than an unremitting warfare on the very nature of God's immutability.

Yes, truth exists. It is. It exists independently of human acceptance of it, and its veracity does not depend upon the character of those who profess it (not that integrity of life is unimportant, of course, but it is irrelevant to whether something is true or false).

However (yes, once again, my weary readers), the nature of dogmatic truth has been under attack by the conciliar revolutionaries for the past sixty-five years, starting with the old Sillonist named Angelo Roncalli. This embrace of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned proposition of dogmatic evolutionism has been disguised by the use of two different euphemisms (Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and Ratzinger/Benedict’s “hermeneutic of continuity”) before its open, undisguised embrace by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, however, was bold enough in his own career-long warfare on the nature of dogmatic pronouncements as to claim that Holy Mother Church had to “learn” that the “particulars” of dogmatic pronouncements can become obsolete over time, meaning that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, not only “hid” this from the Church for over nineteen centuries but permitted the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and Popes Saint Pius X and Pius XII to err when they taught the following:

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.

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.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. 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. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870.)

Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they 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.

Dogma is not only able, but ought to evolve and to be changed. This is strongly affirmed by the Modernists, and clearly flows from their principles. For among the chief points of their teaching is the following, which they deduce from the principle of vital immanence, namely, that religious formulas if they are to be really religious and not merely intellectual speculations, ought to be living and to live the life of the religious sense. This is not to be understood to mean that these formulas, especially if merely imaginative, were to be invented for the religious sense. Their origin matters nothing, any more than their number or quality. What is necessary is that the religious sense -- with some modification when needful -- should vitally assimilate them. In other words, it is necessary that the primitive formula be accepted and sanctioned by the heart; and similarly the subsequent work from which are brought forth the secondary formulas must proceed under the guidance of the heart.

Hence it comes that these formulas, in order to be living, should be, and should remain, adapted to the faith and to him who believes. Wherefore, if for any reason this adaptation should cease to exist, they lose their first meaning and accordingly need to be changed. In view of the fact that the character and lot of dogmatic formulas are so unstable, it is no wonder that Modernists should regard them so lightly and in such open disrespect, and have no consideration or praise for anything but the religious sense and for the religious life. In this way, with consummate audacity, they criticize the Church, as having strayed from the true path by failing to distinguish between the religious and moral sense of formulas and their surface meaning, and by clinging vainly and tenaciously to meaningless formulas, while religion itself is allowed to go to ruin. "Blind'- they are, and "leaders of the blind" puffed up with the proud name of science, they have reached that pitch of folly at which they pervert the eternal concept of truth and the true meaning of religion; in introducing a new system in which "they are seen to be under the sway of a blind and unchecked passion for novelty, thinking not at all of finding some solid foundation of truth, but despising the holy and apostolic traditions, they embrace other and vain, futile, uncertain doctrines, unapproved by the Church, on which, in the height of their vanity, they think they can base and maintain truth itself." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Domici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

After mature examination and the most diligent deliberations the Pontifical Biblical Commission has happily given certain decisions of a very useful kind for the proper promotion and direction on safe lines of Biblical studies. But we observe that some persons, unduly prone to opinions and methods tainted by pernicious novelties and excessively devoted to the principle of false liberty, which is really immoderate license and in sacred studies proves itself to be a most insidious and a fruitful source of the worst evils against the purity of the faith, have not received and do not receive these decisions with the proper obedience.

Wherefore we find it necessary to declare and to expressly prescribe, and by this our act we do declare and decree that all are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission relating to doctrine, which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees of the Roman congregations approved by the Pontiff; nor can all those escape the note of disobedience or temerity, and consequently of grave sin, who in speech or writing contradict such decisions, and this besides the scandal they give and the other reasons for which they may be responsible before God for other temerities and errors which generally go with such contradictions.

Moreover, in order to check the daily increasing audacity of many modernists who are endeavoring by all kinds of sophistry and devices to detract from the force and efficacy not only of the decree "Lamentabili sane exitu" (the so-called Syllabus), issued by our order by the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition on July 3 of the present year, but also of our encyclical letters "Pascendi dominici gregis" given on September 8 of this same year, we do by our apostolic authority repeat and confirm both that decree of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and those encyclical letters of ours, adding the penalty of excommunication against their contradictors, and this we declare and decree that should anybody, which may God forbid, be so rash as to defend any one of the propositions, opinions or teachings condemned in these documents he falls, ipso facto, under the censure contained under the chapter "Docentes" of the constitution "Apostolicae Sedis," which is the first among the excommunications latae sententiae, simply reserved to the Roman Pontiff. This excommunication is to be understood as salvis poenis, which may be incurred by those who have violated in any way the said documents, as propagators and defenders of heresies, when their propositions, opinions and teachings are heretical, as has happened more than once in the case of the adversaries of both these documents, especially when they advocate the errors of the modernists that is, the synthesis of all heresies.

Wherefore we again and most earnestly exhort the ordinaries of the dioceses and the heads of religious congregations to use the utmost vigilance over teachers, and first of all in the seminaries; and should they find any of them imbued with the errors of the modernists and eager for what is new and noxious, or lacking in docility to the prescriptions of the Apostolic See, in whatsoever way published, let them absolutely forbid the teaching office to such; so, too, let them exclude from sacred orders those young men who give the very faintest reason for doubt that they favor condemned doctrines and pernicious novelties. We exhort them also to take diligent care to put an end to those books and other writings, now growing exceedingly numerous, which contain opinions or tendencies of the kind condemned in the encyclical letters and decree above mentioned; let them see to it that these publications are removed from Catholic publishing houses, and especially from the hands of students and the clergy. By doing this they will at the same time be promoting real and solid education, which should always be a subject of the greatest solicitude for those who exercise sacred authority.

All these things we will and order to be sanctioned and established by our apostolic authority, aught to the contrary notwithstanding. (Pope Saint Pius X, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907.)

I hold with certainty and I sincerely confess that faith is not a blind inclination of religion welling up from the depth of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the inclination of a morally conditioned will, but is the genuine assent of the intellect to a truth that is received from outside by hearing. In this assent, given on the authority of the all-truthful God, we hold to be true what has been said, attested to, and revealed, by the personal God, our creator and Lord.” (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

“Some hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. […] It is evident from what We have already said, that such efforts not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it.” (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

Joseph Alois Ratzinger was completely consistent in his warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth as Father Ratzinger in 1971, “Cardinal” Ratzinger in 1990, and “Pope Benedict XVI” in 2005:

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 Freedom,has 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.)

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI never believed that doctrine has been revealed by God, preferring to contend that doctrine “develops from faith,” a bold contention that is of the essence of Modernism and condemned forcefully by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council and by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, as quoted above.

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.

Ratzinger/Benedict did not have a zeal to convert souls to the true Faith, but he did possess a burning zeal to convince others of the mutability of Catholic doctrine, which is why one of the first things he did as “Pope Benedict” was to appoint William Levada to succeed himself as the prefect of the conciliar church’s so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Levada was unapologetic in his support of dogmatic evolutionism.

The late William "Cardinal" Levada made it clear in an interview he gave to the Whispers in the Loggia website nearly thirteen years ago now that he believed in the exact same Modernist conception of dogmatic truth:

The role of the Church in that dialogue between an individual and his or her God, says the Cardinal, is not to be the first interlocutor, but the role is indispensable. "We believe that the apostles and their successors received the mission to interpret revelation in new circumstances and in the light of new challenges. That creates a living tradition that is much larger than the simple and strict passing of existing answers, insights and convictions from one generation to another.

But at the end of the day there has to be an instance that can decide whether a specific lifestyle is coherent with the principles and values of our faith, that can judge whether our actions are in accordance with the commandment to love your neighbor. The mission of the Church is not to prohibit people from thinking, investigate different hypotheses, or collect knowledge. Its mission is to give those processes orientation". . . . (Levada Gives Rare Interview.)

The mission of the Catholic Church is to sanctify and to save souls.

As Pope Gregory XVI noted in Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834, Mother Church brings forth Our Lord’s teaching without so much as a slight taint or varnish of error:

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

Pope Saint Gregory XVI was condemning an approach to doctrinal truth that was propagated by the late Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict, a progenitor of novelty and innovation in his own Modernist right, and that he taught to his own students, including William Levada, thus making short work of the Act of Faith:

O my God, I firmly believe that Thou art One God in Three Divine Persons. I believe that Thy Divine Son became Man, died for our sins, and will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which Thy Holy Catholic Church teaches because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived. (Act of Faith.)

The Catholic Faith is certain.

The conciliar faith is filled with uncertainties, complexities, and contradictions that leave much to the “individual” to “decide” even though there is nothing in the objective order of things to decide except to obedient to Holy Mother Church.

"Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto means well, and it is thus to be hoped that he might be able to see that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only continuing the work of his predecessors, albeit with differences of substance here and there and certainly in the most vile, vulgar, and crude manner imaginable.

IV. Abu Dhabi Resulted From Decades of “Papal” Praise of Pagan Religions

As was the case with Josef Seifert three months ago, "Father" Missigbeto condemned the so-called Declaration on the Fraternity of All People":

On 4 February 2019, in the United Arab Emirates, you and Ahmed el-Tayeb, Imam of Al-Azhar, signed a declaration on human brotherhood containing the following sentence: “The pluralism and the diversity of religions, color, gender, race and language are a wise divine will, by which God created human beings.” This sentence confuses God’s permission with God’s will. To say that God has permitted the existence of a diversity of religions is true because God respects human freedom even when it errs by creating a religion that is not the one God intended. However, it is not true to say that God has willed that there should be a diversity of religions.

In fact, some religions practice evil, for example idolatry or sacred prostitution. But God cannot will evil. Since when has a pope made such a statement? Never! You have thus accepted a religious relativism that puts all religions on the same level and denies the specificity of Christianity as the supreme religion willed by God (there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ). This is why you have taken part in the idolatry of three pagan ceremonies (4 October 2019 with the Pachamama, 25 and 27 July 2022 with the autochtones of Canada), an intrinsically and morally evil act (cf. my 5th open letter). You have fallen into two heresies: rejection of the goodness of God’s will (cf. Genesis 1:31); rejection of the uniqueness of Christ’s saving mission (cf. John 14:6; Dominus Iesus 13)

While it is true that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would never be a signatory to such a document, it is also true that that a true pope would never speak to Hindus as Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II did in 1986:

1. I am pleased that my pilgrimage to India has brought me to Delhi, and once again to this Indira Gandhi Stadium. Here we are experiencing together, in a religious and cultural setting, the reality that is man in this your vast and fascinating land. You are representatives and leaders in various fields of human life and endeavour. To all of you I offer my greetings of friendship, respect and fraternal love.

I wish to thank all who have made this meeting possible, and I am especially pleased that so many young people are able to be here. I am very grateful to those of different religions who have welcomed me so cordially and have presented their deep reflections, together with their earnest hopes for India and for the world.

For all of us this experience is conducive to a deep reflection on this reality of man which we perceive and are immersed in. In India, without doubt, this reality offers us a spiritual vision of man. I believe that this spiritual vision is of supreme relevance for the people of India and for their future; it says much about their values, their hopes and aspirations and their human dignity. I believe that a spiritual vision of man is of immense importance for the whole of humanity With an emphasis on spiritual values the world is capable of formulating a new attitude towards itself – new, but based to a great extent on ethical values preserved for centuries, many of them in this ancient land. These include a spirit of fraternal charity and dedicated service, forgiveness, sacrifice and renunciation, remorse and penance for moral failings and patience and forbearance.

2. With the passing of time, it becomes evident that it is necessary to return over and again to the central issue of the world, which is man: man as a creature and child of God; man bearing within his heart and soul the image to fulfil his calling to live for ever.

The one who speaks to you today is convinced that man is the way that the Catholic Church must take in order to be faithful to herself. In my first Encyclical I stated: " Man is the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his community and social being – in the sphere of his own family, in the sphere of society and very diverse contexts, in the sphere of his own nation or people... and in the sphere of the whole of mankind – this man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission" . And with equal conviction I would state that man is the primary route that all humanity must follow – but always man in the "full truth of his existence".

3. India has so much to offer to the world in the task of understanding man and the truth of his existence. And what she offers specifically is a noble spiritual vision of man – man, a pilgrim of the Absolute, travelling towards a goal, seeking the face of God. Did not Mahatma Gandhi put it this way: "What I want to achieve – what I have been striving and pining to achieve... is self-realization – to see God face to face. I live and move and have my being in pursuit of this goal" .

On the rectitude of this spiritual vision is built the defence of man in his daily life. With this spiritual vision of man we are equipped to face the concrete problems that affect man, torment his soul and afflict his body.

From this vision comes the incentive to undertake the struggle to remedy and improve man’s condition, and to pursue relentlessly his integral human development. From it comes the strength to persevere in the cause, as well as the clarity of thought needed to find concrete solutions to man’s problems. From a spiritual vision of man is derived the inspiration to seek help and to offer collaboration in promoting the true good of humanity at every level. Yes, from this spiritual vision comes an indomitable spirit to win for man – for each man – his rightful place in this world.

Despite all the powerful forces of poverty and oppression, of evil and sin in all their forms, the power of truth, will prevail – the truth about God, the truth about man. It will prevail because it is invincible. The power of truth is invincible! "Satyam èva jayatè – Truth alone triumphs", as the motto of India proclaims.

4. The full truth about man constitutes a whole programme for world-wide commitment and collaboration. My predecessor Paul VI returned over and over again to the concept of integral human development, because it is based on the truth about man. He proposed it as the only way to bring about man’s true progress at any time, but especially at this juncture of history.

In particular Paul VI looked upon integral human development as a condition for arriving at that great and all pervasive good which is peace. Indeed, he stated that this development is " the new name for peace" .

To pursue integral human development it is necessary to take a stand on what is greatest and most noble in man: to reflect on his nature, his life and his destiny. In a word, integral human development requires a spiritual vision of man.

If we are to further the advancement of man we must identify whatever obstructs and contradicts his total well-being and affects his life; we must identify whatever wounds, weakens or destroys life, whatever attacks human dignity and hinders man from attaining the truth or from living according to the truth.

The pursuit of integral human development invites the world to reflect on culture and to view it in its relationship to the final end of man. Culture is not only an expression of man’s temporal life but an aid in reaching his eternal life.

India’s mission in all of this is crucial, because of her intuition of the spiritual nature of man. Indeed India’s greatest contribution to the world can be to offer it a spiritual vision of man. And the world does well to attend willingly to this ancient wisdom and in it to find enrichment for human laving.

5. The attainment of integral human development for mankind makes demands on each individual. It requires a radical openness to others, and people are more readily open to each other when they understand their own spiritual nature and that of their neighbour.

The Second Vatican Council perceived in our world "the birth of a new humanism in which man is defined above all by his responsibility towards his brothers and sisters and towards history" . It is indeed evident that there is no place in this world for "man’s inhumanity to man". Selfishness is a contradiction. By his nature man is called to open his heart, in love, to his neighbours, because he has been loved by God. In Christian tradition as expressed by Saint John’s Letter we read: " Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another... If we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us" .

The building of a new world requires something deeply personal from each human being. The renewal of the world in all its social relations begins in the heart of every individual. It calls for a change of heart and for repentance. It calls for a purification of heart and a real turning to God. And what is deeply personal is supremely social, because "man is defined above all in his responsibilities to his brothers and sisters...". Christians cherish the fact that, in teaching his followers how to pray, Jesus told them to approach God by calling him "Our Father ".

While speaking of my own convictions, I know that many of them are in accord with what is expressed in the ancient wisdom of this land. And in this wisdom we find today an ever old and ever new basis for fraternal solidarity in the cause of man and therefore ultimately in the service of God.

The spiritual vision of man that India shares with the world is the vision of man seeking the face of God. The very words used by Mahatma Gandhi about his own spiritual quest echo the words quoted by Saint Paul when he explained that God is not far from each of us: " In him we live and move and have our being " .

6. Religion directs our lives totally to God, and at the same time our lives must be totally permeated by our relationship to God – to the point that our religion becomes our life. Religion is concerned with humanity and everything that belongs to humanity, and at the same time it directs to God all that is human within us. I would repeat what I wrote at the beginning of my Pontificate: "Inspired by eschatological faith, the Church considers an essential, unbreakably united element of her mission this solicitude for man, for his humanity, for the future of men on earth and therefore also for the course set for the whole of development and progress" . As religion works to promote the reign of God in this world, it tries to help the whole of society to promote man’s transcendent destiny. At the same time it teaches its members a deep personal concern for neighbour and civic responsibility for the community. The Apostle John issued a challenge to the early Christian community which remains valid for all religious people everywhere: " I ask you, how can God’s love survive in a man who has enough of this world’s goods yet closes his heart to his brother when he sees him in need?" .

7. In the world today, there is a need for all religions to collaborate in the cause of humanity, and to do this from the viewpoint of the spiritual nature of man. Today, as Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsees and Christians, we gather in fraternal love to assert this by our very presence. As we proclaim the truth about man, we insist that man’s search for temporal and social well-being and full human dignity corresponds to the deep longings of his spiritual nature. To work for the attainment and preservation of all human rights, including the basic right to worship God according to the dictates of an upright conscience and to profess that faith externally, must become ever more a subject of interreligious collaboration at all levels. This interreligious collaboration must also be concerned with the struggle to eliminate hunger, poverty, ignorance, persecution, discrimination and every form of enslavement of the human spirit. Religion is the mainspring of society’s commitment to justice, and interreligious collaboration must reaffirm this in practice.

8. All efforts in the cause of man are linked to a particular vision of man, and all effective and complete efforts require a spiritual vision of man. With Paul VI I repeat the conviction that " there is no true humanism but that which is open to the Absolute and is conscious of a vocation which gives human life its true meaning... Man can only realise himself by reaching beyond himself" .

The late President of India, Dr Radhakrishnan, was right when he said: " Only a moral and spiritual revolution in the name of human dignity can place man above the idols of economic production technological organisation, racial discrimination and national egotism" . And again "The new world of peace, freedom and safety for all can be achieved only by those who are moved by great spiritual ideals" .

The wisdom of India will contribute incalculably to the world by its witness to the fact that increased possession is not the ultimate goal of life. The true liberation of man will be brought about, as also the elimination of all that militates against human dignity, only when the spiritual vision of man is held in honour and pursued. Only within this framework can the world adequately face the many problems of justice, peace and integral human development that call for urgent solutions. And within this framework of the truth of man, the holiness of God will be made manifest by the rectitude and uprightness of human relations in the social, political, cultural and economic spheres of life.

9. This is the humanism that unites us today and invites us to fraternal collaboration. This is the humanism that we offer to all the young people present here today and to all the young people of the world. This is the humanism to which India can make an imperishable contribution. What is at stake is the well-being of all human society – the building up of an earthly city that will already prefigure the eternal one and contain in initial form the elements that will for ever be part of man’s eternal destiny.

The Prophet Isaiah offers us his vision of this reality:

"I will appoint peace your governor,
and justice your ruler.
No longer shall violence be heard of in your land,
or plunder and ruin within your boundaries.
You shall call your walls ‘ Salvation’
and your gates ‘Praise’.
No longer shall the sun
be your light by day,
Nor the brightness of the moon shine upon you at night;
The Lord shall be your light forever,
your God shall be your glory" .

However we describe our spiritual vision of man, we know that man is central to God’s plan. And it is for man that we are all called to work – to labour and toil for his betterment, for his advancement, for his integral human development. A creature and child of God, man is, today and always, the path of humanity – man in the full truth of his existence! ( Meeting with the representatives of the different religious and cultural traditions in the «Indira Gandhi» Stadium (February 2, 1986)

How is this significantly different in tone from the Abu Dhabi “Declaration on the Fraternity of All People”?

It is not any different.

The goal of the true religion, Catholicism, is to sanctify and thus help to save the souls of all men, not engage in the sort of Judeo-Masonic naturalism and, despite all the protestations of the conciliar revolutionaries to the contrary, religious indifferentism that leaves adherents of false religions perfectly content in their diabolically inspired ways until the day the die.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Abu Dhabi declaration can be seen as a prescinding directly from the respect that Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI paid to false religions, each of which is a tool of the devil himself, as instruments of “peace” in the cause of Jacques Maritain’s and Germain Grisez’s “integral human development” and in the name of “human fraternity.”

"Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto should remove the blinders and consider the fact that the Sillonism of Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

The same applies to the notion of Fraternity which they found on the love of common interest or, beyond all philosophies and religions, on the mere notion of humanity, thus embracing with an equal love and tolerance all human beings and their miseries, whether these are intellectual, moral, or physical and temporal. But Catholic doctrine tells us that the primary duty of charity does not lie in the toleration of false ideas, however sincere they may be, nor in the theoretical or practical indifference towards the errors and vices in which we see our brethren plunged, but in the zeal for their intellectual and moral improvement as well as for their material well-being. Catholic doctrine further tells us that love for our neighbor flows from our love for God, Who is Father to all, and goal of the whole human family; and in Jesus Christ whose members we are, to the point that in doing good to others we are doing good to Jesus Christ Himself. Any other kind of love is sheer illusion, sterile and fleeting.

Indeed, we have the human experience of pagan and secular societies of ages past to show that concern for common interests or affinities of nature weigh very little against the passions and wild desires of the heart. No, Venerable Brethren, there is no genuine fraternity outside Christian charity. Through the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ Our Saviour, Christian charity embraces all men, comforts all, and leads all to the same faith and same heavenly happiness.

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people? . . .

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Moreover, it is important to note that Pope Leo XIII condemned any and all signs of universal toleration or marks of respect for false religions and to express a fraternity with them:

Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

"Father" Missigbeto, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only bringing the inherent degeneracy of the false conciliar religion to its perfection. Remove the blinders, Professor, and take an honest look at the truth of the matter.

V. A Refusal to Seek the Conversion of Non-Catholics to the True Faith

Left unaddressed in "Father" Missigbeto's letter accusing "Pope Francis" of heresy, although he used the term imprecisely in some instances, is the entire area of false ecumenism. To endorse the belief that non-Catholic Christian sects possess "elements of truth and sanctity" is a major heresy that is based on the heresy contained in Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, that the Church of Christ "subsists" in the Catholic Church but is not coextensive with her.

There is no such thing as an “isolated” error, which is why those who still exalt the false premises of the Modern civil state, including the United States of America, ought to realize once and for all that it is just as impossible to build a just social order on the premise of religious indifferentism and “religious liberty” as it is to maintain an “irreducible minima” of the Sacred Deposit of Faith after having jettisoned even one article contained therein.

Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943, explained very clearly that the Catholic Church is the sole Church of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, none other:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

By abandoning this truth of the Catholic Faith, the bishops at the “Second” Vatican Council, led by the soon-to-be “beatified” Giovanni Battista Montini/Paul the Sick showed themselves to have defected from the Catholic Faith. This one defection, among so many others, of course, this one “drop of poison” is a denial of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, which in and of itself resulted inevitably in the belief that the Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has something to “learn” from “other religions.” Once one believes such a lie, however, it is easy to come to the specious conclusion that one can find “elements of true love” in the lives of those who are persisting in what are, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins that could, if not confessed before death, lead to eternal damnation and already consign them to lives destined to strike out at anyone who dares to perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy by admonishing them to reform their lives lest they perish in flames of Hell for all eternity.

It is very telling that "Father" Missigbeto did not address false ecumenism in his latest missive as he must come to realize that seeking the “ecumenism of the return” was rejected by the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in no uncertain terms:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English

Here is what our true popes have written on the matter of the "ecumenism of the return:"

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesusand we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Who is Catholic here? "Pope" Benedict XVI or Popes Pius IX and Pius XI?

One cannot be intellectually honest and ignore Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini's, Karol Josef Wojtyla's and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict’s lack of true charity for the souls of non-Catholics (and for the souls of those Protestants, Jews, Mohammedans, Hindi, Buddhists, and other assorted “believers”) while excoriating Jorge Mario Bergoglio for his own infidelity, including the Abu Dhabi “Declaration on Human Fraternity.”

VI. Each Conciliar “Pope” Has Been A Destroyer of the Catholic Faith

Father Jesusmary Missigbeto's understanding of the papacy is very defective as he proclaimed correctly that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic. However, it is ontologically impossible for a true pope to be such. 

As Pope Saint Pius X noted in a 1912 allocution to Italian priests, “"Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope,” meaning one of two things in this instance: either "Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto  is not holy or, of course, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the pope.

Anyone who can attack the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than an attack on the immutability of God Himself, is a manifest heretic and a destroyer of the Faith, and such a destroyer was none other the professor’s beloved Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who praised his Hegelian mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, follows for desiring to raze the bastions of the Catholic Faith:

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

Pope Pius VIII wrote the following about the razing of those bastions in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditii Humiliate Nostrae, May 24, 1829:

We open Our heart with joy to you, venerable brothers, whom God has given to Us as helpers in the conduct of so great an administration. We are pleased to let you know the intimate sentiments of Our will. We also think it helpful to communicate those things from which the Christian cause may benefit. For the duty of Our office is not only to feed, rule, and direct the lambs, namely the Christian people, but also the sheep, that is the clergy.

2. We rejoice and praise Christ, who raised up shepherds for the safekeeping of His flock. These shepherds vigilantly lead their flocks so as not to lose even one of those they have received from the Father. For We know well, venerable brothers, your unshakeable faith, your zeal for religion, your sanctity of life, and your singular prudence. Co-workers such as you make Us happy and confident. This pleasant situation encourages Us when We fear because of the great responsibility of Our office, and it refreshes and strengthens Us when We feel overwhelmed by so many serious concerns. We shall not detain you with a long sermon to remind you what things are required to perform sacred duties well, what the canons prescribe lest anyone depart from vigilance over his flock, and what attention ought to be given in preparing and accepting ministers. Rather We call upon God the Savior that He may protect you with His omnipresent divinity and bless your activities and endeavors with happy success.

3. Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner.[1] All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel.[2] With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."[3]

4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion. They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]

5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.

6. When this corruption has been abolished, then eradicate those secret societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world. Having cast off the restraints of true religion, they prepare the way for shameful crimes. Indeed, because they concealed their societies, they aroused suspicion of their evil intent. Afterwards this evil intention broke forth, about to assail the sacred and the civil orders. Hence the supreme pontiffs, Our predecessors, Clement XII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII,[11] repeatedly condemned with anathema that kind of secret society. Our predecessors condemned them in apostolic letters; We confirm those commands and order that they be observed exactly. In this matter We shall be diligent lest the Church and the state suffer harm from the machinations of such sects. With your help We strenuously take up the mission of destroying the strongholds which the putrid impiety of evil men sets up.

7. We want you to know of another secret society organized not so long ago for the corruption of young people who are taught in the gymnasia and the lycea. Its cunning purpose is to engage evil teachers to lead the students along the paths of Baal by teaching them un-Christian doctrines. The perpetrators know well that the students' minds and morals are molded by the precepts of the teachers. Its influence is already so persuasive that all fear of religion has been lost, all discipline of morals has been abandoned, the sanctity of pure doctrine has been contested, and the rights of the sacred and of the civil powers have been trampled upon. Nor are they ashamed of any disgraceful crime OT error. We can truly say with Leo the Great that for them "Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace.'[12] Drive these evils from your dioceses. Strive to assign not only learned, but also good men to train our youth. (Pope Pius VIII, Traditii Humiliatae Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)

This was a prophetic description of conciliarism and a condemnation of the “theologies” of both Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

VII. Each Conciliar “Pope” Has Praised the Protestant Revolution

Such very well-meaning Catholics such as "Father" Jesusmary Missigbeto have been deceived by the adversary to narrow their focus on Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s outrageous defections from the Holy Faith to such an extent that they seem to be incapable of taking a step back from the revolutionary caricature current presiding as the universal public face of apostasy to consider, if even for a moment, that the whole conciliar enterprise has been and continues to be a revolutionary attack upon everything to do with Catholic Faith, Morals, and Worship.

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI each praised Protestantism when either addressing personally and/or sending correspondence to at the Rockefeller Foundation created and funded anti-life World Council of Churches?

To the Reverend Doctor Philip Potter
General Secretary, World Council of Churches

The World Council of Churches celebrates, during the present session of the Central Committee, the twenty-fifth anniversary of its foundation. It gives us a welcome occasion to offer our congratulations and the assurance of our prayer.

These years have been rich in activities and events, and the present celebration is surely more than a commemoration of past history. The World Council of Churches has been created in order, by the grace of God, to serve the Churches and Ecclesial Communities in their endeavours to restore and to manifest to all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church. We earnestly pray that the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of wisdom, may enlighten and strengthen you and that in the obedience of faith you may make progress towards achieving the one hope which belongs to our call (Cfr. Eph. 4, 4).

On the occasion of our visit to the World Council of Churches in Geneva in 1969, we expressed our deep appreciation for the development of the relations between the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church, two bodies indeed very different in nature, but whose collaboration has proved fruitful (Cfr. AAS 61, 1969, 504). It is our sincere desire that this collaboration may be pursued and intensified, according to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

We wish to say a special word of congratulation and encouragement to you, Mr General Secretary, to the members of the Central Committee and to the devoted staff of the World Council of Churches, gathered at this time in Geneva. We would like you to know that we keep you in our prayers and that we follow your work with keen interest and unfailing goodwill.  (Letter to Dr. Philip Potter, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, August 6, 1973, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)

Remember, this was before the days of the internet and instant news. Newscasters in the United States of America were busy covering the events of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activity, known colloquially as “The Watergate Committee” in the summer of 1973. Most Catholics did not know of Montini’s letter to Philip Potter on the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord that year, not that a lot of them would have objected to its text.

However, some of us might, if we had been aware of it, have come to a realization of the enormity of the apostasy that was before us represented by the following words contained in the letter cited just above:

The World Council of Churches has been created in order, by the grace of God, to serve the Churches and Ecclesial Communities in their endeavours to restore and to manifest to all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church. Letter to Dr. Philip Potter, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, August 6, 1973, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)


How can anyone think that this soon-to-"canonized," wretched, theologically, liturgically and morally corrupt little Marxist-sympathizer could have been a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter? 

The World Council of Churches has been given the mission by God to “restore and to manifest all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church”?

Well, this may not have been Bergoglio's "new ecumenical spring of four days ago, but it is rather closely related.

In other words, the World Council of Churches was the center of “Christian unity” as what Montini believed was the Catholic Church watched as an interesting observer to see how this diabolical organization would fulfill its “mission.”

It was to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of Montini/Paul VI’s address to the World Council of Churches in 1969 that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II went to the headquarters of the World Council of Churches in John Calvin’s former home base of Geneva, Switzerland, to give an address to a group of “ecumenical leaders” on June 12, 1984. Although there is no English language translation of the future “Saint John Paul the Great’s” address, a contemporary report in The New York Times provided its general theme:

GENEVA, June 12— Pope John Paul II began a six-day tour of Switzerland today and renewed a pledge to strive for unity among all Christian churches.

The Pope made the pledge in a speech at the headquarters of the World Council of Churches here hours after his arrival, saying, “The simple fact of my presence here among you, as Bishop of Rome paying a fraternal visit to the World Council of Churches, is a sign of this will for unity.

He spoke at a worship service in the chapel of the Protestant council’s Ecumenical Center.

”From the beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome,” he said, ”I have insisted that the engagement of the Catholic Church in the ecumenical movement is irreversible and that the search for unity was one of its pastoral priorities.”

Pope’s 22d Foreign Journey

The Pope ‘s visit to Switzerland, his 22d foreign journey since becoming the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, was to have taken place three years ago but was put off by the assassination attempt in which he was wounded in St. Peter’s Square.

”God ordained that this visit could not take place already in the spring of 1981 but only today,” the Pope said in greeting President Leon Schlumpf after he had kissed the ground at Zurich Airport.

The Pope then went to Geneva, where he addressed the World Council of Churches and also visited the European center of the Orthodox Church. There, he assured Metropolitan Damaskinos, the Exarch of Europe, of the Roman Catholic will to remove obstacles to healing the age-old split between the Western and Eastern churches.

Saluting the work of the center in fostering ”better reciprocal knowledge of East and West,” the Pope said, ”This reciprocal knowledge has still to be deepened and purified of all prejudices or mistaken judgments, so that the truth may make us free.” He emphasized the Vatican’s ”expectancy of full communion between our churches.”

Before reaching Geneva, the city of Calvin, the reformer, John Paul celebrated mass in a stadium in Lugano, the principal center of Italian-Swiss Roman Catholicism. Christian Unity Stressed.

He spent the night in Fribourg, the seat of Switzerland’s main Roman Catholic university. But the emphasis of the papal visit to this nation of 6.3 million inhabitants, of whom 47.6 percent are Catholic and 44.3 Protestant, was on Christian unity.

The Pope made this explicit in his first statement on Swiss soil, in greeting President Schlumpf. He said, ”The challenge that modern times represent for humanity and Christianity makes us Christians feel the more painfully the unhappy splits and polarizations that, as in the past, divide us even today.”

John Paul added that all Christians were increasingly demanding ”witness for Christ” in an increasingly secularized world. This obliges Christian leaders to make ”even greater efforts to overcome all outward and inward divisive obstacles, gradually, in the full truth and love of Christ,” the Pope said.

In his greeting to the Pope, Dr. Philip Potter, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, listed the common endeavors by Protestants and Catholics to achieve friendly relations. But he said that in applying the Gospel to problems such as violation of human rights, race, class and sex oppression, the struggles for justice and peace – issues in which he said the World Council ‘‘had demonstrated concrete solidarity with the poor and the oppressed” – no unity had been achieved. ‘

”It has been precisely at this point that we have encountered the tragedy of our divisions between the churches and within them,” the Protestant leader said.

”And it is also at this time that we are facing the breakdown of any viable world economic and political order, and the universalizing of a ruthless military culture which threatens humanity and God’s will for the preservation of his creation.”

The Pope did not address some of these themes in the same spirit. The World Council is considered a leading spokesman for the grievances of developing countries against the West. But John Paul repeated his church’s ”defense of human beings and their dignity, their liberty, their rights.” He also restated his often expressed fears for the future of humanity ”in a world tempted by suicide.” (Future Faux Conciliar Saint in Switzerland, Stresses Delusional Unity.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II included representatives from the anti-family, anti-life, statist, feminist, New Age World Council of Churches when he presided over an “ecumenical day” at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, Italy, on January 18, 2000, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter and the beginning of the Chair of Unity Octave in the Catholic Church that has been transformed into the “Week of Christian Unity” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

I would like once again to thank the Lord who has enabled us to spend this important ecumenical day together. After meeting this morning to pray in St Paul’s Basilica, we are gathered round this festive table for a pleasant, fraternal agape. I express my deepest gratitude to each of you, venerable and dear Brothers.

I specifically thank: 

– the Delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, representing His Holiness Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, representing His Beatitude Petros VII, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, representing His Beatitude Ignace IV Hazim, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, representing His Beatitude Diodoros, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem;

– the Delegation from the Patriarchate of Moscow, representing His Holiness Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and All the Russias;

– the Delegation from the Patriarchate of Serbia, representing His Beatitude Pavle, Serbian Patriarch;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania, representing His Beatitude Teoctist, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Greece, representing His Beatitude Christódoulos, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Poland, representing His Beatitude Sawa, Orthodox Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Albania, representing His Beatitude Anastas, Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Finland, in the person of the Archbishop of Karelia and All Finland;

– the Delegation from the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, representing His Holiness Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark;

– the Delegation from the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, representing His Beatitude Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East;

– the Delegation from the Armenian Apostolic Church, representing His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos and Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians; I also remember his predecessor, Karekin I;

– the Delegation from the Catholicosate of Cilicia for Armenians (Atelias, Lebanon), representing His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia;

– the Delegation from the Assyrian Church of the East, representing His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos and Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East;

– the Delegation from the Anglican Communion, in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury;

And lastly, the Delegations from:

– the Old Catholic Church  Union of Utrecht;

– the Lutheran World Federation;

– the World Methodist Council;

– the Disciples of Christ;

– the Pentecostal Church;

 the World Council of Churches.

Lastly, I thank the Abbot General, the Abbot and the monastic community of St Paul, who have generously offered us hospitality, arranging everything with the utmost care for the success of our meeting today. I invoke God’s protection and blessing upon each and every one, as I recall that it was in St Paul’s Basilica that John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council. (To Ecumenical Delegations for the opening of the Holy Door in Saint Paul outside the Wall.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II addressed the same delegations at Saint Paul Outside the Walls on January 25, 2001, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle.

Not to be outdone, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, just two months into his false pontificate in 2005, addressed Dr. Samuel Kobia, the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, in the Vatican as he, “Pope Benedict XVI,” praised “spiritual ecumenism,” an apostasy that was the brainchild of Abbe Paul Couturier, who was a direct disciple of the theological and biological evolutionist named Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.:

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:2). With these words of Saint Paul, I gladly welcome you and the members of the delegation from the World Council of Churches. After your installation as General Secretary you had planned to visit my beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II. Though this hope was never realized, I thank you for representing the World Council of Churches at his funeral, and I express my gratitude for the message which you sent to me on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my own ministry as Bishop of Rome.

Relations between the Catholic Church and the World Council developed during the Second Vatican Council, where two observers from Geneva were present at all four sessions. This led in 1965 to the establishment of the Joint Working Group as an instrument of ongoing contact and cooperation, which would keep in mind the common task of unity in answer to the Lord’s own prayer, “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:21). Next November an important consultation on the future of the Joint Working Group will be held to mark the fortieth anniversary of its founding. My hope and prayer is that its purpose and working methodology will be further clarified for the sake of ever more effective ecumenical understanding, cooperation and progress.

In the very first days of my Pontificate I stated that my “primary task is the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers.” This requires, in addition to good intentions, “concrete gestures which enter hearts and stir consciences… inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress” (Missa pro ecclesia, 5).

Pope John Paul II often recalled that the heart of the search for Christian unity is “spiritual ecumenism”. He saw its core in terms of being in Christ: “To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ’s prayer: “Ut unum sint” (Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, 9).

It is my hope that your visit to the Holy See has been fruitful, strengthening the bonds of understanding and friendship between us. The commitment of the Catholic Church to the search for Christian unity is irreversible. I therefore wish to assure you that she is eager to continue cooperation with the World Council of Churches. Again, I offer a special word of encouragement to you, Mr General Secretary, to the members of the Central Committee and to the entire staff, as you work to lead and renew this important ecumenical body. Please know that you are in my prayers and that you have my unfailing goodwill. “May grace and peace be yours in abundance” (2 Pt 1:2). (To the General Secretary and the members of the World Council of Churches, June 16, 2005.)

Following the example of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II before passing the torch of apostasy to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was completely unfazed by the pro-Communist, pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-perversity, pro-feminism, pro-paganism World Council of Churches support for one unbridled evil after another. They were fit “partners” in the “search for unity,” something that the now Antipope Emeritus made clear on January 25, 2008, at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls as he address Samuel Kobia and the delegation from the World Council of Churches that he headed:

I am pleased to greet all of you who are gathered for the Ninth General Assembly of the World Council of Churches being held in Porto Alegre to reflect on the theme: God in your grace, transform the world. In a special way I greet the General Secretary, Dr Samuel Kobia, Archbishop Dadeus Grings, the Bishops of the Catholic Church in Brazil and all those who have worked for the realization of this important event. To all of you I express my heartfelt good wishes in the words of Saint Paul to the Romans: “Grace toyou and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”(Rom 1:7).

Mindful of our shared baptismal faith in the Triune God, the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches seek ways to cooperate ever more effectively in the task of witnessing to God’s divine love. After forty years of fruitful collaboration, we look forward to continuing this journey of hope and promise, as we intensify our endeavours towards reaching that day when Christians are united in proclaiming the Gospel message of salvation to all. As we together make this journey, we must be open to the signs of divine Providence and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for we know that “the holy objective of reconciling all Christians in the unity of the one and the only Church of Christ transcends human powers and gifts” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 24). Our trust therefore is solely in the prayer of Christ himself: “Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (Jn 17: 11).

During this General Assembly thousands of Christians join in this same prayer for unity. As we ask God in his grace to transform the world, we pray that he will bless our ecumenical dialogue with the progress we so ardently desire.

Assuring you of my spiritual closeness and reaffirming the Catholic Church’s intention to continue a solid partnership with the World Council of Churches in its important contribution to the ecumenical movement, I invoke God’s abundant blessings of peace and joy upon all of you. (Benedict XVI’s greetings to Dr. Samuel Kobia .)

“Shared baptismal faith in the Triune God”?

How can Catholics share a “faith” with those who support abortion, divorce, contraception and perversity under cover of the civil law? How can Catholics share a “faith” with those who reject Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, Sacred Tradition, and the indissolubility of Sacred Scripture? How?

“Solid partnership with the World Council of Churches in its important contribution to the ecumenical movement”?

Come on, wake up.

How can the Catholic Church enter into any kind of “partnership” with those who promote sin, the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused His Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow, under cover of the civil law?

“Papal” appointees such as the infamous Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, who has been retired for thirteen years now but still helps to serve as an apologist for Bergoglio's completion of the process of conciliar degeneracy, and his successor as the president of “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Kurt “Cardinal” Koch, have only been doing what their “popes” (Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, Bergoglio/Francis) have wanted done in the field of false ecumenism.

Indeed, it was during the reign of the supposed “pope of Tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in 2010 that Walter Kasper praised the World Council of Churches during an address in England:

So we should ask the same question the crowd asked Peter on the first Pentecost in Jerusalem: What can we do and what should we do?

Before answering this question let me say this: Much has been done in the last hundred years. We can be grateful to the Spirit who guided us, who inspired and who impelled us. We can be grateful for the work of the World Council of Churches, we can be grateful for the Second Vatican Council and all the work which has been done since. With the help of God’s Spirit, we have been able to achieve much more in the last one hundred years than in many hundred years before. There is no reason for disappointment. Today Christians are closer together than ever before. The Spirit helped us to rediscover each other not as enemies, not as strangers or competitors but as Christians, as brothers and sisters in Christ. Today we pray together, we work together, we share daily life and we share it often in mixed confessional families, in our workplaces, in leisure time events and in many other circumstances.

Today at Pentecost we give thanks that the one Spirit was bestowed upon us, on Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants, and that we are all baptised in the one Spirit, but it should be also today a Spirit of tongues of fire, a Spirit which gives us burning hearts for unity. (Kasper’s Remarks.)

Yet it is, of course, that this is not only what Walter “Cardinal” Kasper or his successor, Kurt “Cardinal” Koch, believe. It is what “Saint John Paul the Great” believed. It is what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believed. It is what Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes.

What did Saint Paul have to say about “praying” with those outside of the Catholic Faith. Oh, I am so glad that you bothered to ask. Consider these words of the late Bishop George Hay (1729-1811) of over two hundred years ago now:

St. Paul also exhorts us to “give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son.” (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and “departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils”. (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they “have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts”. (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. “Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light,

. . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness“. (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.

 (3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent”. (Rom. 16:17)

See here whom we are to avoid — “those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine“; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by “pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent” — that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.

 (4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, “having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;” then he immediately gives this command: “Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires”; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, “ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth“; because, as he adds, “they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith”. (2 Tim. 3:5)

 Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, “Now these avoid”, though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others. (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

Who appointed Walter Kasper?

"Pope Saint John Paul the Great.”

Who retained Kasper and appointed Koch?

The “pope of Tradition,” the late Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Who has retained Koch for the past ten years?

The Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The “spirit” has led these apostates to “new” and “more profound” understandings of what they think is Divine Revelation.

Well, you betcha that the “spirit” has led them in such a manner. Unfortunately for them–and for those who follow them–the “spirit” who leads them is none other than the fallen angel whose bidding they do almost all of the time, which is why they can ignore Pope Pius XI’s reiteration of the ban on the mania of “inter-religious prayer” services as stated in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, for which they have have such a total contempt:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.” For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated.” In other words, it is impossible for one to represent the Catholic Church, whether in an official or unofficial capacity, and knowingly contradict her teaching and continue to remain a member in her. Just as pro-aborts such as the late Edward Moore Kennedy expelled themselves from Holy Mother Church by their support of surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law as a “woman’s right to choose” without any formal declaration of excommunication, so is it the case that those who defect from the Faith on one point by means of what they believe–not by what they attempt to “declare” as binding of the Catholic faithful–from the Faith by virtue of having violated the Divine Positive Law. It is that simple. There is no “reconciliation” between Catholicism and conciliarism.

Do not be deceived by those claiming that the “urbane” heretic from Bavaria was a defender of the Catholic Faith and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is its destroyer. Each man devoted his life to the work of doing from within what they thought was the Catholic Church that the likes of Martin and Luther and John Calvin, et al., had begun in the Sixteenth Century.

It is my duty to point out the obvious: that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who maintained his protégé, Christoph Schonborn, as the conciliar archbishop of Vienna despite the multiple times Schonborn permitted sodomite friendly events to take place in Saint Stephen’s Cathedral in Vienna, praised the hideous enemy of Christ the King and His true Church who divided Christendom and set it on a course of auto-demolition with which the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes" have aided and abetted:

As I begin to speak, I would like first of all to say how deeply grateful I am that we are able to come together.  I am particularly grateful to you, my dear brother, Pastor Schneider, for receiving me and for the words with which you have welcomed me here among you.  You have opened your heart and openly expressed a truly shared faith, a longing for unity.  And we are also glad, for I believe that this session, our meetings here, are also being celebrated as the feast of our shared faith.   Moreover, I would like to express my thanks to all of you for your gift in making it possible for us to speak with one another as Christians here, in this historic place.

As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting you here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt.  As we have just heard, this is where Luther studied theology.  This is where he was ordained a priest.  Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine.  And on this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that.  What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey.  “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle.  For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God.

“How do I receive the grace of God?”  The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me.  For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians?  What does the question of God mean in our lives?  In our preaching?  Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues.  He knows that we are all mere flesh.  And insofar as people believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings.  The question no longer troubles us.  But are they really so small, our failings?  Is not the world laid waste through the corruption of the great, but also of the small, who think only of their own advantage?  Is it not laid waste through the power of drugs, which thrives on the one hand on greed and avarice, and on the other hand on the craving for pleasure of those who become addicted?  Is the world not threatened by the growing readiness to use violence, frequently masking itself with claims to religious motivation?  Could hunger and poverty so devastate parts of the world if love for God and godly love of neighbour – of his creatures, of men and women – were more alive in us?  I could go on.  No, evil is no small matter.  Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful.  The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one.  In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.

Another important point: God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe.  This God has a face, and he has spoken to us.  He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man.  Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture.  This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life. (Meeting with representatives of the German Evangelical Church Council in the Chapter Hall of the Augustinian Convent Erfurt, Germany, September 23, 2011.)

Why should we have to encounter Martin Luther with anything other than total rejection?

The cause of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is to be found only in the Catholic Church, nowhere else as Our Lord and His true Church are indivisible. True or false, "Father" Missigbeto? How can you ignore Ratzinger/Benedict’s words while criticizing those of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

To paraphrase from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, what is this strange respect for false religions and errors of all kinds?

Ratzinger/Benedict also addressed a whole assortment of non-Catholic Christians on the same day during an "ecumenical celebration:"

Our fundamental unity comes from the fact that we believe in God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth.  And that we confess that he is the triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  The highest unity is not the solitude of a monad, but rather a unity born of love.  We believe in God – the real God.  We believe that God spoke to us and became one of us.  To bear witness to this living God is our common task at the present time. (Ecumenical Celebration in the church of the Augustinian Convent, Erfurt, Germany, September 23, 2011; see also Modernist At Work, part two.)

How is this consonant with the following words of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943?

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Moreover, Montini/Paul VI, Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Ratzinger/Benedict each gave “joint blessings” with the faux “archbishops” of Canterbury, thereby signifying the legitimacy and validity of Anglican orders in a de facto manner even if was not their intention. Words matter. Actions matter.

How many thousands of English and Irish Martyrs died to avoid giving even the appearance of validating the Anglican sect?

By what stretch of logic does the passage of time confer validity on that which is false?

False ecumenism is evil, and those who have engaged in it have done the devil’s work, not Our Lord’s.

VIII. “Inculturation of the Gospel” Led to the Pachamama Scandal

As to the Pachamama idol, is it possible, "Father" Missigbeto, for you to correctly criticize Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his follow Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries while ignoring the many times that Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict either participated in pagan rituals or esteemed the symbols of false idols with their own hands?

As egregious as Bergoglio’s serial acts of pantheistic idolatry are as direct violations of the First Commandment, they are have become very standard fare in the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s Pantheon of Apostasy and are evocative of the time that Raymond Arroyo of the Eternally Wishful Television Network tried to spin “Pope” John Paul II’s participation in an Aztec ceremony that resulted in the dumping of an urn of ashes upon his head in Mexico City, Mexico, on August 1, 2002, as follows: “You may think that you just witnessed a pagan ceremony, but what you just saw was a rich example of the inculturation of the Gospel.” Wishful thinking could not wipe away a blatant act of apostasy twenty-one years ago, and anyone who can come to the defense of Wojtyla or Benedict’s participation in pagan ceremonies does not understand the binding precepts of the First Commandment as countless millions of Catholics have preferred to be tortured to death rather than even give the appearance of lending credibility to the acts that took place in front of a putative Successor of Saint Peter. (Rather than take up space in the main body of this commentary, I will reprise photographic evidence of like acts of apostasy committed by the conciliar “popes” in the past decades.)

For the moment, however, suffice it to say that the Holy Machabees, who are commemorated on August 1 (the Feast of Saint Peter’s Chains), each year, would do nothing to defile the true religion of their time, Judaism, even when tempted to do so as they knew that they had a solemn obligation to worship the true God, Who never countenances any rivals. Dom Prosper Gueranger commented on the heroic sacrifice of the seven holy brothers while noting also that August contains more feasts than any other month in Holy Mother Church’s liturgical calendar:

The August heavens glitter with the brightest constellations of the sacred cycle. Even in the sixth century, the Council of Tours remarked that this month was filled with filled with the feasts of the saints. My delights are to b with the children of men, says Wisdom: and in the month which echoes with her teachings she seems to have made it her glory to be surrounded with blessed ones, who, walking with her in the midst of the paths of judgment, have in finding her found life and salvation from the Lord. This noble court is presided over by the Queen of all grace, whose triumph consecrates this month and makes it the delight of that Wisdom of the Father, who, once enthroned in Mary, never quitted her. What a wealth of divine favours do the coming days promise to our souls! Never were our Father’s barns so well filled as at this season, when the earthly as well as the heavenly harvests are ripe.

While the Church on earth inaugurates these days by adorning herself with Peter’s chains as with a precious jewel, a constellation of seven stars appears for the third time in the heavens. The seven brothers Machabees preceded the sons of Symphorosa and Felicitas in the bloodstained arena; they followed divine Wisdom even before she had manifested her beauty in the flesh. The sacred cause of which they were the champions, their strength of soul under the tortures, their sublime answers to the executioners were so evidently the type reproduced by the latter martyrs, that the Fathers of the first centuries with one accord claimed for the Christian Church these heroes of the synagogue, who could have gained such courage from no other source than their faith in the Christ to come. For this reason they stand alone of all holy persons of the ancient covenant have found a place on the Christian cycle; all martyrologies and calendars of the East and West attest the universality of their cultus, while its antiquity is such as to rival that of St. Peter’s chains in that same basilica of Eudoxia where their precious relics lie.

At the time when in the hope of a better resurrection they refused under cruel torments to redeem their lives, other heroes of the same blood, inspired by the same faith, flew to arms and delivered their country from a terrible crisis. Several children of Israel, forgetting the traditions of their nation, had wished it to follow the customs of strange peoples; and the Lord, in punishment, had allowed Judea to feel the whole weight of a profane rule to which it had guiltily submitted. But when King Antiochus, taking advantage of the treason of a few and the carelessness of the majority, endeavoured  by his ordinances to blot out the divine law which alone gives power to power over man, Israel, suddenly awakened, met the tyrant with the double opposition of revolt and martyrdom. Judas Macabeus in immortal battles reclaimed for God the land of his inheritance, while by the virtue of their generous confession, the seven brothers also, his rivals in glory, recovered, as the Scripture says, the law out of his hands of the nations, and out of the hands of the king. Soon afterwards, craving mercy under the hand of God, Antiochus died, devoured by worms., just as later on were to die the first and last persecutors of the Christians, Herod Agrippa and Galerius Maximian.

The Holy Ghost, who would Himself had down to posterity the acts of the protomartyr of the New Law, did the same with regard to the passion of Stephen’s glorious predecessors in the ages of expectation. Indeed, it was he who then, as under the law of love, inspired with both words and courage these valiant brothers, and their still more admirable mother, who, seeing her seven sons one after the other suffering the most horrible tortures, utter nothing but burning exhortations to die. Surrounded by their mutilated bodies, she mocked the tyrant who, in false pity, wished her to persuade at least the  youngest to save his life; she bent over the last child of her tender love and said to him: My son, have pity upon me, that bore thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up to this age. I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing and mankind also: so thou shalt not fear this tormentor, but being made a worthy partner with thy brethren, receive death, that in thy mercy I may receive thee again with thy brethren. And the intrepid youth ran in his innocence to the tortures; and the incomparable mother followed her sons. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Time After Pentecost Book IV—Volume 13, pp. 234-236.)

Consider how the Holy Machabees refused to violate the tenets of Judaism, which was the true religion at the time they lived. They were willing to make any and all sacrifices, including their own lives, and to endure all torments rather than even give the appearance of simulating anything approaching respect to a false religion. The Holy Machabees knew that false religions are hideous in the sight of the true God.

Time after time, though, we have been eyewitnesses to an endless parade of men who have claimed to be Successors of Saint Peter or of the Apostles engage in acts of the sort that the Holy Machabees refused to do upon the penalty of torments and death, including Bergoglio’s acts of apostasy in Canada. The apostates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have not only not dared to esteem false idols, to engage in false worship and to give credence to every false religion on the face of the earth and to rank unbelief but to claim that their doing such unspeakable acts of sacrilege and apostasy in the service of what they claim is the Gospel’s call to “dialogue,” a “call” that is nonexistent.

IX. Speaking As One Who Kept His Blinders In Place for Decades

As I have explained many times on this site, many “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics who are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the tragic belief that those structures are the Catholic Church and not its counterfeit ape have been making myths about the two supposedly “conservative” “popes,” Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, since the Polish Phenomenologist stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Monday, October 16, 1978. I know about this as I was one of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s mythmakers between that time until he gave permission for girl altar boys in 1994, which started a twelve-year process of having my eyes opened, if ever so slowly, to the truth that we have had no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9. 1958.

To serve as a fervent apologist for Wojtyla/John Paul II required one to project one’s own Catholic beliefs into the mind of what I came to understand was a “moderate” (Girondist/Menshevik) revolutionary by taking whatever scraps that I could find to convince myself that all evidence of the man’s Modernist bent meant nothing other than “confusion,” not apostasy.

To wit, all of my own former efforts to project Catholicity into the mind and the heart of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II were founded in looking at bits and pieces of the puzzle, refusing to admit that the false "pontiff" expressed most publicly a belief in various condemned propositions (including false ecumenism, the new ecclesiology, inter-religious dialogue, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, praising false religions for the "good+" that they do and how they can contribute to "world peace," etc.). Undeterred by these inconvenient little facts, I sang "the old songs" to defend Wojtyla/John Paul II for far too long. This is how the "old songs" went:

1. It was within a week of his election on October 16, 1978, that John Paul II said that he wanted to see priests back in their clerical garb and women religious back in their habits. He's traditionally-minded, I told people repeatedly.

2. He tried to put catechesis back on the "right track" with the issuance of the post-synodal exhortation Sapientia Christianae

3. He told off the Communists in Poland in June of 1979, saying in a "homily" at an outdoor "Mass" in Victory Square in Warsaw that no one could ever remove Christ as the center of history. See, he's not an appeaser like Paul VI, I said triumphantly.

4. John Paul II whacked the American bishops over the head but good during his first pilgrimage to the United States of America in October of 1979, using some of their own pastoral letters against them, knowing full well that they were not enforcing their own documents. He told Catholic educators assembled at The Catholic University of America on October 7, 1979, and I was one of those educators in attendance that day, that the Church needed her theologians to be "faithful to the magisterium." I gloated as John Paul II said this, staring in the direction of the notorious dissenter named Father Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who was sitting two rows in back of me, dressed in a jacket and tie. It was later that same day that the "pope" denounced abortion as the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America sat in the very front row of chairs on the Capitol Mall during an outdoor "Mass," saying in a most stirring manner, "And when God gives life, it is forever!"

5. Two months thereafter, in December of 1979, Father Hans Kung was declared by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be ineligible to hold a chair in theology at Tubingen University in Germany (all right, all right, "other arrangements" were made to permit Kung to stay). "Let the heads roll," I told my classes at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales that day. "Let the heads of the dissenters roll."

6. John Paul II wanted to correct abuses in the Novus Ordo liturgial abomination, using his Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, going so far as to state:

As I bring these considerations to an end, I woul like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people. 

See, I said proudly, to one and all. He's going to "fix" things, isn't he? The issuance of Inaestimabile Donum two months later, which I would wave in the faces of "disobedient" conciliar priests/presbyters for about a decade before it began to dawn on me that there was going to be no enforcement of "rules" in an ever-changing and ever-changeable liturgical abomination, was "proof," I said at the time, of how the "pope" is "turning things around in right direction. I wasn't the only one. The Angelus, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, commented favorably on some of these things itself in 1980.

7. "Pope" John Paul II personally opened a Perpetual Adoration Chapel in the Piazza Venezia in Rome at the behest of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, also mandating daily periods of Solemn Eucharistic Adoration in each of the four major basilicas in Rome. He used his pilgrimage to South Korea in 1984 to state that he wanted to see Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration established in all of the parishes of the world.

8. Father Charles Curran was finally denied in 1986 the right to teach as a theologian in Catholic institutions and Father Matthew Fox, O.P., was forbidden to teach in Catholic institutions by John Paul II's "defender of the faith," Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, and dismissed from the Order of Preachers in 1992 for his New Age "creation spirituality" beliefs.

9. John Paul II would take various American "bishops" to task during the quinquennial (or ad limina apostolorum) visits, pointedly asking the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann of the Diocese of Rockville Center in 1983 why sixteen of his diocese's parishes did not have regularly scheduled confessions during the recently concluded Easter Triduum. Being dissatisfied with McGann's answer ("Our priests are very busy, Your Holiness"), John Paul said, "Excellency, I was not too buy to hear Confessions in Saint Peter's on Good Friday." McGann got into further trouble later that day in April of 1983 when he was talking at lunch with John Paul and the other New York Province "bishops" about how most young people today do not know their faith and are thus in theological states of error, inculpable for their ignorance. John Paul II put down his soup spoon and said, "I agree with you. You are correct. However, the bishops and priests who are responsible for these young people being in states of error go directly to Hell when they die." McGann turned ashen, reportedly having difficulty eating for three days. "Ah, what a pope we have," I said when learning of this from Roman contacts.

10. Silvio Cardinal Oddi, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, told me personally in his office on the Via della Concilazione on October 10, 1984, the very day that the first "indult" for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was issued, "I want the Mass of Saint Pius V back! The Pope wants the Mass of Saint Pius V back! We will get the Mass of Saint Pius V back!" Cardinal Oddi explained that there was much opposition to what the "pope" wanted to, that he had to move cautiously and with conditions. He made it clear, however, that it was the mind of the "pope" for the "old Mass" to return. 

Such a litany could go on and on and on. Oh, did I mention that I did indeed "sing the old songs" quite literally? Yes, indeed, my friends, I stood with several thousand people outside and across the street from what was then called the Apostolic Delegation (now called the Papal Nunciature) on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., on the evening of Saturday, October 6, 1979, serenading "Pope" John Paul II with endless renditions of "Stolat, stolat, may you live a hundred years!" Get the idea?

Sure, sure, sure I was always "uncomfortable" with ecumenism in particular and the whole ethos of Vatican II in general. John Paul II was going to "fix" things, I convinced myself. No more "Hamlet on the Tiber" as had been experienced under Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI. I simply ignored those things that contradicted my delusional concept of who Karol Wojtyla was and what he believed; that he had been a leading revolutionary at the "Second" Vatican Council and was a thorough-going Modernist in both theological and philosophical terms.

Now, having listed the scraps that I thought, delusionally, meant that a “restoration” was near, intellectual honesty compels me to explain what I had to overlook about Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Modernism, especially as regards false ecumenism and his abject refusal to seek the conversion of anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no truly just social order, noting that everything about the false conciliar religion has been premised upon false ecumenism, which has spawned a cottage industry of "inter-religious" "prayer" services, workshops, conferences, “dialogue” sessions, and heretical “joint agreements.”

One of the first things I chose to ignore in the heady rush of what appeared to be a “firm” Catholic “pope” was Karol Josef Wotyla/Saint John Paul II’s commitment to the false ecumenism that had been initiated by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Blessed Paul VI a central feature of his 9,666 day tenure as the universal public face of apostasy, starting with the address that he gave to the "cardinals" on Tuesday, October 17, 1978:

First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into effect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)

Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II sure found "those things which lie hidden in" the "Second" Vatican Council" as he made manifestly explicit what he believed was "implicit" in his vaunted "Second" Vatican Council, fooling the sappy likes of me by throwing some conciliar fairy dust in our eyes as he talked about getting priests back in their clerical garb and consecrated religious sisters back into their habits and demanding doctrinal orthodoxy from theologians even though he was not doctrinally orthodox and let most of the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries remain in perfectly good standing as sons and daughters of what he claimed was the Catholic Church.

What those of us who were fighting what we thought was the “good fight” of the Catholic Faith at this time did not realize—and what so many within the structures of the false conciliar sect have yet to recognize—is that is as impossible for conciliarism to protect the Sacred Deposit of Faith as it is based upon false principles of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. It cannot do anything but spread error and harm souls.  We are merely witnessing the manifestation of the inherent degeneracy of conciliarism's false premises. 

One need not document all the ways that Wojtyla/John Paul II promoted false ecumenism as it has been done so on this site many times and in countless other places. The man of the Assisi "World Day of Peace" travesties who praised every false religion under the sun, thereby violating the First and Second Commandments repeatedly, institutionalized religious indifferentism to such an extent that even many Catholics within the conciliar structures who run "pro-life" websites and blogs wax glowingly about "other Christians" as though there is any other religion than the true one, the Catholic Faith.


X. Saint Robert Bellarmine on the Nature of the Papacy

As one who had blinders on for far too long, we must pray for men such as Professor Josef Seifert to take seriously the words of the Saint Robert Bellarmine about the nature of the Catholic Faith and the papacy: 

There are some person, dear listeners, who hold almost everything with a firm faith that Catholics hold: but there is one thing or another, which they have not yet been able to accept completely, such as that purgatory exists, that sacred images are to be venerated, that the sovereign Pontiff is the vicar of Christ and the head of the whole Church. And since there are many things that they believe, and only one or two things that they do not believe and consider it is not important if taken together with the other articles, they think they are situated very well on the foundation of Christ. What is the difference, they say, even if I err in that one thing, which I still cannot believe, and at the judgment will the Lord be concerned about that? And will he not be mindful of the many difficult things I believe? Indeed, this is the way in which they flatter themselves; I serious rebuke them and say that they have fallen from grace and have laid their foundation on sand, and will have no part with Christ. Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. I ask you (to clarify the matter with a crass example), when you order a pair of shoes from a shoemaker, if when they are finally made you find they are an inch shorter than your feet, do you not put them on and wear them? Your will say “I cannot wear them” But they are only an inch too short, so why can't you wear them, since they are just a little bit short of the right measurement? As, therefore, your shoes are either the right size for your feet or they have no value at all, so also the faith is either integral, or it is not the faith. Therefore no one should deceive himself. If we want to build a house which cannot be moved by wind or rain, we must lay the foundation of both rocks, that is, on Christ and Peter. (Sermons of St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., Part II: Sermons 30-55, Including the Four Last Things and the Annunciation, translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published in 2017 by Keep the Faith, Inc., Ramsey, New Jersey, pp. 152-154.)  

What is generally not known, at least not in “resist while recognize” circles, is that Saint Robert Bellarmine wrote a stirring defense of popes said to have erred in faith). In other words, Saint Robert Bellarmine knew and taught that there have never been any heretical popes and that a heretic could never be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

This is precisely what so many Catholics, especially a number of younger Catholics who are trying to find some way to avoid being "stigmatized" as one of those "fringe" Catholics called who believe that the whole conciliar enterprise is but a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church and that the men who have claimed to be Successors of Saint Peter have been imposters and charlatans. Some of these younger Catholics are trotting out examples that have nothing to do with the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, which does not extend to the appointment of bishops or other administrative decisions, or have been citing French theologians of a century ago who sought to minimize the reverence and obedience that Catholics are to render to Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ on earth. These understandably confused Catholics (I was an adherent of the false "resist while recognize" belief system from December of 2002 until the end of April 2006) have chosen to cling to the "bad popes" mythology that flies in the face of the refutation by, among others, Saint Robert Bellarmine (see Saint Robert Bellarmine's Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Faith), Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council of all claims that there have been "heretical" popes. Such is an ontological impossibility.

Additionally, a lot of Catholics, including a growing number of "bishops" within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, keep pulling out the old "resist while recognize" chestnut that mispresents Saint Robert Bellarmine's teaching concerning whether it is possible for a council to remove a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. No one of whom I am aware in the "resist while recognize" movement have ever acknowledged that they have omitted, whether intentionally or inadvertently, the totality of Saint Robert Bellarmine's teaching about a pope who should fall into heresy by ignoring his fifth consideration on the matter:

“For although Liberius was not a heretic, nevertheless he was considered one, on account of the peace he made with the Arians, and by that presumption the pontificate could rightly [merito] be taken from him: for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple [simpliciter], and condemn him as a heretic.” 

“The fourth opinion is of Cajetan [322]. There, he teaches, that a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso facto deposed; but can and ought to be deposed by the Church. Now in my judgment, such an opinion cannot be defended. For in the first place, that a manifest heretic would be ipso facto deposed,is proven from authority and reason. The Authority is of St. Paul, who commands Titus [323], that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, an heretic is to be shunned: and he understands this before excommunication and sentence of a judge. Jerome comments on the same place, saying that other sinners, through a judgment of excommunication are excluded from the Church; heretics, however, leave by themselves and are cut from the body of Christ, but a Pope who remains the Pope cannot be shunned. How will we shun our Head? How will we recede from a member to whom we are joined? 

“Now in regard to reason this is indeed very certain. A non-Christian cannot in any way be Pope, as Cajetan affirms in the same book [324], and the reason is because he cannot be the head of that which he is not a member, and he is not a member of the Church who is not a Christian. But a manifest heretic is not a Christian, as St. Cyprian and many other Fathers clearly teach [325]. Therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” 

“Next, the Holy Fathers teach in unison, that not only are heretics outside the Church, but they even lack all Ecclesiastical jurisdiction and dignity ipso facto. Cyprian says: “We say that all heretics and schismatics have not power and right” [327]. He also teaches that heretics returning to the Church must be received as laymen; even if beforehand they were priests or bishops in the Church [328]. Optatus teaches that heretics and schismatics cannot hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven, nor loose or bind [329]. Ambrose and Augustine teach the same, as does St. Jerome who says: “Bishops who were heretics cannot continue to be so; rather let them be constituted such who were received that were not heretics” [330].” 

“Next, even St. Thomas teaches that schismatics immediately loose all jurisdiction; and if they try to do something from jurisdiction, it is useless [331]. Nor does the response which some make avail, that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction, unless excommunicated by name, or if they strike clerics. I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of heresy. Moreover, the Council of Constance does not speak except on the excommunicates, that is, on these who lose jurisdiction through a judgment of the Church. Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication, and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment, as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without excommunication, as Jerome expresses it.” 

Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a “Pope” in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church” [332]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church. The same is the opinion of the learned men of our age, as John Driedo teaches [333], those who are cast out as excommunicates, or leave on their own and oppose the Church are separated from it, namely heretics and schismatics. He adds in the same work [334], that no spiritual power remains in them, who have departed from the Church, over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano teaches the same thing, when he says that heretics are not part of the Church, nor members [335], and he adds in the last Chapter, 12th argument, that someone cannot even be informed in thought, that he should be head and Pope, who is not a member nor a part, and he teaches the same thing in eloquent words, that secret heretics are still in the Church and are parts and members, and that a secretly heretical Pope is still Pope. Others teach the same, whom we cite in Book 1 of de Ecclesia. The foundation of this opinion is that a manifest heretic, is in no way a member of the Church; that is, neither in spirit nor in body, or by internal union nor external. For even wicked Catholics are united and are members, in spirit through faith and in body through the confession of faith, and the participation of the visible Sacraments. Secret heretics are united and are members, but only by an external union: just as on the other hand, good Catechumens are in the Church only by an internal union but not an external one. Manifest heretics by no union, as has been proved.” 

I have no explanation as to why Saint Robert Bellarmine's referring to the fifth opinion as true continues to be ignored, especially since truth alone must guide us, and the truth about that  See of Peter is vacant in the case of heresy was stated clearly eighteen years ago by Mario Francesco "Cardinal" Pompedda:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005.) 

"Cardinal" Pompedda was the conciliar prefect of the Apostolic Signatura from November 15, 1999, to May 27, 2004. However, his knowledge about Catholic teaching concerning a papal vacancy continues to be ignored by those who want to ignore anything and everything that can make a papal vacancy caused by heresy a possibility rooted in Catholic teaching and canon law. 

Indeed, the point that most in the resist while recognize camp fail to grasp, whether willfully or not, is that none of the conciliar “popes” (Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, Archbishop Giovanni Battista, Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, Bishop Karol Josef Wojtyla, Archbishop Albino Luciani, Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, and layman Jorge Mario Bergoglio) were ever elected to the papacy in the first place as none possessed held to the Catholic Faith in its entirety. It seems as though those Catholics who are quite content to live with their blinders firmly in place do not want to remove those blinders for even a nanosecond to discover that the whole conciliar enterprise, replete with its Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship, has been a diabolical enterprise from the very beginning.

As noted in Another Ratzinger Myth is Born: Ratzinger the Catholic Mariologist, we know, of course, the current line of antipopes” have also made war on Our Lady’s Fatima Message as they know it is a rebuke to their own revolution against the Catholic Faith that Saint Robert Bellarmine defended so ably, and it is no accident at all that the Feast of Saint Robert Bellarmine would become forever linked to Our Lady’s first Fatima apparition as it might just be the case that Our Lady, who hates heresies, desired to be linked to a saint of the Catholic counter-reformation who had defended popes said to have defected from the Holy Faith.

What is our excuse for failing to take heed of Our Lady’s Fatima Message as we beg Our Lady for the graces to do so, especially by praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permits.

“It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.”

I am not going to argue with that.

Are you?

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Viva Cristo ReyVivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our deaths.

All to thee, Blessed Mother. All to thy Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we love you. Save souls!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Robert Bellarmine, pray for us.

Saint James the Greater, pray for us.

Saint Christina, pray for us.

Saint Francis Solano, O.F.M., pray for us.

Appendix A

A Very Few Random Photographic Proofs of Antipapal Apostasy

John Paul II being blessed by a Hindu woman
JP II being 'blessed' by a Hindu woman in New Delhi

Upon his arrival to celebrate a Mass at a stadium in New Delhi, India,
a smilling John Paul II receives a "blessing" from a Hindu religious woman.

This is an act to ask protection of the Hindu deities.

(As found at: John Paul II 'blessed' by a Hindu religious woman in New Delhi.)




October 27, 1986

October 27, 1986



October 27, 2011, above.

B014_PrayingAtMosque.jpg - 56425 Bytes

Ratzinger at the Blue Mosque, November 30, 2006

258_KoranRatz.jpg - 77616 Bytes

April 18, 2008, John Paul II Cultural Center, Washington, District of Columbia

Jorge Mario Bergoglio at Hindu temple, January 14, 2016

Appendix B

It is Never Necessary for a Pope to "Convert" to the Catholic Faith

As I have explained so many times before on this website, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is to be reverenced and obeyed by Catholics, not reviled, and disobeyed. A true Successor of Saint Peter is the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth, not a popular elected official to be criticized at will.

Yet it is, however, that millions of “conservative” and traditionally-minded Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and the one hundred thousand or so others who adhere to the outright Gallicanism of the Society of Saint Pius X continue to propagate false doctrines about the papacy that are detrimental to the good of Holy Mother Church and to the good of the souls for whom Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

Not even the following words, which have been quoted frequently on this website, of Pope Saint Pius X seem to make any dent in the thick armor with which so many supposed “experts” encase themselves to prevent them from being “sedevacantists”:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.

This means that those who dissent from “Pope Francis” in the belief that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are not holy or that “Pope Francis” is no pope at all as it would never be necessary to oppose him and to dissent from his false teachings if he were such.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio makes a mockery of all that true, all that is just, all that is holy. He is the epitome of an antipope in every way imaginable, not that his five immediate predecessors in the current line of antipopes were not figures of Antichrist in their own individual ways. Bergoglio does not reverence the position he thinks he holds because he does not reverence the Holy Faith and delights in reaffirming irreverent dissenters such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi while making it a point to use his “papal” authority to punish those within his ranks who try to defend Catholic teaching, have been friendly to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, and denounce moral evils for what they are.

The conciliar “bishop” of Tyler, Texas, Joseph Strickland, has received Jorge’s kiss of death (an “apostolic visitation”) similar that given to the late “Bishop” Rogelio Livieres of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, and the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate. Another conciliar “bishop,” Daniel Fernandez Torres of Arecibo, Puerto Rico, was not even given the courtesy of Jorge’s kiss of death as he was removed for opposing “vaccine” mandates and not being “collegial” with fellow Puerto Rican “bishops.”  

Yes, there have been a few other “bishops” Jorge Mario Bergoglio has removed, including two in Tennessee, Martin Holley, a protégé of Theodore Edgar McCarrick, of Memphis, and Richard Stika, a protégé of the supposedly “conservative” Justin “Cardinal” Rigali, of Knoxville just today, Thursday, June 29, 2023, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, ostensibly because of their role in covering up clergy abuse cases. The cover story, though, is not credible as there are plenty of other cases where “merciful” “bishops” who are allied with Senor Jorge’s Jacobin/Boleshevik agenda have been unmolested by any Vatican “visitation.”

However, it is nevertheless true that “Pope Francis” has been single-minded in going after “bishops” who are ostensibly pro-life, outspoken against Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and other pro-abortion Catholics in public life, and are unstinting in their criticism of the perverted disciples of the sin of Sodom and all its mutations. “Bishop” Strickland, who has criticized the presence of sodomy in the conciliar presbyterate and the militant advance of the homosexual collective in society, including speaking outside of Dodger Stadium, Los Angeles, California, on June 16, 2023, the Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, prior to the blasphemous transvestites and promoter of perversity known as the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” receiving a “community service award” from the Los Angels Dodgers, is one such “bishop” within the conciliar structures.

Strickland, who has popularized a variation of the “resist while recognize” position from within the conciliar hierarchy (see Nota Bene: "Bishop" Joseph Strickland: "Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope" (Pope Saint Pius X)), has been favorably disposed to the presence of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter within the Diocese of Tyler, which, of course, is another black mark against him in the ledger kept by Senor Jorge, who has said nothing about the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence” nor about the boldness of the possessed masses who shouted “We’re queer, we’re here, we’re coming for your children” as they processed down Fifth Avenue by the Cathedral of Saint Patrick in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, on Sunday, June 25, 2023, the Fourth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemorations of Saint William the Abbot and of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist.

Alas, Bergoglio believes himself to be a true pope and sees it as his sees it as his “papal” duty to sternly discipline those who dare to care sin by its proper name and to call sinners to repentance, thereby contradicting the “mercy” and “accompaniment” he wants extended to those steeped in perversity, up to and including those who want to groom children to be surgically and chemically mutilated.

Here is a news story about “Bishop” Strickland’s criticism of a so-called “pride” parade in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, that featured vile and vulgar forms of exhibitionism:

TYLER, Texas (LifeSiteNews) — Bishop Strickland condemned nudity at the recent Canadian “Pride March,” renewing his dedication to protecting his flock from the evil of the world despite potential backlash.  

On June 26, Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, took to Twitter to denounce the Toronto “Pride March” for allowing nude men to parade in front of children.  

“It’s imprudent to speak out against this wonton evil?” he questioned. “I disagree, I believe the imprudence is that there is not a might[y] roar from people of faith saying, ‘These atrocities against our innocent children CANNOT be tolerated.'” 

At the Toronto “Pride March,” which took place this weekend, children were exposed to nude men and performers dressed in grotesquely sexual costumes. One video showed a group of nude men beside a fountain surrounded by young children.   

Allowing parade participants to expose themselves in public has caused many to question why police did not step in to prevent the public displays of indecency. However, the Toronto police failed to respond to LifeSite’s questions as to why the nudity was tolerated.  

Strickland’s condemnation of the event comes in the wake of his recent apostolic visitation from the Vatican. While the reason for the visit is not clear, it is speculated to be in part a response to his outspoken criticism of the Church leadership’s more controversial stances and actions — criticism that some Vatican officials consider “imprudent.” 

Strickland, the bishop of Tyler, Texas, who is well known among LifeSite readers for his outspoken defense of Catholic teaching, received an “apostolic visitation” from the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops conducted by two retired bishops, possibly Bishop Gerald Frederick Kicanus and auxiliary Bishop Dennis Joseph Sullivan, according to a report from Church Militant. Sources say they questioned diocese employees for a week. 

The bishop’s controversial stances include urging Pope Francis to deny Holy Communion to former U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi over her support of legal abortion, accusing the Pope of a “program of undermining the Deposit of Faith,” and condemning pro-homosexual “blasphemy” from heretical Jesuit Father James Martin. 

He has also been forcefully outspoken on moral controversies in U.S. politics and culture, including the Biden administration’s spying on Catholics, public displays by self-described “Satanic” groups, and most recently speaking at a protest of the Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team for hosting an anti-Catholic drag queen troupe called the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence,” which styles themselves as grotesque nuns. 

However, regardless of the potential backlash of his statements online, Strickland’s recent tweet reveals his dedication to protect the flock of Christ regardless of the opinion of the world or danger to himself.  (Bishop Strickland condemns nude men exposing themselves to children at Toronto 'Pride March'. Also see Vatican-ordered investigation targets Bishop Strickland of Tyler, Texas.)

“Bishop” Joseph Strickland is certainly discharging the duties that belong to a Catholic bishop to warn the flock of spiritual and moral dangers, but, lacking the grace of state as either a true priest or a true bishop, he does not understand that conciliarism itself is a fountain-head of spiritual and moral dangers from which believing Catholics must be exhorted to flee once they come to recognize the fact and thus understand that the conciliar church is the counterfeit ape of Holy Mother Church, she who is the inerrant, spotless mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom.

Quite to the contrary of “Bishop” Strickland’s admitted bravery in speaking out on moral issues, however, is the example of his “pope’s” beloved Blase Cupich, who is in close contact with his ally at Casa Santa Marta within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, who has praised the conciliar “bishops” in Germany as “faithful Catholics” for their “approach” to moral issues that Cupich believes need to be “re-evaluated”:

Cardinal Blase Cupich has called the German bishops “good shepherds” who “act in the spirit of the Church” when asked about the heretical Synodal Way.  

In a recent interview with the German Catholic outlet, Cupich was asked about the German Syondal Way and said that he knows “a number of German bishops,” and that he believes they have “only the best intentions.” 

These are good shepherds who do their best to listen to the voice of the faithful, to see their wishes and hopes,” the archbishop of Chicago stated. “I believe, with time, the project [the Synodal Way] will reach a good conclusion. The bishops are faithful to their mission to listen to the people, but also to act in the spirit of the Church. And they are faithful to the Holy Father.” 

When asked about blessings for same-sex relationships, Cupich gave an ambiguous answer. He said that “it is always important to treat people with respect.” 

“We do not want to spread the message that we exclude people or show them no respect,” he continued. “At the same time, we must ask ourselves: What exactly does it mean to bless a union? Is it blessing a friendship, a non-sacramental union? We need to clearly define what we mean by that. I don’t see that clarity in the Church at this point.”  

Cupich did express some mild criticism for the Synodal Way, stressing that “if it indeed a kind of parliamentary process in which democratic votes are paramount, in which votes are counted and arguments are juxtaposed, then that would indeed be difficult to defend from the Catholic perspective.” 

He also spoke out against laypeople preaching homilies because “the proclamation of the Gospel and…the homily at Mass form a unity,” and preaching should therefore be reserved to the priest.  

However, Cupich failed to criticize any of the heretical documents approved by the majority of German bishops regarding the Church’s definitive moral teaching on  homosexuality, women’s “ordinations”, and transgender ideology.  

Ironically, Cupich invoked Sacred Tradition, stating that “we must also listen to the voice of Catholic tradition.” 

“The Christian author G.K. Chesterton once said: Tradition is the democracy of the dead,” he continued. “We must listen to the voice of the people in our time, but we must also take seriously the voice of the people who lived before us.” 

Cupich famously put heavy restrictions on the Traditional Latin Mass in his diocese and banned the Institute of Christ the King from saying public Masses and hearing confessions in Chicago. 

In the interview with Cupich expressed his faith in Pope Francis and the heterodox Synod on Synodality

“I have great hopes for the synodal process of the universal Church,” the American bishop said. 

“We need to find ways to overcome the rifts between us that polarization in the world and the Church have torn open.” 

Cupich stressed that he has “faith in Pope Francis.”  

“The problem lies with the voices that contradict the Holy Father,” he claimed. “We must always remember that the Successor of Peter assures the unity of the Church, but also the viability of the community. Whoever opposes it runs the risk of causing a schism in the Church. This is also not faithful to the will of the Holy Spirit, represented by the voice of the Pope.” 

“For me, this pontificate is truly historic,” Cupich said. “History will look upon this time as a turning point in Church history, just as it did with Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council.” 

“I have great confidence in the course the Holy Father has taken. I know that there are critical voices, but they are few. They are loud, but they are not many,” he claimed. (Cdl. Cupich calls German bishops 'good shepherds' who 'act in the spirit of the Church'.)

There is no need to listen to the “voice of the people.” As noted last year in Jean-Claude Hollerich Wants to Listen to "The People," The Catholic Church Speaks for God, Catholics must always be faithful to the immutable teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping. The “voice of the people” has no role to play in Catholic teaching. Holy Mother Church does not conform her teaching to the immoral way in which many people live; each person on the face of this earth must conform his life to God’s holy laws, both Divine and Natural, and submit themselves with docility to all that Holy Mother Church has received from Him. Period.

Men such as Blase Cupich, John Stowe, Joseph Tobin, Wilton Gregory and almost the entirety of the conciliar hierarchy within the Federal Republic of Germany will always be aided and abetted by their “pope.” Men such as Joseph Strickland, however, are considered to be “divisive” because of their “imprudence” and “insensitivity” to the “voice of the people.”

Alas, the fact that “Bishop” Strickland feels compelled to take issue with the man he accepts as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter should give him pause to reflect on the very nature of the papacy and the obedience and reverence due a true pope as summarized as by Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., in On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General:

In a work, which owes its authorship to Moehler, and bears the title “Athanasius the Great, and the Church” of his we find the following pertinent reflection: “As the Pope succeeds to the authority of Peter, and thus becomes the head, with which all the members form an organic whole, the several Churches should be guided, in matters of faith, by his controlling care. When the Arian heresy devastated the fairest fields of the Church, and, with the malignity inspired by hatred, aimed its missiles, in a special manner, against Athanasius, all the Catholics, no less than this noble champion of the truth, instinctively looked toward the Holy See for support. Thence resulted a marvelous union of forces. Those who advocated the divinity of the invisible head, appealed to the visible head, and, when assured of his favor and countenance, they cheerfully returned to their homes to offer the remainder of their lives as a holocaust on the altar of the faith. Thus the history of Athanasius is like an epitome of the history of the Primacy, at that epoch. The record of his fortunes and his devotion is not a mere episode, a bare recital of isolated facts, but an abridgment of the most momentous events, which are felt, in their effects, by the remotest posterity.” (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number One:

This passage alone speaks volumes about the necessity of accepting a true  and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter as the infallibly authoritative teacher of the Catholic Faith and the need to make sacrifices for the Faith, a concept that is reject as “foolish” by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter as he hath not the Catholic Faith, which, as Saint Robert Bellarmine taught, is either had in its entirety, or it is not held at all.”

Returning now to the text of Father Weninger’s book:

The thought so happily expressed by this learned author, is well exemplified in our own times, when again the eyes of all Catholics instinctively look upon Pius IX, who, by his energy, is daily strengthening the bonds of Catholic unity.

In a letter of St. Basil's (f378), forwarded by the Deacon Sabinus to Pope St. Damasus, we read the following: “To your Holiness it is given to distinguish the adulterated and spurious from the pure and orthodox, and to teach, without alteration, the faith of our forefathers.” The holy Doctor then subjoins: “We pray and conjure your Holiness to send letters and legates to your children in the Orient, that we may be confirmed in the faith, if we have followed the path of truth, or be reproved, if we have gone astray. There is no one but your Holiness, to whom we can turn for help.”  Pietati tuce donatum est a Domino , scilicet ut, quod adulterinum est, a legitimo et puro discernas et Jidem patrum sine ulla subtractione prcedices. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number Two:

A true pope is able to distinguish “the adulterated and spurious from the pure and orthodox, and teach, without alteration, the faith of our forefathers.”

Is this what the conciliar “popes” have done?

Of course not, and this is proof alone that these men have been antipopes of the highest order.

All right?

Back to Father Weninger:

Optatus, the learned and well-known Bishop of Melevi (f390), is the author of a book, entitled “Contra Parmenianum,” in which he invokes, against some erratic spirits of his day, the authority of the Roman See, established by St. Peter. “Thou knowest,” remarks he, “and thou darest not deny, that at Rome, Peter established the Episcopal Chair, which he was the first to occupy, thus securing to all the blessings of perfect unity.” “In qua una Cathedra Uni ab omnibus servaretur.”

The Donatists themselves, conscious of the prevailing belief, which regarded Rome as the infallible teacher of Christian nations, seeking to give to their errors the semblance of orthodoxy, maintained, at the center of the Christian world, a bishop of their own choosing, to make the faithful of Africa believe that Rome tolerated their errors, and remained in communion with them.

The views, entertained by St. Ambrose (f 397), on the prerogative of the Roman See, are manifest, as well from his verbal declarations, as from his personal relations with the Sovereign Pontiff. In a letter, which he, in concert with other Bishops, addressed to Pope Siricius, the saintly Prelate gives utterance to the following sentiment: “In the pastorals of your Holiness, we recognize the care of the shepherd, who watches the entrance of the sheep-fold; who protects from harm the flock intrusted to him by our Lord; who, in fine, deserves to be followed and obeyed by all. As you well know the tender lambkins of the Lord, you keep guard against the wolves, and like a vigilant shepherd, prevent them from dispersing the fold.” “Dignus, quern oven Domini audiant et sequantur; et ideo, quia nosti oviculas Christi, lupos deprehendis et occurris quasi providus pastor, ne inti morsibus perjidia ma feralique ululatu dominicum ovile dispergant. But the unity of the fold, here referred to, demands above all unity of faith. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number Three:

Seriously, my friends, does anyone who has an ounce of rationality believe that the conciliar “popes” have guarded the “tender lambkins of” Our Lord safe “against the wolves,” or have they not been wolves themselves who have raised wolves of their own repulsive skins to blaspheme Our Lord and Our Lady and to disparage as “foolish” the teachings of the true Church?

We now to return to Father Francis Weninger on Papal Infalliblity:

In compliance with an ordinance from the Pope, the holy Doctor forbade the troublesome Jovinians the Episcopal city of Milan.

In a funeral oration on his brother Satyrus, he eulogized the zeal of the deceased in the cause of the Roman Church, and alluded, with undisguised satisfaction, to his custom of inquiring from all, whom he chanced to meet, whether they were in communion with the See of Peter. If Satyrus discovered that they had failed in this respect, he rebuked them, because he considered that thereby they had cut themselves loose from the communion of the whole Church.

In his forty-seventh sermon, the Saint advanced the principle: “Where Peter is, there is the Church.” “Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia.” If this axiom is once admitted, it is plain that Peter and his successors, when acting as vicars of Christ, can never err in doctrinal decisions. If they could, the Church herself would be in error. But this supposition destroys the very idea of the church. Therefore, according to St. Ambrose, Peter and his successors can never lapse into error. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number Four:

It has been the conciliar “popes” themselves, as part of a synthetic religion that claims to be but is not the Catholic Church, who have severed themselves from communion with the See of Peter as where the conciliar “popes” have been and continue to be, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter is not to be found.

The conciliar “popes” have taught error, but a true pope “can never err in doctrinal decisions,” an ontological impossibility that would make liar out of Our Lord Himself, Who promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against His Holy Church, the Catholic Church, the one and only true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

We return to Father Weninger once again:

A passage in the eleventh sermon of the Holy Bishop bears upon the same point: “Peter is the immovable basis, which supports the entire superstructure of Christianity.” “Petrus, saxum immobile, totius operis Christiani compagem molemque continet.” The Church of Rome, he exclaims, may have sometimes been tempted, but it has never been altered. “Aliquan dotentata, mutata nunquam.” . . . .

In his treatise against Ruffinus, he bursts forth into this brief profession of faith: The Roman Church can not countenance error, though an angel should come to teach it.” (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Interjection Number Five:

The Catholic Church is the spotless, virginal mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom. It is impossible for her to teach error and it impossible for a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to lead her into error, a truth that has been repeated throughout the course of her history:

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

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthfulIn these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promotingnovelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

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

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

There can be no doubt in anything pertaining to the Catholic Faith as Pope Pius XI has assured us that the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church 'was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Indeed, Pope Pius XI also reminded us that the Catholic Church enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

No, I am not yet through with quoting from Father Weninger’s book on Papal Infallibility:

In his 157th letter he remarks: “The Catholic faith derives so much strength and support from the words of the Apostolic See, that it is criminal to entertain any doubts concerning it.” “In verbis sedis Apostolicce tarn antiqua aique fundala, certa et clara est Catholica jides, ut nefas sit de ilia dubitare.” (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council, Third Edition. New York: Sadlier and Company, 1890; Cincinnati, Ohio: John P. Walsh, 1890.)

Final Interjection:

Yes, it is completely criminal to entertain any doubts concerning the teaching of the Apostolic See.

Why does anyone persist in the mistaken Gallicanist belief that one can do so?

Anyone who believes that is necessary to “correct” a true pope, should not only reflect upon rhe truths summarized by Father Francis X. Weninger but on Dom Prosper Gueranger’s reflection for this feast day, the Solemnity of Saint Peter, in The Liturgical Year:

Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Behold the hour when the answer which the Son of Man, exacted of the Fisher of Galilee, re-echoes from the seven hills and fills the whole earth. Peter no longer dreads the triple interrogation of his Lord. Since that fatal night wherein before the first cock-crow, the Prince of the apostles had betimes denied his Master, tears have not ceased to furrow the cheeks of this same Vicar of the Man-God; lo! the day when, at last, his tears shall be dried! From that gibbet whereunto, at his own request, the humble disciple has been nailed head downwards, his bounding heart repeats, now at last without fear, the protestation which ever since the scene enacted on the brink of Lake Tiberias, has been silently wearing his life away: Yea, Lord; Thou knowest that I love Thee!

Sacred Day, on which the oblation of the first of Pontiffs assures to the West the rights of Supreme Priesthood! Day of triumph, in which the effusion of a generous life-blood wins for God the conquest of the Roman soil; in which upon the cross of his representative, the Divine Spouse concludes his eternal alliance with the Queen of nations.

This tribute of death was all unknown to Levi; this dower of blood was never exacted of Aaron by Jehovah: for who is it that would die for a slave?—the Synagogue was no Bride! Love is the sign which distinguishes this age of the new dispensation from the law of servitude. Powerless, sunk in cringing fear, the Jewish priest could but sprinkle with the blood of victims substituted for himself, the horns of the figurative altar. At once both Priest and Victim, Jesus expects more of those whom he calls to a participation of the sacred prerogative which makes him pontiff, and that for ever according to the order of Melchisedech. I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth, thus saith he to these men whom he has just raised above angels, at the last Supper: but I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you. As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love.

Now, in the case of a Priest admitted thus into partnership with the Eternal Pontiff, love is not complete, save when it extends itself to the whole of mankind ransomed by the great Sacrifice. And, mark it well: this entails upon him, more than the obligation common to all Christians, of loving one another as fellow members of one Head; for, by his Priesthood, he forms part of that Head, and by this very title, charity should assume, in him, something in depth and character of the love which this divine Head bears towards his members. But more than this: what, if to the power he possesses of immolating Christ, to the duty incumbent on him of the joint offering of himself likewise, in the secret of the Mysteries,—the plenitude of the Pontificate be added, imposing the public mission of giving to the Church that support she needs, that fecundity which the heavenly Spouse exacts of her? Oh! then it is, that (according to the doctrine expressed from the earliest ages by the Popes, the Councils, and the Fathers) the Holy Ghost adapts him to his sublime role by fully identifying his love with that of the Spouse, whose obligations he fulfils, whose rights he exercises. But then, likewise, according to the same teaching of universal tradition, there stands before him the precept of the Apostle; yea, from throne to throne of all the Bishops, whether of East or West, the Angels of the Churches pass on the word: Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.

Such is the divine reality of these mysterious nuptials, that every age of sacred history has blasted with the name of adultery the irregular abandoning of the Church first espoused. So much is there exacted by such a sublime union, that none may be called thereunto who is not already abiding steadfast on the lofty summit of perfection; for a Bishop must ever hold himself ready to justify in his own person that supreme degree of charity of which Our Lord saith: Greater love than this no man hath, that he lay down his life for his friends. Nor does the difference between the hireling and the true Shepherd end there; this readiness of the Pontiff to defend unto death the Church confided to him, to wash away even in his own blood every stain that disfigures the beauty of this Bride, is itself the guarantee of that contract whereby he is wedded to this chosen one of the Son of God, and it is the just price of those purest joys reserved unto him: These things have I spoken to you, saith Our Lord when instituting the Testament of the New Alliance, that My joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled.

If such should be the privileges and obligations of the bishop of each Church, how much more so in the case of the universal Pastor! When regenerated man was confided to Simon, son of John, by the Incarnate God, His chief care was, in the first place, to make sure that he would indeed be the Vicar of His love; that, having received more than the rest, he would love more than all of them; that being the inheritor of the love of Jesus for His own who were in the world, he would love, as He had done, even to the end. For this very reason, the establishing of Peter upon the summit of the hierarchy coincides in the Gospel narrative with the announcement of his martyrdom; Pontiff-king, he must needs follow even unto the cross, his Supreme Hierarch.

The Feasts of his two Chairs, that of Antioch and that of Rome, have recalled to our minds the Sovereignty whereby he presides over the government of the whole world, and the Infallibility of the doctrine which he distributes as food to the whole flock; but these two feasts, and the Primacy to which they bear witness on the sacred cycle, call for that completion and further sanction afforded by the teachings included in today’s festival. Just as the power received by the Man-God from his Father and the full communication made by him of this same power to the visible Head of his Church, had but for end the consummation of glory, the one object of the Thrice-Holy God in the whole of his work; so likewise, all jurisdiction, all teaching, all ministry here below, says Saint Paul, has for end the consummation of the Saints, which is but one with the consummation of this sovereign glory; now, the sanctity of the creature, and the glory of God, Creator and Savior, taken together, find their full expression only in the Sacrifice which embraces both Shepherd and flock in one same holocaust.

It was for this final end of all pontificate, of all hierarchy, that Peter, from the day of Jesus’s Ascension, traversed the earth. At Joppa, when he was but opening the career of his apostolic labors, a mysterious hunger seized him: Arise, Peter; kill and eat, said the Spirit; and at that same hour, in symbolic vision were presented before his gaze all the animals of earth and all the birds of heaven. This was the gentile world which he must join to the remnant of Israel, on the divine banquet-board. Vicar of the Word, he must share His vast hunger; his preaching, like a two-edged sword, will strike down whole nations before him; his charity, like a devouring fire, will assimilate to itself the peoples; realizing his title of Head, the day will come when as true Head of the world, he will have formed (from all mankind, become now a prey to his avidity) the Body of Christ in his own person. Then like a new Isaac, or rather, a very Christ, he will behold rising before him the mountain where the Lord seeth, awaiting the oblation.

Let us also “look and see;” for this future has become the present, and even as on the great Friday, so now, we already know how the drama is to end. A final scene all bliss, all triumph: for herein deicide mingles not its wailing note to that of earth’s homage, and the perfume of sacrifice which the earth is exhaling, does but fill the heavens with sweet gladsomeness. Divinized by virtue of the adorable Victim of Calvary, it might indeed be said, this day, that earth is able now to stand alone. Simple son of Adam as he is by nature, and yet nevertheless true Sovereign Pontiff, Peter advances bearing the world: his own sacrifice is about to complete that of the Man-God, with whose dignity he is invested; inseparable as she is from her visible Head, the Church likewise invests him with her own glory. Far from her now the horrors of that mid-day darkness, which shrouded her tears when, for the first time, the cross was up-reared. She is all song; and her inspired lyric (Hymn at Vespers) celebrates “the beauteous Light Eternal that floods with sacred fires this day which openeth out unto the guilty a free path to heaven.” What more could she say of the Sacrifice of Jesus Himself? But this is because by the power of this other cross which is rising up, Babylon becomes today the Holy City. The while Sion sits accurses for having once crucified her Savior, vain is it, on the contrary, for Rome to reject the Man-God, to pour out the blood of his Martyrs like water in her streets. No crime of Rome’s is able to prevail against the great fact fixed forever at this hour: the cross of Peter has transferred to her all the rights of the cross of Jesus; leaving to the Jews the curse, she now becomes the true Jerusalem.

Such being then the meaning of this day, it is not surprising that Eternal Wisdom should have willed to enhance it still further, by joining the sacrifice of Paul to that of Peter. More than any other, Paul advanced by his preachings the building up of the body of Christ. If on this day, holy Church has attained such full development as to be able to offer herself, in the person of her visible Head, as a sweet smelling sacrifice, who better than Paul may deservedly perfect the oblation, furnishing from his own veins the sacred libation? The Bride having attained fulness of age, his own work is likewise ended. Inseparable from Peter in his labors by faith and love, he will accompany him also in death; both quit this earth, leaving her to the gladness of the divine nuptials sealed in their blood, whilst they ascend together to that eternal abode wherein that union is consummated. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29.)

We must have the same love and reverence for the papacy as the first Catholics had for Saint Peter himself.

A true pope is the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and Dom Prosper Gueranger reminded us in his reflection on the Feast of Pope Saint Clement I, November 23, that to oppose the Vicar of Christ is to oppose God Himself:

t was considered at the time so beautiful and so apostolic, that it was long read in many churches as a sort of continuation of the canonical Scriptures. Its tone is dignified but paternal, according to St. Peter's advice to pastors. There is nothing in it of a domineering spirit; but the grave and solemn language bespeaks the universal pastor, whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself. These words so solemn and so firm wrought the desired effect: peace was re-established in the church of Corinth, and the messengers of the Roman Pontiff soon brought back the happy news. A century later, St. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, expressed to Pope St. Soter the gratitude still felt by his flock towards Clement for the service he had rendered. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Pope Saint Clement I, November 23.)

There are some very interesting lessons to be learn from this passage in Dom Prosper Gueranger's The Liturgical Year.

First, there is a reminder of the monarchical power of the Roman Pontiff.

Who gave away the symbol of that monarchical power?

Wasn't it Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonoi Maria/Paul VI?

Who refused to be crowned with the Papal Tiara?

Wasn't it Albino Luciani/John Paul I, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Who took the Papal Tiara off his coat of arms?

Wasn't it Ratzinger/Benedict XVI?

Yes, conciliarism wants nothing to do with papal monarchical power, having embraced the heretical novelty of episcopal collegiality. Pope Saint Clement I knew otherwise. Deo gratias!

Second, the lie of episcopal collegiality is disproved by the fact that the Catholics in Corinth looked to Rome, that is, to the Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Clement, and not to the beloved evangelist, Saint John, who had taken care of Our Lady until she died and was assumed body and soul into Heaven. The Catholics of Corinth knew that it was not their "local churches" but Rome that was the seat of the Holy Faith. Deo gratias!

Third, Dom Prosper reminds us that the authority of the Vicar of Christ is absolute, that the pope is one "whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself." Indeed. Although I was late to have my own eyes opened to the ramifications of this truth, suffice it to say that a legitimate pontiff commands our obedience in all things that do not pertain to sin, in all things that pertain to faith and morals. No one can oppose a legitimate pontiff without opposing Our Lord Himself. And no legitimate pontiff can give us bad doctrine or defective worship. He cannot express in his capacity as a private theologian things contrary to the defined teaching of the Catholic Church.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s elegy of praise for Saint Peter reminds us that none of what has emanated from the Vatican in its conciliar captivity can be laid at the feet of Holy Mother Church, she who without stain or spot of any kind, she who makes no terms with error, she who is stable in the midst of a world made unstable by Original Sin and made more unstable by our Actual Sins:

Peter, on thee must we build; for fain are we to be dwellers in the Holy City. We will follow our Lord’s counsel, (Matthew 7:24-27) by raising our structure upon the rock, so that it may resist the storm, and may become an eternal abode. Our gratitude to thee, who hast vouchsafed to uphold us, is all the greater, since this our senseless age, pretends to construct a new social edifice, which it would fix on the shifting sands of public opinion, and hence realizes naught save downfall and ruin! Is the stone rejected by our modern architects any the less, head of the corner? And does not its strength appear in the fact (as it is written) that having rejected and cast it aside, they stumble against it and are hurt, yea broken? (1 Peter 2:6, 8)

Standing erect, amid these ruins, firm upon the foundation, the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, as we have all the more right to extol this day, on which the Lord hath, as our Psalm says established the earth. (Psalms 92:1) The Lord did indeed manifest his greatness, when he cast the vast orbs into space, and poised them by laws so marvelous, that the mere discovery thereof does honour to science ; but his reign, his beauty, his power, are far more stupendous when he lays the basis prepared by him to support that temple of which a myriad worlds scarce deserve to be called the pavement. Of this immortal day, did Eternal Wisdom sing, when divinely foretasting its pure delights, and preluding our gladness, he thus led on our happy chorus: “When the mountains with their huge bulk were being established, and when the earth was being balanced on its poles, when he established the sky above, and poised the fountains of waters, when he laid the foundations of the earth, I was with him, forming all things; and was delighted every day playing before him at all times; playing in the world, for my delights are to be with the children of men.” (Proverbs 8)

Now that Eternal Wisdom is raising up, on thee, O Peter, the House of her mysterious delights, (Proverbs 9) where else could we possibly find Her, or be inebriated with her chalice, or advance in her love? Now that Jesus hath returned to heaven, and given us thee to hold his place, is it not henceforth from thee, that we have the words of Eternal Life? (John 6:69) In thee, is continued the mystery of the Word made Flesh and dwelling amongst us. Hence, if our religion, our love of the Emmanuel hold not on to thee, they are incomplete. Thou thyself, also, having joined the Son of Man at the Right Hand of the Father, the cultus paid unto thee, on account of thy divine prerogatives, reaches the Pontiff, thy Successor, in whom thou continuest to live, by reason of these very prerogatives: a real cultus, extending unto Christ in his Vicar, and which consequently cannot possibly be fitted into a subtle distinction between the See of Peter, and him who occupies it. In the Roman Pontiff, thou art ever, Peter, the one sole Shepherd and support of the world. If our Lord hath said: No one cometh to the Father but by Me; we also know that none can reach the Lord, save by thee. How could the Bights of the Son of God, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, suffer in such homages as these paid by a grateful earth unto thee? No we cannot celebrate thy greatness, without at once, turning our thoughts to Him, likewise, whose sensible sign thou art, an august Sacrament, as it were. Thou seemest to say to us, as heretofore unto our fathers by the inscription on thine ancient statue: Contemplate the God Word, the Stone divinely CUT IN THE GOLD, UPON WHICH BEING FIRMLY FIXED I CANNOT BE SHAKEN! (Deum Verbum intumini, auro divinitus sculptam petram, in qua stabilitus non concutior.- Dom Mabillion, Vetera analecta, t. iv) (Dom Prosper Gueranger. O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29.)

We must recapture a true reverence for the papacy as we pray every day for the restoration of a true and legitimate Successor on the Throne of Saint Peter, which I believe will not occur until after chastisements of epic proportions that will bring even believing Catholics to their knees once their bread and circuses have been taken away so that they can find their all in the God Who created them, redeemed them, and Who sanctifies them.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio makes a mockery of all that true, all that is just, all that is holy. He is the epitome of an antipope in every way imaginable, not that his five immediate predecessors in the current line of antipopes were not figures of Antichrist in their own individual ways. Bergoglio does not reverence the position he thinks he holds because he does not reverence the Holy Faith and delights in reaffirming irreverent dissenters such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi.

Do not be concerned about who sees the truth about the state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal. Family members may not see the truth. Former friends and acquaintances may not see the truth. We cannot ask why such people insist that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church when it is in fact Antichrist’s Church of Lies and Sin. We must simply be grateful to Our Lady for sending us the graces that we need to see the true state of the Church Militant. We must beseech her daily, especially through Most Holy Rosary, entrusting all the crosses of the present moment as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, which will triumph in the end.

Seeing the truth does not make us one whit better than anyone else who does not. It is more than possible to see the truth and to lose one’s soul by being arrogantly self-righteous about having done so. We must be meek and humble of heart if we seek to take refuge in the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

We must rely upon Our Lady to help us to be ready for the call from her Divine Son whenever it comes, and we must rely upon the graces she sends to us to persevere in the truth no matter what it may cost us in human terms as we continue to pray for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and an end to the nefarious religious sect that dares to call itself the Catholic Church.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Vivat Regina Mariae Immaculate!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for  us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us. 

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us. 

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

Appendix C

The Apostasies of Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State

Here is just a partial listing of how Catholic teaching was expressed by our true popes as those revolutionary attacks upon Our Lord’s Social Reign and His true Church become more and more manifest that the teaching of the following popes, including Popes Pius VII and St. Pius X, both of whom wrote specifically about religious liberty and separation of Church in France, were wrong and had thus misled the faithful:

The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.

For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814.)

Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that "there is one God, one faith, one baptism" may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that "those who are not with Christ are against Him," and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore "without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate." Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: "He who is for the See of Peter is for me." A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: "The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?" (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832; so much for the "community of believers".) 


Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.


But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

But, although we have not omitted often to proscribe and reprobate the chief errors of this kind, yet the cause of the Catholic Church, and the salvation of souls entrusted to us by God, and the welfare of human society itself, altogether demand that we again stir up your pastoral solicitude to exterminate other evil opinions, which spring forth from the said errors as from a fountain. Which false and perverse opinions are on that ground the more to be detested, because they chiefly tend to this, that that salutary influence be impeded and (even) removed, which the Catholic Church, according to the institution and command of her Divine Author, should freely exercise even to the end of the world -- not only over private individuals, but over nations, peoples, and their sovereign princes; and (tend also) to take away that mutual fellowship and concord of counsels between Church and State which has ever proved itself propitious and salutary, both for religious and civil interests.

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852. (Condemned Proposition in The Syllabus of Errors, 1864.)

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

Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate. . . . To exclude the Church, founded by God Himself, from the business of life, from the making of laws, from the education of youth, from domestic society is a grave and fatal error(Pope Leo XII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

There are others, somewhat more moderate though not more consistent, who affirm that the morality of individuals is to be guided by the divine law, but not the morality of the State, for that in public affairs the commands of God may be passed over, and may be entirely disregarded in the framing of laws. Hence follows the fatal theory of the need of separation between Church and State. But the absurdity of such a position is manifest. Nature herself proclaims the necessity of the State providing means and opportunities whereby the community may be enabled to live properly, that is to say, according to the laws of God. For, since God is the source of all goodness and justice, it is absolutely ridiculous that the State should pay no attention to these laws or render them abortive by contrary enactments. Besides, those who are in authority owe it to the commonwealth not only to provide for its external well-being and the conveniences of life, but still more to consult the welfare of men's souls in the wisdom of their legislation. But, for the increase of such benefits, nothing more suitable can be conceived than the laws which have God for their author; and, therefore, they who in their government of the State take no account of these laws abuse political power by causing it to deviate from its proper end and from what nature itself prescribes. And, what is still more important, and what We have more than once pointed out, although the civil authority has not the same proximate end as the spiritual, nor proceeds on the same lines, nevertheless in the exercise of their separate powers they must occasionally meet. For their subjects are the same, and not infrequently they deal with the same objects, though in different ways. Whenever this occurs, since a state of conflict is absurd and manifestly repugnant to the most wise ordinance of God, there must necessarily exist some order or mode of procedure to remove the occasions of difference and contention, and to secure harmony in all things. This harmony has been not inaptly compared to that which exists between the body and the soul for the well-being of both one and the other, the separation of which brings irremediable harm to the body, since it extinguishes its very life  (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas, June 20, 1888.)

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

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

Just as Christianity cannot penetrate into the soul without making it better, so it cannot enter into public life without establishing order. With the idea of a God Who governs all, Who is infinitely wise, good, and just, the idea of duty seizes upon the consciences of men.  It assuages sorrow, it calms hatred, it engenders heroes. If it has transformed pagan society--and that transformation was a veritable resurrection--for barbarism disappeared in proportion as Christianity extended its sway, so, after the terrible shocks which unbelief has given to the world in our days, it will be able to put that world again on the true road, and bring back to order the states and peoples of modern times. But the return of Christianity will not be efficacious and complete if it does not restore the world to a sincere love of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption.  It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, it makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which It has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. Legitimate dispenser of the teachings of the Gospel It does not reveal itself only as the consoler and Redeemer of souls, but It is still more the internal source of justice and charity, and the propagator as well as the guardian of true liberty, and of that equality which alone is possible here below. In applying the doctrine of its Divine Founder, It maintains a wise equilibrium and marks the true limits between the rights and privileges of society. The equality which it proclaims does not destroy the distinction between the different social classes  It keeps them intact, as nature itself demands, in order to oppose the anarchy of reason emancipated from Faith, and abandoned to its own devices. The liberty which it gives in no wise conflicts with the rights of truth, because those rights are superior to the demands of liberty.  Not does it infringe upon the rights of justice, because those rights are superior to the claims of mere numbers or power. Nor does it assail the rights of God because they are superior to the rights of humanity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error." (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

But it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Besides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world., with which she must necessarily have dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, that, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us. The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophers and historians. The state must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Let the Princes and Rulers of peoples remember this truth, and let them consider whether it is a prudent and safe idea for governments or for states to separate themselves from the holy religion of Jesus Christ, from which their authority receives such strength and support. Let them consider again and again, whether it is a measure of political wisdom to seek to divorce the teaching of the Gospel and of the Church from the ruling of a country and from the public education of the young. Sad experience proves that human authority fails where religion is set aside. The fate of our first parent after the Fall is wont to come also upon nations. As in his case, no sooner had his will turned from God than his unchained passions rejected the sway of the will; so, too, when the rulers of nations despise divine authority, in their turn the people are wont to despise their human authority. There remains, of course, the expedient of using force to repress popular risings; but what is the result? Force can repress the body, but it cannot repress the souls of men. (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers. On the other hand, any reformatory zeal, which instead of springing from personal purity, flashes out of passion, has produced unrest instead of light, destruction instead of construction, and more than once set up evils worse than those it was out to remedy. No doubt "the Spirit breatheth where he will" (John iii. 8): "of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs" (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world.

In your country, Venerable Brethren, voices are swelling into a chorus urging people to leave the Church, and among the leaders there is more than one whose official position is intended to create the impression that this infidelity to Christ the King constitutes a signal and meritorious act of loyalty to the modern State. Secret and open measures of intimidation, the threat of economic and civic disabilities, bear on the loyalty of certain classes of Catholic functionaries, a pressure which violates every human right and dignity. Our wholehearted paternal sympathy goes out to those who must pay so dearly for their loyalty to Christ and the Church; but directly the highest interests are at stake, with the alternative of spiritual loss, there is but one alternative left, that of heroism. If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: "Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve" (Matt. iv. 10). And turning to the Church, he shall say: "Thou, my mother since my infancy, the solace of my life and advocate at my death, may my tongue cleave to my palate if, yielding to worldly promises or threats, I betray the vows of my baptism." As to those who imagine that they can reconcile exterior infidelity to one and the same Church, let them hear Our Lord's warning: -- "He that shall deny me before men shall be denied before the angels of God" (Luke xii. 9).(Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.) 

This is, of course, just a partial listing of the constant teaching (God cannot contradict Himself, ladies and gentlemen; the Catholic Church can never be spotted by any taint of error or contradiction) of the Catholic Church on the absolute necessity of the civil state recognizing her as the true religion and of the Social Reign of Christ the King that such a recognition makes possible. 

Sure, as has been noted on this site most repeatedly, Holy Mother Church must make concessions to the actual realities of a given situation where she is not favored with the protection of the law, doing so without ever conceding the nonexistent validity of the separation of Church and State and without ever once relenting in teaching her children what the correct doctrine is and exhorting them to plant the seeds for the restoration of the Catholic City.



Gorilla Jorge, however, said nothing that Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI had not said many times before, and his embrace of religious liberty is such boilerplate conciliarism that dates back to the triumph of the forces of Father John Courtney Murray with the approval of Dignitatis Humanae by the “Second” Vatican Council on December 7, 1965. Some of those past statements will be included in part two of this brief series.



Before I close to get a few hours of sleep, perhaps it would be good to focus on the last sentence in Paragraph Three of Pope Saint Pius X’s Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)  

By the way, one of the correlative proofs of how the conciliar "popes" have defected from the Catholic Faith is that they have done what our true Roman Pontiffs have never ceased to do, to "refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. To refresh your memories on this point, please see Mocking Pope Saint Pius X and Our Lady of Fatima.

The secular state has made possible the triumph of madness in our world, a madness that is celebrated by a truly mad gorilla of a heretic, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who false assertions stand condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church.

We must pray Rosaries of reparation for the offenses to truth committed daily by the theological and social gorillas of Modernity and Modernism, each of whom will learn that the following words, spoken by Our Lord Himself to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque after King Louis XIV and the bishops of France refused to consecrated the entirety of this then completely Catholic country to His Most Sacred Heart:

"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)