An Unbroken Chain of Antipopes (or One Antipope Resigns or Dies, They Make Another Antipope), part one of a periodic series

I undertook a journey to Rome in May of 1993, when I was all of forty-one and one-half years age, on a joint mission of doing some work for The Wanderer as well as bringing information about an explicit program in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that was being used in the Diocese of Sioux City, Iowa, under the administration of “Bishop” Lawrence Soens in the very foolhardy belief that “Rome” would put a stop to the horrific filth being used to corrupt the young.

It was during that ten day journey, which featured my serving as the “lector” at weekday staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty in the private chapel of Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II on Wednesday, May 26, 1993, that an American who worked in the press office of the Holy See said the following concerning the relative indifference of Italians to the health of the then universal face of apostasy: “The Romans have a saying, ‘One pope dies, they make another pope.’”

Given the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is intent on visiting the tomb of Pope Saint Clement V in L’Aquila, Italy, in two and one-half months, speculation is rampant about a possible resignation in the near future, something that I do not believe is going happen as long as Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who is now ninety-five years of age, is still alive and, though frail, makes his presence known now and again after promising in 2013 to remain “hidden from the world” following his own resignation as the universal face of apostasy on February 28, 2013, I would to propose a variation to the Roman aphorism cited above: “One antipope dies, they make another antipope.” There has been an unbroken chain of antipopes since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, and no intellectually honest person can contend with a straight face that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s successor will not be anything other than a wide-eyed, full-blown Jacobin/Bolshevik adherent and propagator of Modernism. It would be laughable for anyone to contend that Carlo Maria Vigano or Raymond Leo Burke will emerge on the Balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter after Bergoglio dies or resigns.

The purpose of this series, segments of which will appear occasionally, is to provide an overview—and only that—of the multifaceted ways in which the conciliar “popes” have defected from the Faith, taught propositions that have been anathematized by the Catholic Church, reaffirmed non-Catholics in their false religions and hardened sinners in their lives of perdition, and have engaged in the sort of sacrilegious liturgical travesties that would have been even the self-respecting heretics of the First Millennium turn white in horror.

Conversely, Catholics must hate all that is opposed to truth because God loathes all that is opposed to truth. Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen summarized his own mission as the extirpation of heresy, not one of embracing or, worse yet, rejoicing in it:

“I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it.”

Can anyone who is honest say with a straight face that the “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have sought to extirpate heresy?

Indeed, the six false claimants to the papal throne since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, have shown themselves to be agents of Antichrist, men who have taught that which has been anathematized by Holy Mother Church’s true general councils and condemned repeatedly by her true popes. These revolutionary instigators of novelties and innovations have even dared to do that which millions of Holy Mother Church’s martyrs died to avoid even the appearance of doing, namely, to enter into temples of false worship and to speak words of praise for adherents of false religions and their false beliefs. Is it possible for a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to do such things.

Truth alone must guide us in this passing, mortal vale of tears. Nothing else. Catholics must have sober and clear understanding of the truths of the Holy Faith. Subjectivity or emotionalism of any kind have no place in the interpretation of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, including the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church and the nature of the papacy.

Those of us who have come to the conclusion that the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958 and that a counter-church has arisen that appears to be—but is not—the Catholic Church have not done so out of “despair” to seek flight from the suffering and crosses in this time of apostasy and betrayal. The cross is ever-present in our lives, and anyone who thinks that it is not a cross to be estranged from family members, friends, acquaintances and even financial benefactors because one has come to recognize that men who do not possess the Catholic Faith cannot be true popes is simply minimizing the seriousness that is used by a believing Catholic to study Holy Mother Church’s doctrines, which teach us that heretics expel themselves from her maternal bosom without any formal declaration and thus cannot be true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter:

8. We are mindful only of what is witnessed to by Holy Writ and what is otherwise well known. Christ proves His own divinity and the divine origin of His mission by miracles; He teaches the multitudes heavenly doctrine by word of mouth; and He absolutely commands that the assent of faith should be given to His teaching, promising eternal rewards to those who believe and eternal punishment to those who do not. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe Me not” John x., 37). “If I had not done among them the works than no other man had done, they would not have sin” (Ibid. xv., 24). “But if I do (the works) though you will not believe Me, believe the works” (Ibid. x., 38). Whatsoever He commands, He commands by the same authority. He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine:they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way."  (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

There is no such thing as “almost Catholic,” and there is certainly nothing called an “irreducible minima” of beliefs which one must hold to remain a member of the Catholic Church and thus to save his immortal soul. It is all or nothing. This is the teaching of the Catholic Church from which no one may dissent legitimately. No one who is intellectually honest can claim that the six conciliar claimants to the papacy have held the doctrine of the Catholic Church wholly and inviolably. It is these false claimants to the papacy who have not held to the truth of salvation. Indeed, these men have led Catholics and non-Catholics alike away from the salvation.

Those who recognize there has been no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, adhere entirely to the irreformable teaching that the salvation of men depends upon their submitting to the Vicar of Christ on earth. The conciliar revolutionaries themselves do not believe this teaching. Indeed, they have reaffirmed Protestants, the Orthodox, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Buddhists and even atheists that they have their own paths to salvation.

For instance, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, rejected what he called disparingly as the "ecumenism of the return" when he spoke at an "ecumenical" gathering in Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005:

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.)

It was just three years before the beginning of the “Second” Vatican Council at which Father Joseph Ratzinger, who had been under suspicion of heresy by the Holy Office during the pontificate of our last true pope thus far, Pope Pius XII, served as a peritus (expert), and that formed the revolutionary mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio that Father Francis A. Connell wrote the following about the heresy of “unity in diversity”:

To characterize the relation between Catholics and Protestants as 'unity-in-diversity' is misleading, inasmuch as it implies that essentially Catholics are one with heretics, and that their diversities are only accidental. Actually, the very opposite is the true situation. For, however near a heretical sect may seem to be to the Catholic Church in its particular beliefs, a wide gulf separates them, insofar as the divinely established means whereby the message of God is to be communicated to souls--the infallible Magisterium of the Church--is rejected by every heretical sect. By telling Protestants that they are one with us in certain beliefs, in such wise as to give the impression that we regard this unity as the predominant feature of our relation with them, we are actually misleading them regarding the true attitude of the Catholic Church toward those who do not acknowledge Her teaching authority. (Father Francis Connell, Father Connell Answers Moral Questions, published in 1959 by Catholic University of America Press, p. 11; quoted in Fathers Dominic and Francisco Radecki, CMRI, TUMULTUOUS TIMES, p. 348.)

This is a precise and exact description of what the conciliar “popes” have done. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic. So is his predecessor. So was his predecessor's “canonized” predecessor. So was his “canonized” predecessor's immediate predecessor and the soon-to-be “canonized” predecessor who promulgated the decrees of the “Second” Vatican Council, which was convened by the “canonized” supporter of Sillonism and of anti-liturgical Jansenism.

Remember, this what Bergoglio said in a video presentation that was played at a gathering of young Catholics in Argentina on Auugst 7, 2013, the Feast of Saint Cajetan:

Thank you for listening to me. Thank you for coming here today. Thank you for all that you bear in your heart. Jesus loves you very much. Saint Cajetan loves you very much. He only asks one thing of you: that you come together! That you go out and seek and find one in greater need! But not alone - with Jesus, with Saint Cajetan! Am I going to go out to convince someone to become a Catholic? No, no, no! You are going to meet with him, he is your brother! That's enough! And you are going to help him, the rest Jesus does, the Holy Spirit does it. Remember well: with Saint Cajetan, we the needy go to meet with those who are in greater need. And, hopefully, Jesus will direct your way so that you will meet with one in greater need. (Francis the Insane Dreamer, Rebel and Miscreant's Message for the Feast of Saint Cajetan.)

It was less than a year after the remarks quoted just above that Bergoglio spoke the following at a Pentecostal "church" in Caserta, Italy, as he reaffirmed Protestants in their false religion:

When one walks in God’s presence, there is this fraternity. When, instead, we are still, when we look too much to one another, there is another way … which is bad, bad!  -- the way of gossip. And we begin to say, “but you, don’t you know?” “No, no, I’m not for you. I’m for this and that …” “I am for Paul,” “I am for Appollos,” “I am for Peter.” And so we begin, and so from the first moment division began in the Church. And it isn’t the Holy Spirit who creates division! He does something that is quite similar to it, but not division. It’s not the Lord Jesus who creates division! He who creates division is in fact the Envious One, the king of envy, the father of envy: the sower of darnel, Satan. He interferes in communities and creates divisions, always! From the first moment, from the first moment of Christianity, this temptation was in the Christian community. “I belong to this one,” I belong to that one.” “No! I am the Church, you are a sect.” And so the one who wins over us is him, the father of division – not the Lord Jesus who prayed for unity (John 17), he prayed! (Address to Pentecostal Community in Caserta.)

What does the Holy Spirit do? I said he does something else, which perhaps one might think is division, but it isn’t. The Holy Spirit creates “diversity” in the Church. The First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 12. He creates diversity! And this diversity is truly very rich, very beautiful. But then, the Holy Spirit himself creates unity, and so the Church is one in diversity. And, to use the word of an Evangelical whom I love very much, a “reconciled diversity” by the Holy Spirit. He creates both things: He creates the diversity of charisms and then He creates the harmony of charisms. Therefore, the early theologians of the Church, the early Fathers – I am speaking of the 3rdor 4thcentury – said: “The Holy Spirit is harmony,” because He creates this harmonious unity in diversity.

We are in the age of globalization, and we wonder what globalization is and what the unity of the Church would be: perhaps a sphere, where all points are equidistant from the center, all are equal? No! This is uniformity. And the Holy Spirit does not create uniformity! What figure can we find? We think of the polyhedron: the polyhedron is a unity, but with all different parts; each one has its peculiarity, its charism. This is unity in diversity. It is on this path that we, Christians, do what we call with the theological name of ecumenism. We try to have this diversity become more harmonized by the Holy Spirit and become unity. We seek to walk in the presence of God to be irreproachable. We seek to find the nourishment of which we are in need to find our brother. This is our way, this is our Christian beauty! I refer to what my beloved brother said at the beginning.  (Address to Pentecostal Community in Caserta.)

For the conciliar "popes," including Bergoglio, to be correct, Popes Pius IX had to have been wrong for specifially and categorically exhorting Protestants to convert to the Faith:

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 Jesus, and 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)

Anyone who believes that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has told us on numerous occasions that he does not want to convert anyone to what he thinks is the Catholic Church, shares Pope Pius IX's fear for his soul if he did not invite non-Catholics into Church is either mired in delusion or is steeped in ranked intellectual dishonesty as they shut their eyes and close their mouths to the truth that Bergoglio believes not a word of Pope Pius IX's exhortation contained in Iam Vos Omnes. Unlike Pope Pius IX, the Argentine Apostate does not believe that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. None of the conciliar “popes” have believed that it is necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. None of these men have believed that it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church to attain salvation. They are the men leading sheep off the cliff, not sedevacantists. They are the ones who have reaffirmed the falsehood that Protestants and the Orthodox have a “mission” from God to sanctify and to save souls, not sedevacantists.

“Saint John Paul II” himself told none other than the late Fuller Brush Man, William Franklin Graham, that the two of them were “brothers,” have indeed told Protestants and the Orthodox—and even Jews and Mohammedans—that they have such a mission.

Here are a few more reminders:

Opening his Southern crusades to blacks and cooperating with Roman Catholics, both measures vigorously criticized by many of his supporters, required courage of the kind conventionally lauded as liberal or progressive. It is true that challenging racial segregation and anti-Catholic prejudice were both deemed progressive stances, but I am rather sure that carried little weight with Billy Graham. His singular passion was to preach the saving gospel of Jesus Christ to absolutely everyone.

Many Catholic leaders warmly welcomed his ministry; others were more ambivalent. In New York, the late John Cardinal O'Connor embraced him and urged archdiocese priests to encourage people to come out to hear him. Innumerable Catholics were doubtlessly renewed and strengthened in faith as a consequence of Graham's ministry.

He met with popes from John XXIII to John Paul II, and his friendship with the latter seemed especially warm and deep. After an extraordinary personal meeting of two hours in 1989, Graham reported, "There was a pause in the conversation; suddenly the pope's arm shot out and he grabbed the lapels of my coat, he pulled me forward within inches of his own face. He fixed his eyes on me and said, 'Listen Graham, we are brothers.'"

Already in 1966, only a year after the Second Vatican Council, Graham said, "I find myself closer to Catholics than the radical Protestants. I think the Roman Catholic Church today is going through a second Reformation." On The Phil Donahue Show in 1979, he said, "I think the American people are looking for a leader, a moral and spiritual leader that believes something. And the pope does. … Thank God, I've got somebody to quote now with some real authority." On John Paul's visit to America in 1980: "[He] has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of this century. ... The pope came [to America] as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist. … The pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age—by pointing people to Christ." And later, on the pope's message in Vancouver, where Graham preached a month later: "I'll tell you, that was just about as straight an evangelical address as I've ever heard. … He gives moral guidance in a world that seems to have lost its way."

In his statements about John Paul II, as well as about Mother Teresa and the Catholic church more generally, many evangelicals thought Graham had gone overboard or landed in gross heresy. But I am confident that he was driven by a passion for sharing the saving gospel of Christ. In the great encyclical of 2000, Redemptoris Missio ("Mission of the Redeemer"), John Paul envisioned the third millennium as "a springtime of world evangelization." Graham surrendered his entire life to playing a not insignificant part in precipitating that springtime. (The Preacher and the "Popes".)

Ah, “Brother” Billy Graham. Such is the stuff of a conciliar “saint,” a subject to be explored below, if ever so briefly.

Wait.

It gets worse.

The man who will doubtless be called “Saint Benedict XVI” one day placed his murdered friend, Roger Schutz, the Protestant founder of the Taize Ecumenical Community, in Heaven almost immediately after he received word of Schutz’s death at the hands of one of his own followers on August 16, 2005. This is the same Roger Schutz who received what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service at Karol Josef Wojtyla’s “Mass of Christian Burial” on April 8, 2005:

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, AUG. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI expressed his sorrow at the murder of Brother Roger Schutz, saying the founder of the ecumenical Taizé Community is “in the hands of eternal goodness.”

Brother Roger, 90, was stabbed to death by a woman Tuesday at an evening prayer service attended by 2,500 people in the Burgundy region in France, authorities said. A 36-year-old Romanian woman was detained by witnesses and turned over to police, authorities said.

The Pope showed emotion as he expressed his grief, at the end of today’s general audience.

“This news has affected me even more because precisely yesterday I received a very moving, affectionate letter from Frère Roger,” the Pope said, addressing the pilgrims gathered in the patio of the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo.

“In it he wrote that from the depth of his heart he wanted to tell me that ‘we are in communion with you and with those who have gathered in Cologne,’” the Holy Father said.

Hopes for Cologne

Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had known Brother Roger for a long time.

During Pope John Paul II’s funeral, Cardinal Ratzinger, the then dean of the College of Cardinals, surprised observers when he went up to Brother Roger, who was in a wheelchair, to give him Communion. Brother Roger was not Catholic.

In his letter, the founder of the ecumenical community explained to the new Pope that “because of his state of health, unfortunately he would not be able to come personally to Cologne, but that he would be present spiritually with his brothers.”

The letter, written in French, expressed Brother Roger’s desire “to come as soon as possible to Rome to meet with me and to tell me that ‘our Community of Taizé wants to go forward in communion with the Holy Father,’” according to Benedict XVI.

The letter ended with these words in Brother Roger’s own handwriting: “Holy Father, I assure you of my sentiments of profound communion. Frère Roger of Taizé.”

“At this moment of sadness,” the Pope said, “we can only commend to the Lord’s goodness the soul of this faithful servant of his.”

“Frère Schutz is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has attained eternal joy,” the Holy Father added. “He invites and exhorts us to be faithful laborers in the Lord’s vineyard, also in sad situations, certain that the Lord accompanies us and gives us his joy.” (Benedict Mourns Murder of Taizé’s Brother Roger.)

“He has attained eternal joy.”

Roger Schutz never converted to the Catholic Faith. He had no “mission” from God to sanctify and to save souls. He remained a heretic to the day of his death. This mattered not to Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Similarly, the aforementioned Jorge Mario Bergoglio called the late “Bishop” Tony Palmer of the Anglican Charismatic Movement to be his “brother bishop” in a video that he, the Argentine Apostate, had prepared to be played at the Kenneth Copeland Ministries Conference in Fort Worth, Texas, four years ago:

Addressing Palmer as “my brother, a bishop-brother” and saying they had “been friends for years,” the pope offered what he said were greetings “both joyful and full of longing” to participants in a forthcoming meeting of the Kenneth Copeland Ministries, a Pentecostal group that sponsors large prayer gatherings around the world. (Bergoglio's "Brother" "Bishop" Dies in Motorcyle Accident)

Bergoglio even insisted that Palmer, who was killed in a motorcycle accident on July 20, 2014, be buried as a “bishop” with an allegedly “Catholic” “Mass of Christian Burial”:

I attended the requiem of the late Bishop Tony Palmer at St. John the Evangelist Roman Catholic Church in the City of Bath on the 6^th August. Canon David Ryan the parish priest at St. John’s ( \a truly beautiful and Spirit filled believer) kindly gave me a place to stay in the presbytery so that I didn’t have to rush back home after the funeral or seek more expensive accommodation in the city.

I arrived after a rather long and tedious journey by train from Bexhill-on Sea to Bath, arriving  a couple of hours before the funeral. (A special word of sincere thanks goes to my dear friends in the USA, Vivian Ruth Sawyer and Thomas Nolan who helped finance my attendance).

St. John the Evangelist church is situated in the city centre five minutes from the railway station, so I had time to rest and eat some pizza, which the house keeper had kindly prepared, before other guests started arriving. The Requiem was purposefully arranged to be at 4p.m. to enable the funeral cortège to get through the heavily congested city centre roads, many of which had road works in progress.

Bishops and priests from the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches arrived an hour or so before the start of the requiem mass, along with guests from other churches locally and from around the world. Bruno Ierullo and Steve Long the senior Pastor of Catch the Fire Church in Toronto came and represented John and Carol Arnott who had recently been with Bishop Tony and Pope Francis at a meeting in the Vatican of a number of Charismatic Evangelicals from North America.

I felt a little like a lion in a den of Daniels, but my fear diminished as we greeted one another and shared our stories as to why we were there and how Bishop Tony had been influential in all our lives. In one way or another his life and vision had touched each of us individually. I found myself completely at home with these brothers and sisters in Christ who were encourager’s and enablers in so many ways.

(Tony’s family arrived about a twenty minutes before the start of the mass;  Emiliana his wife and their two children, Daniele and Gabriella, along with Tony’s sister and other relatives and close friends).

We all shared and discussed different matters and I was able to share the vision of the Companions of Jesus and found all responded favourably. In fact I found again here just as I had done with Tony, that we shared a common vision for unity in the Body of Christ. Bishop David Carr OSL and his brother Bishop Anthony Carr OSL spoke to me about the Order of St. Leonard and were interested in how the Companions of Jesus is a Non-Denominational Order with a very similar vision. (A quote from the OSL website reads, “The primary goal of the OSL was, and is, to bring together all Christians, regardless of differing denominations and streams, without leaving their distinctive groupings, in to a unified fellowship for prayer, mission and to help the disadvantaged.”).

I have forgotten some names of the many who I spoke with,  Fr. Steve Hughes, Revd. Esther Squire, Fr.Giles and Bishop James of the CEEC along with a number of local Anglican priests who knew Tony.

Fr. David our wonderful host led us out to greet Tony’s mortal remains as they arrived at the entrance to the Church. Fr. David told us he would like us as ministers to lead the procession up to the sanctuary and for us to remain at the front either side of the altar in the choir stalls. Fr David confessed that he would have loved us to be able to con-celebrate with him, but for now this was impossible. He found he had to remember his vow of obedience to the diocesan bishop and knew we would understand.

Fr. David told us that because Tony was not a Roman Catholic he had to ask his bishops permission to celebrate the requiem and though Tony’ s wife and children are Roman Catholics, permission still had to be given for the requiem. The bishop agreed but said that Tony could not be buried as a bishop as he was not a Roman Catholic bishop. However, Pope Francis said he should and could be buried as a bishop…and so that put an end to that little bit of ecclesiastical nonsense!

The Church was packed and though the Ark Community had wanted to have the funeral to go out live on streamed TV over the internet, there were too many technical problems. The church of St. John the Evangelist is a magnificent building in the centre of Bath, but like so many old monolithic structures it is suffering from age and is in need of a number of repairs. The church this week was full of scaffolding which trellis like covered one side of the church from ground to ceiling, from entrance right up to the sanctuary where the Tony’s Coffin was placed at the foot of the sanctuary in front of the altar.

As I sat with my fellow brother and sister ministers looking down from the choir stalls to the side of the altar, I was struck by the prophetic vision that was before us. I saw Tony’s coffin next to the trellis of iron girders and heard that call to St Francis of Assisi and more recently to Tony Palmer, a call to go and repair the brokenness of The Church. There in this building, in such need of repair, was a picture…of the Body of Christ, The Church of God. There in the coffin lay the remains of a man who like our seraphic father Francis had heeded the call to ‘go and repair my house which as you can see is in ruins’.

Other too heard that call this day and so it is for each of us to continue on this road which The Lord calls us to and which Tony helped re-lay, a road that draws brothers who have been too long divided, together again in Christ Jesus.

The requiem was beautiful, the liturgy fitting for such an occasion, the music was uplifting led by the Vineyard Church Fellowship and the music ministry of St’ Johns church. Daniele and Gabriella both spoke lovingly and passionately of their father. Emiliana read out a letter from Pope Francis that was both touching and profound.

Tony’s mortal remains were taken to the Eyre Chapel Crypt, at Perrymeade Catholic Cemetery, in Bath.

In part of the message Pope Francis sent to the conference of Charismatic Evangelical Christians in the USA through Bishop Tony, Pope Francis said, “ I am speaking to you as a brother. I speak to you in a simple way. With joy and yearning. Let us allow our yearning to grow, because this will propel us to find each other, to embrace one another. And together to worship Jesus Christ as the only Lord of History.”

I pray that we will work and walk together in the power of The Holy Spirit and that the blessing promised in Psalm 133 will be ours. (Bergoglio Insisted that Tony Palmer Be Buried as a Bishop.)

Well, it takes one to know one.

Yes, it takes one false "bishop" to recognize another false "bishop" and to accord him full honors on SS One World Ecumenical Church.

Is it possible that God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable, can permit the Catholic Church to teach one thing for nineteen centuries and then to permit her popes to teach another as being true?

Believing Catholics who reject the illegitimate claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter after the death of Pope Pius XII refuse to submit to apostate robber barons who have said and done things that are impossible for true popes to say and to do.

Similarly, the conciliar “popes” have been as one since “Saint John Paul II” in contradicting the immutable truth that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. These “popes” have told us so in so many words:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

"Pope Francis" chose to have this "apostolic exhortation" published in the December, 2013, edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Here are the three passages as found in the Italian language (not Latin, by the way!) in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as it is published in its conciliar captivity:

247. Uno sguardo molto speciale si rivolge al popolo ebreo, la cui Alleanza con Dio non è mai stata revocata, perché “i doni e la chiamata di Dio sono irrevocabili” (Rm 11, 29). La Chiesa, che condivide con l’Ebraismo una parte importante delle Sacre Scritture, considera il popolo dell’Alleanza e la sua fede come una radice sacra della propria identità cristiana (cfr Rm 11, 16-18). Come cristiani non possiamo considerare l’Ebraismo come una religione estranea, né includiamo gliebrei tra quanti sono chiamati ad abbandonare gli idoli per convertirsi al vero Dio (cfr 1 Ts 1, 9). Crediamo insieme con loro nell’unico Dio che agisce nella storia, e accogliamo con loro la comune Parola rivelata.

248. Il dialogo e l’amicizia con i figli d’Israele sono parte della vita dei discepoli di Gesù. L’affetto che si è sviluppato ci porta sinceramene ed amaramente a dispiacerci per le terribili persecuzioni di cui furono e sono oggetto, particolarmente per quelle che coinvolgono o hanno coinvolto cristiani.

249. Dio continua ad operare nel popolo dell’Antica Alleanza e fa nascere tesori di saggezza che scaturiscono dal suo incontro con la Parola divina. Per questo anche la Chiesa si arricchisce quando raccoglie i valori dell’Ebraismo. Sebbene alcune convinzioni cristiane siano inaccettabili per l’Ebraismo, e la Chiesa non possa rinunciare ad annunciare Gesù come Signore e Messia, esiste una ricca complementarietà che ci permette di leggere insieme i testi della Bibbia ebraica e aiutarci vicendevolmente a scerare le ricchezze della Parola, come pure di condividere molte convinzioni etiche e la comune preoccupazione per la giustizia e lo sviluppo dei popoli. (Data presso San Pietro, alla chiusura dell’Anno della fede, il 24 novembre, Solennità i i. S. Gesù Cristo Re dell’Universo, dell’anno 2013, primo del mio Pontificato. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December, 2013.)

If one professes belief that a particular claimant to the Throne of Saint Peter is legitimate and is indeed the Vicar of Christ on earth, a matter about which no Catholic is free to err or to profess indifference, then one must accept as binding upon his conscience and beyond all criticism even Evangelii Gaudium as part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church without complaint, reservation or quAlification of any kind.

Well, is the Mosaic Covenant still valid?

Has it never been revoked?

One must agree with the "pope's" statement as he has caused it to be it to be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis:

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Why the silence on this point of doctrine?

Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "teaching" on the Jews is heretical, and it is in this and in so many other ways that he shows himself to be a perfect disciple of the falsehoods promulgated by the authority of his predecessors since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. Jorge Mario Bergolio lacks the Catholic Faith, He has openly denied Catholic doctrine on this subject with great boldness. Although he style is more vulgar, visceral profane that those who have perceded him, he is, of course, merely following those before him who have denied, whether implicitly or explicitly, the Catholic truth about the Old Covenant that was summarized so clearly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

28. That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis was inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1943. Although it was nothing new whatsoever, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed an irreformable teaching that is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose to insert a contrary teaching into the Acta Apostlicae Sedis shows that he is, in perfect communion of mind and heart with his predecessors, a heretic who is outside of the bosom of the Catholic Church, an imposter on the Throne of Saint Peter.

Then again, each of the conciliar “popes” have offended the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity by their endless succession of words and deeds in violation of the First and the Second Commandments as they have esteemed the symbols of false religions and by contending that false religions, which are hideous in the site of the true God of Divine Revelation, are instruments of “peace” and that many of them have “elements of sanctification.”

Consider the following images:

, 1986

October 27, 1986

 

October 27, 2011, above. 

Bergoglio hid his pectoral cross when he wore "uttariya shawl which was a gift from Sri Lankan Hindu priest Kurukkal SivaSri  Mahadevasome on Tuesday, January 13, 2015, the Octave Day of the Epiphany of Our Lord, during his address to leaders of other false religions in Colombo, Sri Lanka (see Deja Vu In Sri Lanka):

However, this did not start with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, nor will it end when he resigns or dies as it is good to remember that the entire conciliar enterprise is rotten from top to bottom, side to side, from beginning to whenever it is that God in His ineffable Holy Providence will bring it to an end.

Corrupt fom Roncalli to Bergoglio

The counterfeit church of conciliarism, has been doing these “paradigm shifts” and instituting “novelties” and “innovations that have been condemned time and time again. Indeed, the concepts of novelty and innovation stand condemned by the Catholic Church!

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 healthful. In 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 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.)

Pope Pius IX used his first encyclical letter, Qui Pluribus, November 8, 1846, to mock (yes, mock) those who "extol progress the skies":

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.)

The real engineer of the rupture presented by the “Second” Vatican Council was none other Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, who got votes in the 1958 conclave that resulted in the usurped “election” of Angelo Roncalli even though he, Montini, was not even a member of the College of Cardinals. Montini worked closely with Roncalli and others, including a thirty-two year-old German priest, Father Joseph Ratzinger, to develop a secret schema for the “Second” Vatican Council that was designed to scuttle the one that many cardinals had devised precisely as the means to “canonize” Modernist principles in order to present them as authentic teachings of the Catholic Church.

Franco Bellegrandi made this point in Nikita Roncalli:

That he had been conscious as to the how and whys the Conclave had placed the Pontifical Triregno (Tiara) on his head, it may be inferred from the fact that he more than hinted to everyone that his successor should be Giovanni Battista Montini, that same Montini who, as we have seen, not by chance, as Roncalli is elected Pope, rushes to accompany to Rome the brothers of the new Pontiff. He noted it in his diary. And he could not wait to tell him in person, when, as a newly made Pope, he met the bishops of the Italian Episcopal Conference. “On that occasion,”

Recalls monsignor Arrigo Pintonello, at the time Military Ordinary for Italy, “we bishops were lined up along the walls of the vast hall. John XXIII stood before each one of us, exchanging a greeting, a word. When he was before me, he came to attention, and, saluting militarily, he introduced himself as Sergeant Angelo Roncalli.” I still remember my embarrassment and that of the bishops present, in seeing the Pope play around like that. Then, as he stood before Montini, he stared at him for a time, smiling, held his hands, and cried, “It was you that should have been elected, not I. I’ve been elected by mistake!” Indeed, Montini will be the favorite of John XXIII. Topping the list of the new cardinals created in 1958, Montini works at the draft of Roncalli’ s most important addresses, and during the first session of the Council he is hosted in special apartments, in the Vatican, that the Pope had had personally appointed for him. As, on the one hand, John XXIII pursued point after point his progressive policy, dismissing the advice and suggestions of the College of Cardinals and of the episcopate, on the other his diplomatic ability and his subtle knowledge of man suggested to him that nothing should be changed, of the Vatican’s exterior, that could alarm the public opinion, poorly or badly informed on secret things. Thus, for example, the Court and Court-life remained the same. (Nikita Roncalli.)

Franco Bellegrandi proceeded to give a sketch of the Judaizing homosexual’s life that provides vignettes drawn from Montini’s own false “pontificate” and his oversized influence during the “pontificate” of his predecessor, the first in the current line of antipopes, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/John XXIII. One will see in the sketch that follows the simple fact that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI had a Jewish name and was thus attracted to all things Talmudic:

But who is this “Delfino” of Roncalli’s, whom joint forces without the Vatican have already designated, for years now, to succeed the priest from Sotto il Monte? Let us look at him, for a moment, under the magnifying lens.

He was born in Concesio, in the Brescia province, on September 26, 1897. Progenitor of the family is a Bartolomeo, or Bartolino De Benedictis, called Montino. De Benedetti (Benedictis) is a Jewish name.

Not by chance it will be discovered that Montini, become Paul VI, has the audacity to wear the “Ephod” of the Hebrew Supreme Priest, on the pontifical habit. To break the sensational news to the world is the abbot Georges de Nantes, who in October 1970, on issue 37 of his monthly “Contre Reforme Catholique,” launches a cry of alarm, with an article titled “The Amulet of the Pope.” In “Paris Match” of August 29, Roberto Serrou’s column “Will the Next Pope be a Frenchman?” Is illustrated by a large photograph of the Pope and of cardinal Villot. I gaze at those two closed faces dissembling the fate of the Church. . . But, what is this, over here, on Paul Vi’s breast, beneath the pectoral cross? A curious jewel I cannot recall seeing on any other Pope! The object must be made of gold, of a square shape, ornate with twelve precious stones set on four lines, three by three. It is hanging in a very particular way from a cord running around alongside that bearing the Cross of the Christ.

I am afraid to understand. All doubts are thus possible.

To describe the object, artlessly, I used the very words that, in eh. XXVIII of the “Exodus,” describe the Ephod of the Hebrew Supreme Priest!

Here then, on the Pope’s heart, hanging from his neck, is the “Pectoral of Judgment” that the Supreme Priest Aaron and his successors must wear as a ritual ornament to signify the twelve tribes of Israel, “to recall them incessantly in the presence of Jahve” (Ex. 28,29.)

Paul VI has been bearing the emblem of Caiphas. . . Who knows for how long, why, and from whom did he get it?

Would the Pope be signaling that he is the direct legatee of Levitic priesthood, as the Pontiff of a Church turned into the new and sole Israel of God? Or is he rather preparing a restoration of Judaism as the religion of pure Monotheism, of the most sacred Book, of the universal Alliance? The Abbot of Nantes continues in his writing:

”At the Katholikentag, this year, there was a Sabbath Hebrew cult, and at Brussels, cardinal Suenens has anticipated an upcoming Council, a Council of “reconciliation” which is to be held in Jerusalem. Now, B’nai-B’rith and Fremasonry alike dream to erect there, too, as well as in New York, a “Temple of Understanding” of which a model has been presented to the Pope as a sign of wide ecumenism. It is all coming together!

Who is to inform us, humble believers, of that pectoral and on all the obscure points of distant, dark schemes?

Who among us has the right to know whether the Pope, bearing the Ephod of Caiphas, intends to take up the Ancient Hebrew cult in the Church without fearing the rage of Israel according to the flesh, or whether his design is to bring back the Christian churches to universal Judaism and restore in Jerusalem the Levitic Priesthood? Ambiguity of the gaze and of the gesture, of the word or of the amulet. . . hitherto, the Crucifix had never borne the competition of any other symbol of cult. Is it, without a sound, without a word, soon to disappear from the heart of the Pope? Then in the Vatican, a rooster will crow one last time.”

I, too, have seen the Ephod on the white habit of Paul VI.

It was stitched to the stole, and the gold chain with a tassel at the end reached almost to his knees. I remember asking what it meant of some “participant” monsignors. Some had no idea. Others said it must have been a gift from a group of foreign pilgrims. There exist many pictures of Montini with the Ephod. The first of those pictures of the Pope with the “amulet” on his breast dates back to 1964. Sometimes the pectoral Cross is not to be seen at all. In some, it is concealed under the mozzetta (short cape worn by prelates in solemn functions). In only one occasion the stole appears without the mozzetta: in a photograph taken in India, wherein the Pope appears sitting and surrounded by Hindu children. In his calls on holy places, or sanctuaries, the Ephod is never wanting.

So it was on his visit to Fumone, when he called on the grave of Celestine V, at Santa Sabina, on Ash Wednesday, wherein they sing the renewed litanies of the Saints, starting with Sancte Abraham. . . At the feet of the Immaculate on the 8 of December, in Rome, etcetera, wherever he is wearing mozzetta and stole.

Naturally, the “novelty” aroused the curiosity of the journalists, who began to ask more and more insistently for explanations.

To the extent that professor Federico Alessandrini, director of the Vatican Press Office, was ordered to respond, in the course of a press-conference, that that jewel was none other than a “clasp” to hold the stole together. Yet no Pontiff had ever worne that clasp prior to Paul VI, as witnessed in the portraits and pictures of all his predecessors. (Nikita Roncalli.)

Conciliarism is a Talmudic enterprise from beginning to end.

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI died on August 6, 1978 the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is what Bishop Donald J. Sanborn wrote when recalling the death of the second in the current line of antipopes:

Then on August 6, 1978, Paul VI did something which made a great many people happy. He stopped living. (Bishop Donald J. Sanborn, The Mountains of Gelboe.)

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini’s mortal remains body rapidly decayed after his death, turning a greenish shade of black, hardly the odor of sanctity shall we say. Indeed, an article in Salon, an online magazine controlled by those who adhere to the false opposite of the naturalist "left," seven and thirteen years ago discussed the terrible smell that was emitted by the body of Paul the Sick after his death on August 6, 1978, as it was displayed to the public in the Basilica of Saint Peter in the Vatican City State:

John Paul II will not be the first pope to decompose in public. In August of 1978, the body of Paul VI "took on a greenish tinge," and fans were installed in the Basilica to disperse the smell. Twenty years earlier, a maverick doctor persuaded the Vatican to let him try an experimental embalming technique on the body of Pope Pius XII, with disastrous consequences—the body turned black and disintegrated in the casket. Pope John XXIII, who died in 1963, seems to have been treated better: When his embalmed body was disinterred in 2001, it looked to be in pretty good shape. (Why didn't they embalm the pope?) [Thomas A. Droleskey note: Well, it turns out that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII made sure to get himself a better embalming job than was done on Pope Pius XII in order to make it appear as though his body was incorrupt. See The Vatican's Quest to Preserve Its Leaders.] 

The following thought occurred to me when corresponding with a Catholic writer six years ago about the rapid decomposition of Paul VI after his death.

The dead body of Paul the Sick, who died on the Feast of the Transfiguration, was, if you think about it, the antithesis of the Transfigured Body of Our Lord on Mount Thabor. Our Lord's Body was glorified in the presence of Saint Peter and the sons of Zebedee, Saints John and James, with the glory that He had with the Father in Heaven from all eternity and that which He manifested after His Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday. The body of the false "pontiff," a man who was doctrinally, philosophically, liturgically and morally corrupt, decomposed quickly all on its own. The best that could be done with the body after the formaldehyde was pumped into it was to turn it into that greenish tint.

Yes, the man whom the late Father Vincent Bowes, O.C.D., said that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ had told him was both an Antipope and an Antichrist (see Bookended From Birth to Birth), had his quickly decomposed body testify in death that he was the antithesis of the Transfigured Body of Christ the King, Whose Social Kingship over men and their nations he completely rejected.

Perhaps fittingly, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI "accepted" an abstract portrait of himself that was displayed in Smithsonian magazine in April of 1977:

"Those great patrons of the arts, the Renaissance popes, usually commissioned the artist in their employ - Raphael, Titian, Velazquez - to paint their portraits. The result was some of the greatest paintings ever produced.

"Since then the practice has fallen off (along with the art of portraiture). So it was with some surprise that the world learned last fall that a portrait had been painted of Pope Paul VI, even though he did not commission it or, for that matter, sit for it. Moreover, it was in a semiabstract style unlike that of any previous papal portrait.

"The artist was a 42-year-old German named Ernst Gunter Hansing. Pope Paul did not at first respond to having his picture painted with any enthusiasm, but he later relented. Hansing was given a small studio in the building that houses the Vatican gas station, and for the next two and a half years, during 13 separate visits to Rome, he observed his subject from the front row at papal audiences.

"The finished portrait has been accepted by the Pope. His Holiness described the painting as "a mirror of the situation in the Church today." Earlier, on seeing a working sketch, he made what was probably his closest approach to art criticism. It was gracefully oblique: "One almost needs a new philosophy to grasp the meaning of this in its context."

Behind a locked door in Vatican City waits a present for Pope Paul VI that may conceivably please its recipient but has already shocked many who have seen photographs of it. The gift is a large (about 71 ft. by 12 ft.) portrait of His Holiness, painted in a semi-abstract mode, in which the Pope's emaciated, suffering face and folded hands are the focus of splintering shafts of light. German Painter Ernst Guenter Hansing, 42, sketched his subject during twelve protracted stays at the Vatican over a period of 21 years. Though he never had a private sitting, he was given a front-row seat at papal ceremonies in which to work. "I wanted more than just a picture of a person," says Hansing, a Lutheran. "I wanted to show the tension-fraught situation of the church, caught in a multiplicity of issues, as reflected in the countenance of the Pope." (Freaky Painting of Paul VI Celebrates 30 Years in the Vatican. See the Appendix H below for a list of the demonic symbols in this "portrait," which was described to me by one Catholic writer as an exercise in "art realism," that is to say, that it was a true portray of the inner Modernist, Montini.) 

Oblique?

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI?

The man who "suspended" Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and nearly slapped him in the face could not call garbage by its proper name. To do so would have been to hurt the feelings of the Lutheran artist and thus to damage the cause of false ecumenism.

Then again, maybe Montini/Paul VI, a Modernist who was open to the modern in culture and whose very tomb, which is in a slanted position, was different than that of all true popes before him (and even different than that of Roncalli/John XXIII), really meant to try to "grasp the meaning" of the image of himself that he "accepted" to be displayed in the Vatican. The meaning of the Masonic and diabolical images found in the grotesque portrait of a man whose priestly and personal lives and false "pontificate" were grotesque from beginning to end was made clear to him at the moment of his death on August 6, 1978, as his mortal remains decomposed so rapidly that the Vatican spinmeisters at the time had to say that the cause was the "heat of the Mediterranean sun" (I vividly remember seeing this on television at the time.)

As the conciliar priest noted to me when we stood in front of Montini's tomb in the crypt of Saint Peter's Basilica in October 1984, "Everything about this man had to be modern. His doctrine. His philosophy. His taste in art and music and architecture. His liturgy. Yes, right down to this hideous tomb itself. Everything."

Very correct. The same is true, of course, about the entirety of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Well, didn’t Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI have any qualities of sanctity?

Here is a short answer: No!

Oh, you want more proof?

All right. Here you go.

Betraying priests behind the Iron Curtain to agents of Josef Stalin (see We Must Accept What Rationalists Reject)?

Adopting the methods of Saul Alinsky after meeting him courtesy of Jacques Maritain (see Alinsky's Sheen)?

Signing the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council that have resulted in the loss of so many souls to the Catholic Faith and helped to give a textual foundation for the conciliar revolution?

Telling the delegates at the United Masonic Nations Organization on October 4, 1965, that "The peoples of the earth turn to the United Nations as the last hope of concord and peace" (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI's Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965?

Constantly extolling the "Cult of Man"?

Returning to Turkey the flag of the Turkish flagship that was captured in the Battle of Lepanto?

Promulgating false rites of episcopal consecration, priestly ordination, the administration of the Sacrament of Confirmation and abolishing the Sacrament of Extreme Unction?

Promulgating the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo service on April 3, 1969?

Issuing the socialist manifesto Populorum Progressio, March 25, 1967 (see Making a Mockery of Catholicism).

Genuflecting before Greek Orthodox patriarch Athenagoras I on December 7, 1965, in Constantinople, Turkey?

Permitting First Communion to be given two years prior to the reception of First Penance on an "experimental" basis?

Restoring the permanent diaconate?

Betraying Josef Cardinal Midzsenty (see We Must Accept What Rationalists Reject) while engaging in his wretched policy of Ostpolitik?

Redefining the ends of marriage and promoting a "natural" means to limit the size of families in Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968 (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae)?

Opening the way to the conciliar annulment factory?

Presiding over what he himself called "the auto-destruction of the Church" as thousands of priests and religious sisters quit their religious vow and the pews of formerly Catholic churches emptied?

Engaging in egregious acts of sacrilege and blasphemy in "inter-religious" events?

Promoting "liberation theology" in the name of a "preferential option for the poor" at the Conference of Latin American Episcopates in Medellin, Colombia, on August 24-26, 1968?

A life of sodomy that resulted in a false religious sect whose hierarchy he would fill with homosexuals and homosexualists?

Too harsh?

Consider Franco Bellegrandi’s testimony in Nikita Roncalli:

Montini, moreover, it is murmured in Rome and in all of Italy, is a homosexual. Hence subject to blackmail. Hence in the hand of those who intend to maneuver him to their own ends.

In Milan, as archbishop, he was often stopped, at night, by the police, in plain clothes and in dubious company. For years he has been tied by a particular friendship to an actor who paints his hair red, and who makes no mystery of his relations with the future Pope.

The relationship would continue for years, staunch and constant. It was confided to me by an official of the Vatican security service that this favorite of Montini ’s had been granted authorization to enter or exit the papal chambers as he pleased.

So much so that often they would see him arrive in the elevator in the middle of the night!

The ‘banana skin’ on which he, Paul VI, slipped, provoking the official end to this open secret (reference to his homosexuality), was the homily that he delivered in January of 1976 on “sexual ethics,” peppered with many points regarding homosexuality, thus provoking the reaction of the French writer Roger Peyrefitte.

In fact the weekly “II Tempo,” issue no. 13 of April 4, 1976, published an interview with the literary writer (Roger Peyrefitte), who describes himself as “ the most liberal man of all of France,” in which this celebrated homosexual sharpens his pen, and rebukes the Pope with the Pope’s own homosexuality, and thus denies him the right of holding himself up as a censor. Paul VI acknowledges officially the wound of this rapier thrust.

A day of prayer was called to “make reparation for the affront made against the Pope,” but all of Italy laughed long over this episode. The English television interviewed Peyrefitte who aggravated the situation still further by declaring himself surprised at having obtained so much unhoped-for publicity, at such a good price.

The first blackmail will clutch Montini by the throat as he climbs the See of Peter. When freemasonry will promptly obtain the abolition of the excommunication with which the Church hits those in favor of cremation, threatening to reveal the secret meetings between Montini, archbishop of Milan, and “his” actor, in a hotel of Sion, in the Swiss Valais Canton. Later in Paris, the behind-the-scene-activity relating to that first, clamorous papal act of Paul VI, and to the activity of a gendarme, patient collector of the incontrovertible evidence, will be made known.

But let us return to that 1958. In his quarantine at Milan, Montini is certainly aware of his predestination. And he awaits the death of Pius XII. From that moment he will re-enter the scene as a more or less occult protagonist, yet one with a sure future. It can be said that he directly participates in Roncalli’s Pontificate, collaborating with the Pope in the drafting of the most important pontifical documents.

Toward the second half of the five-year Roncallian government of Church, the archbishop of Milan becomes the leading brain of John XXIII’ s policy. Monsignor Capovilla is shuttling between Rome and Milan. The uninterrupted connection is leaked out in the Vatican. And

those who wish to know the reasons, and question the pope with extreme caution, are led to believe that Montini will be the next pope, and so he might as well prepare for the succession.

Montini’ s ability, in this period of preparation for his imminent Pontificate, unfolds entirely into getting John XXIII to predispose the track on which to proceed expeditiously ahead. He must guard, in the Vatican, from a great ancient enemy of his: cardinal Domenico Tardini, whom the astute Roncalli has refrained from removing from the Secretary of State. That same Tardini who, years before, discovered Montini’ s secret contacts with the Kremlin. That same Tardini who forced Pius XII’s intervention in the matter, and the banishment from Rome of the dangerous plotter. But in 1961 Tardini dies, and John XXIII appoints as secretary of state the bland cardinal

Amleto Cicognani. Some do not discount the hand of the archbishop of Milan in Roncalli’s choice. It is a fact that, from that moment on, Montini’ s influence upon the policy of John XXIII grows, sometimes in the open.

His political action within the limited circle of his Milanese diocese plays along the lines of John XXIII’ s great progressive policy. Modernism, at times deemed quaint by the faithful, characterizes Montini’ s introvert and unpredictable personality. His homosexual nature prevails,

in the quest at all costs of novelty and eccentricity. He appears in public, at a ceremony at Milan’s Velodrome, wearing a cyclist cap; another time, at a construction site, he is photographed with a carpenter’ s helmet on his head. It is his exhibitionist mania at play, one that one day, as a Pope, will lead him to opt for that super-modern tiara that, resembling a missile—and thus the insolent Romans promptly baptized it—was placed on his head on coronation day. And his fever of the grotesque and novelty, would lead him to wear, during an audience with the Native Americans of Gaylord (Michigan), a Chief’s headdress, and in that state pose before the camera. That ANSA photograph went round the world in no time, to give the exact measure of a temperament that for a Pope was rather curious, to say the least.

That very frenzy for the new, that Montinian iconoclast fever, hits the Vatican of Paul VI turning it into a Hilton of dubious taste. 

That hysterical fury will drive him to wipe out every ancient remnant, within the Vatican, abolishing the Court and the ancient armed Corps, erasing in a moment century-old traditions and customs that no Pope in history had ever dared to alter, passing down to their successors, as the rule calls for, what they had received from their predecessors, intact and sound.

Thus Montini, in Milan, misses no chance of acting as a progressive.

He goes as far as to authorize lawyer Mario Mazzucchelli to read, transcribe, and publish in a book the classified files, held in the archbishopric’s Archive, of a celebrated and scandalous seventeenth century trial of a nun, the Lady of Monza, guilty of having turned her convent, whose mother superior she was, into a pleasure house for her male lover. The book, “La Monaca di Monza” (Dali’ Oglio, Editore—Milan, 1961), is a masterpiece of refined pornography. Naturally, the crafty author of that best-selling book carefully forgot to include a copy of the letter by which Montini had authorized him to read and publish the embarrassing documentation of that ancient trial.

Moreover, Montini is in constant contact with John XXIII. When he is in Rome, the Pope has some rooms near his apartment always appointed for him. And he sees him often informally. On those Vatican calls, Montini almost betrays the awareness of his approaching future. And he studies closely John XXIII’ s men, to get a personal hunch of their worth. With some he is cold and discomfiting. With others he affects benevolence and protection.

He has his men in the Vatican, priests and secular, working for him, informing him of everything that goes on under the sun, about the Pope, round the clock. One of his brothers is a Christian democrat representative, who has a private secretary. No sooner is Montini made Pope, than he than he appoints his brother’s secretary Chamberlain of the Sword and the Cape.

Unlike Roncalli, clear, genuine, stalwart in his revolutionary convictions, Montini would not commit himself. He can heap his future within himself, build it piece after piece, without giving away a hint that might reveal his future plans. He can keep rancor and benevolence at bay. Even those who know him well will say that he has an arid and manipulative temperament. And unloyal.

I can admit to have followed closely some of the Montinian “misdeeds.” One example for all: the betrayal of the Primate of Hungary. Cardinal Mindszenty has learned at his expense the two faces of Paul VI. And he was greatly hurt. But he stood tall against that betrayal with all his pride

and dignity of prince of the Church and Primate of Hungary. In October 1974, at Vienna, I knelt down before that great cardinal. And I wanted to write in its entirety the story of how he was betrayed, by Giovanni Battista Montini.

So well has the archbishop of Milan staked out his route, under the massive shadow of the priest from Sotto il Monte, that when his turn came to sit on the papal throne, all of the objectives prefixed outside the Vatican, are happily achieved. The overruling of the excommunication of freemasonry, the rapprochement with the Jewish world, the acceptance of Marxism, the involvement of Christianity with Protestantism, the de- spiritualization of Christianity.

No pope “elected by the Holy Spirit” would have succeeded, in such a few years, as it happened with Roncalli and Montini, to transform the bi-millennial face of the Church and upturn the equilibriums of the world, in accordance with the design of occult forces, interested in this colossal and dramatic revolution. Montini knew that the points of that program had been firmly established. That is why, when upon John XXIII's death he arrives in the Vatican and enters the Conclave, he will carry in his suitcase a well-pressed, elegant papal habit made by the most prestigious tailor in Rome. (Nikita Roncalli.)

Well, it should be noted that many of the "bishops" appointed in the Montinian the Sickian era were very much in tune with the then largely unknown "Father" Jorge Mario Bergoglio down at the end of the earth in Argentina, which means that they were much in tune with the true revolutionary Modernist spirit of the "Second" Vatican Council, whose implementation was being overseen by Montini himself.

Montini gifted the United States of America with a number of memorable reprobates in the conciliar hierarchy, including a few true bishops before he promulgated Annibale Bugnini's invalid rite of episcopal consecration in 1968, prior to arrival on our shores on May 23, 1973, of the Belgian Destroyer, the late Archbishop Jean Jadot, the conciliar Apostolic Delegate to this country who helped to shepherd the names of numerous ultra-conciliar revolutionaries into the conciliar hierarchy in the United States of America until he was recalled to Rome on June 27, 1980.

Among those personally "consecrated" by Jadot was "Archbishop" Robert Sanchez, who had to resign from the conciliar ordinary of Sante Fe, New Mexico, on April 6, 1993, after it was revealed on 60 Minutes that he engaged in natural vice with five different women, and none other than the notorious, self-professed "gay" (but celibate, of course) Rembert George Weakland,  a direct acolyte on the Consilium of Bugnini himself, who persecuted faithful Catholic priests and the laity during his terroristic reign as "Archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from September 20, 1977, to the time of his own scandal-prompted "retirement" on May 24, 2002 (see Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith and Just A Matter of Forgiveness?). Gee, who was that who succeeded Weakland in 2002? Yes, yes, a chap from Saint Louis, Missouri, a fellow named Timothy Michael Dolan.

Among the men advanced or promoted within the ranks of the American conciliar "hierarchy," including "auxiliary bishops," during the time of Jean Jadot, were men such as Howard Hubbard of Albany, New York, Matthew Clark of Rochester, New York, Kenneth Untener of Saginaw, Michigan, Bernard Francis Law of Cape Giradeau, Missouri, Peter Rosazza, an auxiliary of Hartford, Connecticut, known for this Marxist views, Walter Sullivan of Richmond, Virginia, the infamous Thomas Gumbleton, another self-confessed "gay" bishop," an acolyte of Call to Action's own John Cardinal Dearden from Detroit, Joseph Imesch of Joliet, Illinois, Joseph Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston and, among so many others, Robert Sanchez and Rembert Weakland themselves. Weakland was good enough to admit that the type of men favored by Jadot were "pastoral," "open-minded" and "independent thinkers" (see A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop - Rembert G. Weakland, Rembert Weakland--this link will take you directly to Weakland's discussion of Jadot begins near the bottom of the page).

Mind you, Montini's pre-Jadot selections for "bishops" in the United States of America included the likes of Joseph Bernardin (seamless garment, lover of all things lavender, blasphemer of Saint John the Evangelist by claiming that he was the original source of anti-Semitism) and Francis Mugavero, who was a notorious, "gay-friendly" revolutionary. And many of the post-Jadot selections for the American conciliar "hierarchy" during the eras of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI were of the exact mindset as Jadot's appointees had been, which means that were ideological soul mates of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (For a partial list of the "canonized" Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II's particularly nefarious appointees, see "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts.)

It was fifty-six years, six months, three days ago now, that is, on December 7, 1965, the Feast of Saint Ambrose and the Commemoration of the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI closed the heretical work of the “Second” Vatican Council by praising the work that had been done to serve the needs of man as “he really is” in the midst of the “modern” world.

One will see from the passages below that the soon to be “Pope Saint Paul VI’s delusions about the work of the council over which he presided for its second, third and fourth sessions are identical to those that inhabit the mushy mind, such as it is, of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, although expressed more artfully and with a better effort to mask Modernist precepts with references to Catholic Church’s work to infuse the world with her teaching.

Unfortunately, for Montini, his sick delusions have turned into a full scale celebration of nature without regard for the salvation of souls and in a spirit of religious indifferentism that flowed directly from the “Second” Vatican Council’s false ecumenism:

But we cannot pass over one important consideration in our analysis of the religious meaning of the council: it has been deeply committed to the study of the modern world. Never before perhaps, so much as on this occasion, has the Church felt the need to know, to draw near to, to understand, to penetrate, serve and evangelize the society in which she lives; and to get to grips with it, almost to run after it, in its rapid and continuous change. This attitude, a response to the distances and divisions we have witnessed over recent centuries, in the last century and in our own especially, between the Church and secular society -- this attitude has been strongly and unceasingly at work in the council; so much so that some have been inclined to suspect that an easy-going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking . . ., may have swayed persons and acts of the ecumenical synod, at the expense of the fidelity which is due to tradition, and this to the detriment of the religious orientation of the council itself. We do not believe that this shortcoming should be imputed to it, to its real and deep intentions, to its authentic manifestations. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)

Behold the “authentic manifestations” of the “Second” Vatican Council which prove that those Catholics, including some of the bishops at this false council, who expressed concerns about “an easy-going and excessive responsiveness to the outside world, to passing events, cultural fashions, temporary needs, an alien way of thinking” were entirely correct:

Yes, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick was the delusional one, not his contemporaries who saw what they believed to be the Catholic Church making terms with error and heresy. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Montini praised the fact that the fathers of the “Second” Vatican Council sought to take an “optimistic” view of man and of the modern world while issuing “messages of trust” to “the present-day world”:

And what aspect of humanity has this august senate studied? What goal under divine inspiration did it set for itself? It also dwelt upon humanity's ever twofold facet, namely, man's wretchedness and his greatness, his profound weakness -- which is undeniable and cannot be cured by himself -- and the good that survives in him which is ever marked by a hidden beauty and an invincible serenity. But one must realize that this council, which exposed itself to human judgment, insisted very much more upon this pleasant side of man, rather than on his unpleasant one. Its attitude was very much and deliberately optimistic. A wave of affection and admiration flowed from the council over the modem world of humanity. Errors were condemned, indeed, because charity demanded this no less than did truth, but for the persons themselves there was only warming, respect and love. Instead of depressing diagnoses, encouraging remedies; instead of direful prognostics, messages of trust issued from the council to the present-day world. The modern world's values were not only respected but honored, its efforts approved, its aspirations purified and blessed. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)

Yes, the “pleasant side of man” has certainly manifested itself over the past fifty years.

A worldwide genocide, waged by chemical and surgical means, of innocent preborn children.

The worldwide vivisection of living human beings for their vital bodily organs in order to transplant them into those on the point of their natural deaths.

The worldwide starvation and dehydration of disabled human beings.

The worldwide use of “hospice” as a means to expedite the deaths of chronically or terminally ill patients in the name of “compassion.”

Big Pharma’s worldwide control of how human beings are to be overmedicated and used as guinea pigs to refine various formulae for “curing” problems created by Big Ag’s genetic manipulation of our food sources.

The worldwide campaign to institutionalize euthanasia for the sick and suffering and to oppose the imposition of the death penalty upon those adjudged guilty of heinous crimes after the administration of the due process of law.

The worldwide campaign to advance the sin of Sodom and its related vices as “human rights.”

The worldwide campaign to use junk science to promote the ideology of evolutionism and to promote a pantheistic protection of the environment and draconian measures to retard “global warming.”

The worldwide use of telecommunications as a means to attack and undermine the innocence of the young and to promote all manner of sins, both natural and unnatural, against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments by human beings of all ages.

The worldwide control of what is said to be “news” by master illusionists who want to condition, control, manipulate and agitate the masses into accepting uncritically whatever is said to be “reality” because it has been “reported” as such.

The worldwide campaign by national and supranational governmental agencies to institutionalize statism by the issuance of hundreds of thousands of regulations and the imposition of countless taxes, fees and fines to limit the use of private property and to seek to criminalize speech deemed “hateful” by our caesars.

The worldwide creation and nurturing of a caste of citizens who are dependent upon the state for their very daily needs, thus accustoming entire generations of human beings to become wards of the civil state.

The worldwide use of social engineering to change the demographic composition of neighborhoods and communities.

The dominance of multinational banks and corporations whose only loyalty is to the bottom line and to the promotion of a social agenda that is anti-family and anti-life as they practice usury to enslave those with average or below average incomes in exchange for their being able to finance the purchases of their homes, vehicles, clothing and major appliances.

The systematic warfare against the expression of Christianity in public as a means of protecting “diversity” and of promotion “toleration,” especially for Mohammedans, whose swollen ranks in the once Catholic states of Europe have resulted in one of Talmudism’s long-sought goals: the elimination of the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, from public view.

An endless procession of wars, many of them waged simultaneously, that have killed and wounded millions upon millions of people and have laid waste entire lands and made refugees of untold millions of people.

Yes, yes, yes.

The “pleasant side of man.”

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI was steeped in delusions, which have been fostered by the illusion that the work of the “Second” Vatican Council has been that of the Catholic Church and that the “liturgical reform” has enabled men to communicate with God more fully:       

You see, for example, how the countless different languages of peoples existing today were admitted for the liturgical expression of men's communication with God and God's communication with men: to man as such was recognized his fundamental claim to enjoy full possession of his rights and to his transcendental destiny. His supreme aspirations to life, to personal dignity, to his just liberty, to culture, to the renewal of the social order, to justice and peace were purified and promoted; and to all men was addressed the pastoral and missionary invitation to the light of the Gospel.

We can now speak only too briefly on the very many and vast questions, relative to human welfare, with which the council dealt. It did not attempt to resolve all the urgent problems of modem life; some of these have been reserved for a further study which the Church intends to make of them, many of them were presented in very restricted and general terms, and for that reason are open to further investigation and various applications.

But one thing must be noted here, namely, that the teaching authority of the Church, even though not wishing to issue extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements, has made thoroughly known its authoritative teaching on a number of questions which today weigh upon man's conscience and activity, descending, so to speak, into a dialogue with him, but ever preserving its own authority and force; it has spoken with the accommodating friendly voice of pastoral charity; its desire has been to be heard and understood by everyone; it has not merely concentrated on intellectual understanding but has also sought to express itself in simple, up-to-date, conversational style, derived from actual experience and a cordial approach which make it more vital, attractive and persuasive; it has spoken to modern man as he is.

Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind, of every condition, in every weakness and need. The Church has, so to say, declared herself the servant of humanity, at the very time when her teaching role and her pastoral government have, by reason of the council's solemnity, assumed greater splendor and vigor: the idea of service has been central. (Address During The Last General Meeting Of the "Second Vatican Council.)

The servant of humanity, not the Mystical Spouse of Christ the King to advance the work of the sanctification and salvation of souls.

“Modern man as he is?”

It was to “meet” “modern man as he is” that Montini/Paul VI authorized Monsignor Annibale Bugnini, C.M., to plan a “reformed” liturgy that made peace with false religions and with the world itself:

We must all modify the mental habits we have formed concerning the sacred ceremony and religious practices, especially if we have believed that ceremony to be a performance of outward rites and that in practice no more was required than a passive and distracted attendance.

One must make oneself aware that a new spiritual pedagogy has been born of the Council. That is what is novel about it, and we must not hesitate to make ourselves, first of all, disciples and then upholders of the school of prayer that has begun.

We may not relish this, but we must be docile and trust. The religious and spiritual plan unfolded before us by the new liturgical constitution is a stupendous one for depth and authenticity of doctrine, for rationality of Christian logic, for purity and riches of culture and art. It corresponds to the interior being and needs of modern man. . . . [the liturgical reform] affects habits that are dear to us, habits respectable enough maybe. . . . [and it might also be true that the reform] requires of us some effort.

It is well that this should be so, as one of the goals of the reform was the sharing of the faithful in the rites the priest directs and personifies. And it is good that it is actually the authority of the Church that wills, promotes and kindles the desire for this new manner of praying, thus giving greater increase to her spiritual mission.

It was and is, the Church's first care to safeguard the orthodoxy of prayer. Her subsequent care is to make the expression of worship stable and uniform, a great work from which the spiritual life of the Church has derived immense benefits. Now this care of hers is still further extended, modifying aspects of ancient rituals which are inadequate today.

The Church is aiming with courage and thoughtfulness to deepen th essential significance of community needs and the supernatural value of ecclesiastical worship. Above all, she is making more evident the part played by the word of God, whether of Sacred Scripture or that taught through the Church in the catechism and the homily, thus giving to the celebration its pure and, at the same time, its heart and center. (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, as quoted in "Be 'Docile' To Liturgy Changes, Pope Says," The Catholic Courier, January 21, 1965, p. 1. Be 'Docile' to Liturgy. See the appendix below for a rough translation from the Italian language original of the general audience remarks, which were divided into parts, the latter part of which reflects the Religious News Service wire report that was published in The Catholic Courier of the Diocese of Rochester. The then universal public face of apostasy, Paul VI, addressed the theme of false ecumenism on January 20, 1965, just in case you'd like to know what this egregious little man did for an encore seven days later.)

Well, ladies and gentleman, to quote a former colleague of mine, "There you have it."

Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI provided a perfect description of the spirit of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's liturgical revolution that touched almost every theme that has been repeated by its apologists for the past fifty years now. Some of us have heard these themes over and over again, whether from the lecterns at which priests or presbyters gave their "homilies" or, in the case of those who us who spent time in seminary, in formal classroom settings.

Every revolutionary prescription imaginable is to be found in this gold mine of propaganda that has been preserved in the archives of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, which itself is a bastion of apostasy and of the lavender collective.

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini/Paul VI’s predecessor and protector, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/John XXIII, himself changed the direction of his nascent religious away from the Social Reign of Christ the King toward the service of humanity while finding the “pleasant side of Communism” that had, Roncalli believed, much in common with Catholic Social Teaching:

59. It is, therefore, especially to the point to make a clear distinction between false philosophical teachings regarding the nature, origin, and destiny of the universe and of man, and movements which have a direct bearing either on economic and social questions, or cultural matters or on the organization of the state, even if these movements owe their origin and inspiration to these false tenets. While the teaching once it has been clearly set forth is no longer subject to change, the movements, precisely because they take place in the midst of changing conditions, are readily susceptible of change. Besides, who can deny that those movements, in so far as they conform to the dictates of right reason and are interpreters of the lawful aspirations of the human person, contain elements that are positive and deserving of approval?

160. For these reasons it can at times happen that meetings for the attainment of some practical results which previously seemed completely useless now are either actually useful or may be looked upon as profitable for the future. But to decide whether this moment has arrived, and also to lay down the ways and degrees in which work in common might be possible for the achievement of economic, social, cultural, and political ends which are honorable and useful: these are the problems which can only be solved with the virtue of prudence, which is the guiding light of the virtues that regulate the moral life, both individual and social. Therefore, as far as Catholics are concerned, this decision rests primarily with those who live and work in the specific sectors of human society in which those problems arise, always, however, in accordance with the principles of the natural law, with the social doctrine of the church, and with the directives of ecclesiastical authorities. For it must not be forgotten that the Church has the right and the duty not only to safeguard the principles of ethics and religion, but also to intervene authoritatively with Her children in the temporal sphere, when there is a question of judging the application of those principles to concrete cases.[67] (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)

Consider Pope Pius XI's complete condemnation of such friendship with Marxism with Roncalli's very thinly veiled and carefully phrased call for it, which is why Roncalli/John XXIII entered into the Metz Accord to prevent any criticism of Communism at the "Second" Vatican Council (see The Council of Metz and Red China: Still A Workshop For The New Ecclesiology): 

See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)

“Saint John XXIII” and the soon-to-be “Saint Paul VI” were figures of Antichrist just as much as their latter-day champion, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Indeed, a close friend of Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli/"Saint John XXIII" admitted that the crapulous old Sillonist wanted a rupture with the past:

Among these documents was a note by Msgr. Loris Capovilla, secretary of John XXIII in which, on behalf of the Pope, he gave instructions for the redaction of the Bull Humanae salutis, the bull that convened the Council. On the text typed by Capovilla, there are side notes handwritten by John XXIII himself. It is clearly affirmed in this text, Marco Roncalli assures us, that the Pope did not desire to follow the course of Vatican I because “neither in its substance nor in its form would it correspond to the present day situation.” We also see a rebuttal of the Church’s position on the temporal order taught by Pius IX, because now, the note emphasizes, “the Church demonstrates that she wants to be mater et magistra [mother and teacher].”

This revelation is, in my opinion, an extraordinary confirmation that John XXIII did not want any continuity with the previous Ecumenical Council convened and directed by Pius IX. When he affirmed that Vatican II must not follow Vatican I “either in its substance or in its form,” he was saying that it should be completely different; this is not far from saying that it should be the opposite.

Indeed, to say that the substance should be different means that the doctrine defended must be different. To say that the form should be different means that the militant character of Vatican I’s documents must be avoided. Incidentally, the reason alleged to explain a change in the Church’s position regarding the world – that now she wants to be mother and teacher – confirms that he wanted Vatican II to steer clear of the militant spirit of Vatican I. (Atila Sinka Guimaraes, John XXIII Wanted A Rupture With The Past.)

Jansenist that he was, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII even “simplified” the Divine Office and suppressed or demoted various feast days in the General Calendar of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. Despite the protestations of some of his defenders, these liturgical changes presaged the full-scale liturgical revolution that would take place after his death no matter his professed love for the Latin language. A love of Latin means nothing if it is not accompanied by a love for the truths of the Holy Faith without any kind of alteration whatsoever.

Roncalli/John XXIII’s desire for a rupture with the past provided the pillars of what have become cornerstones of the whole edifice of the counterfeit church of conciliarism: an alleged conflict between “mercy” and discipline, and the very foundation of what would late become known as the “new ecclesiology” after his death. It is this "new ecclesiology" that has been used to claim that Protestant sects are actually "ecclesial communities" that possess "elements of truth and sanctification" although they are instruments of the devil to spread error and foment the sort of liturgical travesties that paved the way for the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. 

Franco Bellegrandi commented on Pacem in Terris and the subsequent betrayal of Josef Cardinal Minszenty by the man responsible for much of its text, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI"

Then, commenting on the encyclical “Pacem in Terris,” the Russian columnist wrote that John XXIII“...puts forward for the first time in an official document the issue of a possible cooperation between Catholics and non-Catholics toward the achievement of a scope that is of interest to all humanity. He writes explicitly that the reconciliation, which only yesterday was or seemed impossible, is necessary today or could become so tomorrow. . .

Certainly the desired “reconciliation” has turned out to be unexpectedly advantageous to the Marxists. It has alienated, on the other hand, a considerable mass of believers who no longer recognize their own Church in the post-Conciliar Church. I carry in my memory and in my heart the words spoken to me by Cardinal Mindszenty in Vienna on October 18, 1974. I had asked the Primate of Hungary, twice nailed onto the cross of his martyrdom, first by the fierce fury of the Marxist bailiffs, subsequently by the cold callousness of Papa Montini: “Which is the True Church, that official one that now, in the world, fraternizes with Marxist atheism, or else the one abandoned by Rome because it remained faithful to Tradition.” The old Magyar bishop had directly replied to me, “The one abandoned by Rome.” (Nikita Roncalli.)

The Church abandoned by the Occupy Vatican Movement on the West Bank of the Tiber River is the true Church. Cardinal Mindszenty was very correct.

Why, then, do so many priests and presbyters who remain attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism seek to assuage themselves with self-satisfied expressions, sometimes made on their own websites and blogs for all the world to see, of how "obedient" they have been to their superiors?

Franco Bellegrandi had the same question and minced no words about their cowardly careerism: 

In four years the Vatican II Ecumenical Council reached and easily surpassed its three fundamental objectives: the Liturgical reform in the Protestant sense, the dialogue with the representatives of Dialectic and Historical Materialism, and the yielding on Religious Freedom in a Masonic key.

With meditated impartiality, we must give Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli credit for his “technically” flawless job. The liquidation in less than five years of two thousand years of history. What is puzzling, is the guilty blind acceptance with which most of the clergy has suffered, when not an active participant, the action of John XXIII first, and Paul VI’s afterwards, in the liquidation of the ancient structure of the Church.

I know personally that many bishops were and are against it. All these gentlemen, who hold at heart the fate of the Church, shared with their close relations their dissent for the action of the Council. Inconceivably, however, none of them has voiced their concern, taking a stand. They have hidden behind the all too easy alibi of obedience. But what obedience? when the very Council which they, with their guilty silence sustained, dismantled the import of that vain term, hitting and annihilating, day after day, hierarchy and authority, in the name of a “collegiality” elevated to system? They feared and do fear the loss of their status and their prebends, and thus tighten their lips and ignore that two thousand years of Church are crying out their treason. One would holler in the livid faces of these pusillanimous or opportunist parades, the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, clear and resounding as trumpet’s blares: “Illa virtus dicitur naturaliter prior quam obedientia, UT PATET DE FIDE” [(If there be any virtue, whose object is prior to the precept) That virtue is said to be naturally prior to obedience. AS IS EVIDENT CONCERNING FAITH.] (Summa Theologica 11-11 question 104 art. 3); “Quandoque praecepta praelatorum sunt contra Deum. Ergo non in omnibus, praelatis est obediendum” [Whenever the commands of prelates are against God. Therefore not in all things must prelates be obeyed.] (11-11 question 104 art. 5) and “Praelati sunt imitandi non omnibus, sed in his, quae sunt secundum regulam Christi” [Prelates are not to be copied in all matters. But in these which are according to the prescription of Christ.] (Comment on the Epistle of St. Paul 2 to the Tess. 3,14).
But they preferred the comfortable unexceptionable obedience, which is a flagrant disobedience to their duty of priests, of spreading and defending the Faith. And they did, and do, keep silent. ... The Conciliar reforms have contributed to demolish the Church, to ruin priesthood, to destroy the sacrifice and the sacraments, to wipe out religious life, to spread Naturalistic and Teilhardian teachings in the universities, in the seminars, in the catechesis, teachings derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, so many times condemned by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. (Nikita Roncalli.)

What Franco Bellegrandi did not understand, however, it is impossible for the Catholic Church to be touched by the slightest taint of error nor it can anyone disobey the commands of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter:

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.)

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.)

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.)

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.

Quite to the contrary of the defiance urged by Franco Bellegrandi, it is never permissible to defy a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter on any point of Faith and Morals:

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.)

There are Catholics within the conciliar structures who know that “Pope Francis," to cite one example, blasphemed Our Lady by disparaging her work as the Co-Redemptrix. However, misinformed by the Gallicanist, cafeteria-style, “have your pope and eat him, too” ecclesiology of the resist while recognize movements, these well-meaning Catholics place themselves at odds with the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church about the doctrinal effects of Papal Infallibility.

Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., on Papal Infallibility

Many past commentaries on this site have cited the writing of the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton about the necessity of assenting to everything that a pope causes to be inserted into his Acta Apostolicae Sedis. For purposes of this commentary, however, I would like to call upon the writing of Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., a legendary giant of a German missionary to the United States of America in the Nineteenth Century who preached throughout the Midwest and who wrote many books in defense of the Holy Faith, including one entitled Protestantism and Infidelity.

Father Weninger wrote a book entitled On The Apostolical and Infallible Authority of the Pope When Teaching the Faithful, and On His Relation to a General Council after the doctrine of Papal Infallibility had been solemnly proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council that document how the doctrine was always believed and taught prior to its proclamation while also explaining the meaning of the doctrine in that no one can dissent from any teaching on a true pope on Faith and Morals even when not solemnly defined:

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 healthful. In 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?

Don’t the following words of Bishop Emil Bougaud written over one hundred thirty-five years ago mean anything about how wrong the late Archbishop Lefebvre was in claiming to have the authority to judge the words and actions of men he acknowledges as true popes and with whose agents he himself “negotiated”?

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)

If one believes that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is what he is not, that is, a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, he must agree with him, for example, that the doctrine of Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix is “foolishness.” However, the fact that he is as unreliable teacher of the Holy Faith as each of his five predecessors should teach us means that it is just as impossible for him to be a true pope as it had been for his five predecessors to have been true popes. Heresy, acts of apostasy and sacrilege, blasphemy, and error have no place in Holy Mother Church, but the fact that the conciliar “popes” have embraced a false religion and have said and done things repugnant to the Sacred Deposit of Faith and thus to the good of souls should teach us all that we need to know about the true state of the Church Militant on earth at this time of apostasy, blasphemy, and betrayal.

Oh, there is one passage from one of Father Weninger’s writing that is pertinent to this commentary.

While the entire sermon is appended below, consider the following passage from Father Francis X. Weninger’s First Sermon for Good Friday about the role of Our Lady as the perfect cooperator in the work of her Divine Son’s Redemption of the human race:

As it seemed good to the Lord to place a helpmate by the side of the earthly Adam, so we behold at the side of Jesus, the heavenly Adam, Mary, the Eve of the New Law; that, as by the fall of the first Adam and Eve the whole human race was plunged into an abyss of woe, so through the second — Jesus and Mary — rescued man was led to hope for heaven.

It is true that, in the abstract, it was the merits of Christ alone which effected our redemption, yet, that its fruits might be imparted to man individually, Jesus was pleased to place by his side a mother — Mary — for the consolation and assistance of the human race.

Therefore, God filled her heart with the most fervent affection for us, who have been born in sin, ensnared by numberless temptations, walking in the path to heaven, it may be, but in constant danger of going astray, and persecuted by the enemies of our salvation who rejoice when we make but one false step, hoping thereby that we will become their prey forever. Mary's heart is filled with the most unspeakable compassion for us; and no mother, of her own natural inclination, so fondly loves a child, so tenderly cares for its welfare, so untiringly watches over it in every danger, as does Mary in regard to the children of men; especially if they have had the happiness of receiving baptism as members of the Holy Catholic Church. "Come ye all to me, and be filled with my fruits." Thus does Holy Church cry out to those who zealously walk under her protection and patronage in the way of perfection, the path which leads to the joys of heaven. (Father Francis X. Weninger, S.J., Original, Short and Practical Sermons for Every Feast of the Liturgical Year: Three Sermons for Every Feast, published originally by C. J. H. Lowen, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1882, pp. 279-287.)

Just more “foolishness?”

Not all.

Catholic truth.

Summary

I would like to point out by way of amplification that Jorge Mario Bergoglio's heresies and continuing torrent of unspeakable blasphemies against the Mother of God demonstrate yet again that he is a truly lawless man who has no regard for the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, Which is guided infallibly by Our Lady's own Mystical Spouse, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity, God the Holy Ghost in her doctrines, her liturgical rites and even the very indulgenced prayers that are collected in The Raccolta. Several prayers in The Raccolta make specific reference to Our Lady as the Co-Redemptrix, meaning that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes in an impossibility: namely, that God the Holy Ghost failed in His duty to protect Catholics from what he considers to be "false doctrines" in the Church's approved and indulgenced prayers. 

Obviously, the five heretics who have headed the counterfeit church of conciliarism from October 28, 1958, to February 28, 2013 (the date on which Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict took off in a helicopter for San Clemente, California, I mean, Castel Gandolfo) believed that many of Holy Mother Church's doctrines prior to the "Second" Vatican Council were erroneous, but they tried to hide their beliefs by taking refuge in the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned proposition of dogmatic evolutionism," which was marketed by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II as "living tradition" and by the aforementioned Ratzinger/Benedict as the "hermeneutic of continuity." Jorge Mario Bergoglio, however, is simply unconcerned about masking his contempt for Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals, and he is relentless in his efforts to state that Holy Mother Church has erred in her teaching, which is a blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost. Bergoglio does not need any "stinkin'" hermeneutic of continuity to "finesse" Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals as he is contemptuous of almost everything to do with the Holy Faith.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism has been awash in heresy from its beginnings as it is premised upon Modernism’s condemned precept of “the evolution of dogma” that is nothing other than a denial of the very immutability of God Himself. It is thus no exaggeration to state that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is premised upon a denial of God’s very Divine Nature as He has revealed It to us exclusively through His Catholic Church.

From the denial of God’s Divine Nature flows quite logically the heresies associated with the Divine Constitution of his Holy Catholic Church by means of the “new ecclesiology,” false ecumenism, “inter-religious prayer” services and “episcopal collegiality. Similarly, the denial of God’s Divine Nature is responsible for the rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King over men and their nations in favor of the heresy of “religious liberty” that is so responsible for producing havoc all throughout the supposedly “civilized world,” starting in the new places that gave birth to it, the United States of America and the “First Republic of France.”

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is awash in abominable sacrileges, starting with the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and its other false sacramentally barren rites (“episcopal consecration,” “priestly ordination,” “confirmation,” “anointing of the sick”) and the wretched displays of wanton debauchery spawned thereby.

Ah, but our relatives, former friends and acquaintances think that we are the problem for holding fast to the truths of the true Faith that Jorge despises:

We must always remember these words of Saint Athanasius:

May God console you!...What saddens you...is the fact that others have occupied the churches by violence, while during this time you are on the outside. It is a fact that they have the premises -- but you have the Apostolic Faith. They can occupy our churches, but they are outside the true Faith. You remain outside the places of worship, but the Faith dwells within you. Let us consider: What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?

True, the premises are good when the Apostolic Faith is preached there -- they are holy if everything takes place there in a holy way...

You are the ones who are happy. You who remain within the Church by your faith, who hold firmly to the foundations of the Faith which has come down to us from Apostolic Tradition. And if an execrable jealousy has tried to shake it on a number of occasions, it has not succeeded. They are the ones who have broken away from it in the present crisis.

No one, ever, will prevail against your faith, beloved brothers. And we believe that God will give us our churches back some day.

Thus, the more violently they try to occupy the places of worship, the more they separate themselves from the Church. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from It and going astray.

Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ. (Letter of St. Athanasius to his flock.)

"What is more important, the place or the Faith? The true Faith, obviously. Who has lost and who has won in this struggle? The one who keeps the premises or the one who keeps the Faith?"

These are words to remember. No place, not even places where the Holy Mass was once offered by true bishops and true priests, is more important than the Faith. We must seek out that true Faith today as we make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds, recognizing, of course, that we are not one whit better than anyone else and that we have much for which to make reparation as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.

Every Rosary we pray, offered up to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, will help to make reparation for our sins, which are so responsible for the state of the Church Militant on earth and for that of the world-at-large, and those of the whole world, including the conciliarists who blaspheme God regularly by means of lies such as the "hermeneutic of continuity” and the alleged need to “accompany” sinners who have no intention of repenting their sins or amending their lives of perdition.

The conciliarists lose in the end. Christ the King will emerge triumphant once again as the fruit of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and our Queen, Mary Immaculate. The Church Militant will rise again from her mystical death and burial.

Keep praying. Keep sacrificing. Keep fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in your own lives.

August Queen of Heaven, sovereign mistress of the angels, thou who from the beginning hast received from God the power and the mission to crush the head of Satan: we humbly implore thee to send thy holy legions, so that under thy command and by thy power they may drive the devils away, everywhere fight them subduing their boldness, and thrust them down into the abyss.

Who is like unto God?

O good and tender Mother, thou willst always be our love and our hope.

O divine Mother send thy holy angels to defend me and to drive from away from me the cruel enemy.

Holy Angels and Archangels, defend us and keep us.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary right 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 Margaret of Scotland, pray for us.