Although the details are very sketchy at this time, it is evidently the case that the conciliar prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Rites, Leonardo “Cardinal” Sandri, an enthusiastic supporter of the “Second” Vatican Council and all that has followed in its insipid wake, yelled to the Dictator “Pope,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Argentine Apostate, that the conciliar college of “cardinals” had elected him to effect reforms, not to “destroy everything.”
No matter the truth concerned the alleged confrontation, it is certainly true that there is much discontent within “conservative” circles within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. While this discontent is understandable, the very existence of such discontent represents, shall we say in modern parlance, a “disconnect” with reality. For you, see, the problem facing such discontented Catholics within the structures of what they think is the Catholic Church is not Jorge Mario Bergoglio. The Argentine Apostate is simply finishing off the work of destruction that was begun fifty-nine years ago by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who set in motion a process of destruction that he knew he would live to see completed.
The first in the current line of conciliar antipopes sought to give Modernist cardinals and bishops a determining voice at the “Second” Vatican Council, whose work of destruction in its first few weeks was evident to the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton:
Within just a few weeks after the opening of Vatican II, the orthodox American theologian and council peritus Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton made the following comments in his diary: “This is going to mark the end of the Catholic religion as we have known it…. If I did not believe God, I would be convinced that the Catholic Church was about to end” (Diary entries for Oct. 31 and Nov. 23, 1962). Fenton’s personal diaries detail some of the struggles that took place behind the scenes of the council and are well worth a read: The Vatican II Diaries of Mgr. Joseph Fenton (As found at Novus Ordo Watch.)
It is not for nothing that “Archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia, who is the promoter of the cause of the “canonization” of “Archbishop” Oscar Romero, who was killed by assassins as he was staging the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service in San Salvador, El Salavador, on March 24, 1980, praised the late Marxist-friendly Romero as follows in 2015:
“He was killed at the altar,” Archbishop Paglia said, instead of when he was an easier target at home or on the street. “Through him, they wanted to strike the Church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council." (Romero To Be "Beatified" Soon.)
Whether or not he realized it, “Archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia made quote a statement by stating that his church is one that flowed from the “Second” Vatican Council and not from the Wounded Side of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as Blood and Water flowed forth out from the cardiac sac surrounding His Most Sacred Heart. As a conciliar presbyter noted to me in an e-mail in 2004, the “Second” Vatican Council represented what he termed was an “ecclesiogensis,” that is, the springing forth of a new church that had little to do with the one that preceded it.
This is indeed quite correct. What has flowed forth from the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes” has been nothing other than a polluted stream of apostasy that originated from the poisoned wells of Modernity and Modernism. Countless hundreds of millions of people have been poisoned by it enough to have had their minds poisoned against any mention of the “old faith,” especially as expressed and protected in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
Here is just a brief and very partial listing of what has been destroyed by the work of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterial” of the postconciliar “popes,” including the first of these apostates who implemented the edicts of the false council and promulgated the work of destruction known as the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI: (For easy-to-find examples of the Catholic Church’s condemnations of conciliar teaching, please refer to No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth. The book is dated as a result of Jorge’s words and deeds since its publication nearly three years ago. However, it is still a useful resource, especially as one chapter pretty much predicted the outcome of the 2015 “synod,” not that the outcome was hard to predict, of course)
1. The nature of dogmatic truth and its immutability. The triumph of the Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism, which has been championed anew without the cover provided by the terms “living tradition” and “hermeneutic of continuity,” has been the cornerstone upon which the entire structure of the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church has been constructed.
2. The nature of the papacy. The monarchical nature of the papacy has been destroyed substantively by the conciliar embrace of “episcopal collegiality” and on a symbolic level by Montini/Paul the Sick’s removal of the papal tiara, which was another one of those inadvertent admissions that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church, and the refusal of all subsequent conciliar “popes” (Albino Luciani/John Paul I, Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. The nature of the papacy has been further undermined by the belief, promoted first by Wojtyla/John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, that a way can be found to exercise the “Petrine Ministry” in a way that could be approved by the Orthodox and Protestant “ecclesial communities.”
3.The teaching that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The conciliarists, of course, teaching that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church and that there are “elements” of truth and sanctification in the Orthodox churches and Protestant “ecclesial communities.” The “new ecclesiology” has resulted in the belief that the Catholic Church is simply one of many different Christian communities, each of which pleases God. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said as much on numerous occasions.
4.The inerrancy and perfection of Holy Mother Church. The conciliar authorities would have us believe that Holy Mother Church has committed “offenses,” if not crimes, against non-Catholics and her true popes have committed blunders in name of exercising their teaching office.
5.The absolute prohibition of interreligious “prayer” services. False ecumenism has been the means by which egregious events have taken place under the apparent authority of the Catholic Church, mocking the Most Blessed Trinity, defying the binding precepts of the First and Second Commandments and giving rise to a de facto sense of religious indifferentism that predominates in the minds of most Catholics today. Millions of Catholic martyrs shed their blood rather than give even the appearance of lending any credibility to false religions. Their martyrdom means nothing to the conciliar revolutionaries.
6. Condemnations of religious liberty and separation of Church and State. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has served as an advocate in behalf the absolute and supposedly God-given “right” to promulgate false beliefs publicly and denied that Holy Mother Church has any role given her by God to direct civil leaders in the pursuit of the common temporal good in all pertains to the good of souls, upon which the entirety of social order is premised.
7. The ends of Holy Matrimony and the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage. As has been noted so many times before on this site, the lords of counciliarism have inverted the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, thus making the satisfaction of the spouses as the primary end while relegating the propagation and education of children as a secondary end. This was the foundation of so-called “Natural Family Planning” and an annulment process that has been stripped of all real meaning under the false “pontificate” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2017, is premised upon on the falsehood that “elements” of true love and stability exist in “irregular situations,” whether natural or aberrant.
8.The plain meaning of the words of Sacred Scripture. Everything in Holy Writ has been up for reinterpretation by the conciliar revolutionaries, some of whom even doubt that it is possible to know with certainty anything that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ actually said and taught. The unfettered use of the historical-critical method of modern Scriptural exegesis has reached such a point of absurdity that the man who is even more of a blabbermouth than Ralph Kramden is talking about changing the words of the Pater Noster as taught by the Divine Redeemer Himself. Although I was going to do my own commentary on Bergoglio’s latest blasphemy, but I see that Novus Ordo Watch has posted on the subject and there is little more that I could add other than what is appended below from Douay-Rheims Bible and Father George Leo Haydock's Commentary. (See Jorge Wants to Change the Our Fathers). It makes perfect sense for Bergoglio to try to ruminate about changing the words of the Pater Noster as he has shown his complete ability to ignore Scriptural texts he does not like and/or simply to do “on the spot” “corrections” that convey the exact opposite sense of their true meaning. He is an insidious little devil, a pestilential beast of a human being.
9. Scholasticism. The official philosophy of the Catholic Church has been held in especial contempt by the past two conciliar “popes,” not that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI was an advocate of the method used by Saint Thomas Aquinas and endorsed consistently by our true popes (Wojtyla/John Paul II used phenomenology to reinvent the meaning of Thomistic studies). In its place has been put every form of rationalism and subjectivism imaginable, starting with the “new theology” that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
10. The sensus Catholicus. Very few Catholics, especially those in their twenties and thirties, have any knowledge of the true Catholic Faith because they have never been exposed to It. The truths of the Holy Faith are completely foreign to them. What? An immutable God Who wants us to quit our sins and Who punishes us justly for them? What? One can go to hell if I die in a state of Mortal Sin? Everyone goes to Heaven, right? Why can’t I do what I feel like doing as long as I don’t hurt anyone? And on and on and on.
11. Dogmatic certainty and clarity. Conciliarism has replaced dogmatic certainty and clarity with doubt, deemed a “virtue” by “Pope Francis,” ambiguity or outright rejection.
12. Condemnations of innovations and novelties. As a false religious sect, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is all about innovations and novelties. Indeed, the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have boasted of such innovations and novelties.
13. The liturgical rites of the Catholic Church, including the rite of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination. I will let the conciliar revolutionaries speak for themselves:
We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)
Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, who worked with Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, Quoted and footnoted in the work of a Father John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)
Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)
"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI.)
Perhaps it is useful once again to cite the words of the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist but was honest enough to admit that the work of Annibale Bugnini’s Consilium destroyed the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church:
Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .
At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .
Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentine Mass" impossible—because it no longer reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?
Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.
Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.
Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.
At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.
Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.
Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .
The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)
Yes, the whole work of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has been about destruction. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only bringing this work of destruction to its logical conclusions.
Pope Saint Pius X explained that destruction is indeed the work of Modernism:
They [the Modernists] are to be found among the laity, and in the ranks of the clergy, and they are not wanting even in the last place where one might expect to meet them, in religious communities If they treat of biblical questions, it is upon Modernist principles; if they write history, they carefully, and with ill-concealed satisfaction, drag into the light, on the plea of telling the whole truth, everything that appears to cast a stain upon the Church. Under the sway of certain a priori conceptions they destroy as far as they can the pious traditions of the people, and bring into disrespect certain relics highly venerable from their antiquity. They are possessed by the empty desire of having their names upon the lips of the public, and they know they would never succeed in this were they to say only what has always been said by all men. Meanwhile it may be that they have persuaded themselves that in all this they are really serving God and the Church. In reality they only offend both, less perhaps by their works in themselves than by the spirit in which they write, and by the encouragement they thus give to the aims of the Modernists. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
This describes not only the work of the vulgar Bergoglio but also that of his more refined predecessor, Ratzinger.
Moreover, Pope Saint Pius X taught us that the false precepts of Modernism lead to the ruin and the wreck of all religion:
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Behold a false religion, conciliarism, that is built on an edifice of sophisms that have indeed ruined and wrecked the average Catholic’s understanding of the Holy Faith. This edifice of sophisms has produced such instability and uncertainty in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Joseph Ratziner/Benedict XVI’s interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council can be swept away by the next “pope” by using the exact same “hermeneutic” that he used to sweep away the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church in order to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, condemned interpretations of Sacred Scripture according to an unfettered use of the historical-critical method of modern Scriptural exegesis and, of course, ever-changing liturgical rites and pastoral practice.
It must also be remembered that it was the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger who said that it was Indeed, the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, citing his own mentor, Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, said that it was a necessary task to continue the “demolitions of the bastions” that have stood in the way of knowing the “Person” of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:
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.)
By the way, who appointed Leandro “Cardinal” Sandri to his position as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation of the Oriential Rites on June 9, 2007, and elevated him to the "conciliar college of cardinals" on November 24, 2007?
That’s right. “Pope Benedict XVI,” who was busy at work attired in his jacket-and-tie of the “Second” Vatican Council incorporating suggestions made to him by a Lutheran into the text of Lumen Gentium, November 1, 1964.)
We are eyewitnesses to the fulfillment of the prophetic warning that had been given to the bishops of Holy Mother Church by Pope Pius VIII 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. All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. 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."
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. 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. Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved. He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.
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; 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  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. 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, 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.' 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.)
Pope Pius VIII’s description of how the bishops of his day at the end of the third decade of the Nineteenth Century is exactly opposite of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants his own “bishops” to be, and this is because he, Bergoglio, belongs to the category of evil forces that Pope Pius VIII warned his bishops to remove from their very midst. Read the passages above over and over again. You will see how prophetic they are in light of today’s incredible circumstances.
Stipulating that not one of us who has been able to extricate himself from the errors of the "resist and recognize" camp is one whit better than any other Catholic, we must nevertheless continue to give thanks to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother for helping us to accept the truth. Those who do see the truth of our ecclesiastical situation are few in number. Very, very few in number.
How many Apostles were at the foot of the Cross on Good Friday?
How many bishops in England remained faithful to the Church when King Henry VIII broke from Rome in 1534?
One in both cases.
The fact that any of us have "gotten it" is the result of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. It is easy to give up the fight. It is easy for us "Dorothies" to "surrender" to the forces of wickedness who dare to mock God by placing into question the nature of His truth and who dare to blaspheme Him by esteeming the symbols of false religions.
We must, of course, make reparation for our own sins, which are responsible in no small measure for worsening the state of the Church Militant on earth, and for those of the whole world as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.
The final victory belongs to Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We can plant a few seeds for this triumph by continuing to adhere to the truth without making any concessions at all to the destructive force that is conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its entirely false shepherds.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
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.
Saint Matthias, pray for us.
Bishop Richard Challoner on “Lead Us Not Into Temptation”
 Thus therefore shall you pray: Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.  Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.  And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.  And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.  For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences.  But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences. (Matthew 6: 9-15.)
 "Supersubstantial bread": In St. Luke the same word is rendered daily bread. It is understood of the bread of life, which we receive in the Blessed Sacrament.
 "Lead us not into temptation": That is, suffer us not to be overcome by temptation. (Bishop Challoner Commentary in the Douay Rheims Bible.)
Father George Leo Haydock on “Lead Us Not Into Temptation”
Ver. 13. God is not the tempter of evil, or author of sin. (James i. 13.) He tempteth no man: we pray that he would not suffer the devil to tempt us above our strength: that he would remove the temptations, or enable us to overcome them, and deliver us from evil, particularly the evil of sin, which is the first, and the greatest, and the true efficient cause of all evils. (Haydock) (hHaydock Commentary.)
Joseph Ratzinger: There Was Rupture Before There Had Been No Rupture
What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. Weabandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, opposed this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber'sThe Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)
The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.
But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Milestones.)
In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum," July 7, 2007.)