Words Fail

Words fail at the image below:


Bolivia President Evo Morales, a self-professed earth-worshiping socialist, and his gift to Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Please note the smile on Jorge Mario Berogoglio’s face upon receiving this blasphemous and sacrilegious representation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Crucifixion on a hammer and a sickle, the very symbols of international socialism, including Marxism-Leninism.

And yet there is a smile on the face of the Argentine Apostate. A smile.

Without for one second making light of this terrible and terrifying representation of Our Crucified Redeemer, it should be noted that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s predecessor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, smiled broadly when receiving objects and symbols of five false religions as he visited the John Paul II Cultural Center in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, on Thursday, April 17, 2008. 

Below one can see a photograph of "Pope Benedict XVI," the alleged "restorer of tradition," as he received a copy of the blasphemous Mohammedan "holy book," the Koran, on that occasion over seven years ago now:

258_KoranRatz.jpg - 77616 Bytes

John Paul II Cultural Center, Washington, District of Columbia, Thursday, April 17, 2008

By the way, "Pope Benedict XVI" was not "surprised" or "blindsided" by the presentations, which were announced in advance by the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and each representative of a false religion who presented his or her false idol to Ratzinger/Benedict was introduced by Milwaukee auxiliary "bishop" Richard Slkba, who was the morally, doctrinally and liturgically corrupt Rembert George Wekland's acolyte while the latter was cover up his own moral crimes and those of this clergy:

A silver menorah with seven lights. It symbolizes the perennial validity of God’s covenant of peace. Silver is frequently used in the Eastern European Jewish tradition. The menorah recalls the seven branched lamp stand used in the temple in Jerusalem.

A small, finely crafted edition of the Qur’an, in green leather and gold leaf edging. The Qur’an is the revered word of God, proclaiming God’s message of peace. Green is the traditional Islamic color.

A metallic cube representing the Jain principles of non-violence and respect for a diversity of viewpoints as a way to peace through self-discipline and dialogue.

The sacred syllable Om on a brass incense burner. Om is the primordial sound of creation itself, by which God’s liberating peace is made known. Bronze or brass are widely used for Hindu liturgical ornaments. Incense sticks are used in ritual worship among Hindu believers.

A bronze bell cast in Korea. In various Buddhist cultures, the sound of the bell demarcates the times of meditation, which leads to inner peace and enlightenment. (Many Acts of Evil Demand Many Acts of Reparation; see the video of this outrage by clicking April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.) 

It is relevant to note that Richard Sklba was an auxiliary "bishop" to the happy "bishop," Timothy Michael Dolan, at the time this blasphemy was uttered in the presence of the man who believes himself to be the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth, who did not make any gesture of protest and actually stood up to greet those who presented him with the symbols described above as he admired each and every single one of them.

This is not Catholicism. Who says so? Let's try Pope Pius XII for just one example as I know that the three people who remain as readers of this site have other things to do than read these articles:

Her deportment has not changed in the course of history, nor can it change whenever or wherever, under the most diversified forms, she is confronted with the choice: either incense for idols or blood for Christ. The place where you are now present, Eternal Rome, with the remains of a greatness that was and with the glorious memories of its martyrs, is the most eloquent witness to the answer of the Church. Incense was not burned before the idols, and Christian blood flowed and consecrated the ground. But the temples of the gods lie in the cold devastation of ruins howsoever majestic; while at the tombs of the martyrs the faithful of all nations and all tongues fervently repeat the ancient Creed of the Apostles. (Pope Pius XII, Ci Riesce, December 6, 1953.) 

What great voice in the world of that false ecclesiology known as “resist while recognize” denounced the “pope” who had given them Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, to “pacify spirits” (Ratzinger/Benedict’s own words) after he had admiringly accepted and touched the symbols of false religions?

No, many, although not quite all, in the “resist while recognize” camp adopted a “see no hear, hear no evil, evil thus not exist unless we want to recognize it” approach to things done and said by their supposed “restorer of tradition” who has been a Modernist heretic by way of the “new theology” throughout the course of his sixty-four years as a priest. The same voices who denounced—and rightly so—“Saint Paul II” for his own endless acts of apostasy, blasphemy, and sacrilege permitted themselves to be muted during Ratzinger/Benedict’s “Petrine Ministry” as they ignored this man’s crimes against God and the Holy Faith in the utterly delusional belief that he had started a “restoration” that was unstoppable. 

Far from being a “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was merely a Girodist or Menshevik brand of revolutionary who sought to give “permanence” and “stability” to his own interpretation of the direction of the conciliar revolution. Alas, permanence and stability is impossible in a false religious sect.

Consider the fact that Martin Luther himself was aghast at the behavior of his “evangelicals” once he had “liberated” them from their supposed “enslavement” to the only means of human sanctification and salvation, the Catholic Church. There is no such thing as permanence or stability in any heretical sect, something that Pope Saint Pius X himself noted about the Modernists in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary:  

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

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s style is different from that of his immediate predecessor in the conciliar “Petrine Ministry” only in that it is based upon the man both of them admired, Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria Montini, who was the conciliar “pontiff” during the time of his seminary studies and the first nearly nine years of his presbyteral service as a lay Jesuit revolutionary. Montini’s support for socialism was well-known, and it was this wretched homosexual who permitted himself to be blackmailed by Soviet agents into betraying the locatiton and idenity of Catholic priests that Pope Pius XII had sent behind the Iron Curtain when, Montini, was serving in the Secretariat of State of the Holy See (see Francis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrants), and who gave impetus to the "liberation theology" that is close to the heart of so many within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself and including the denier of Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity, Gerhard Ludwig "Cardinal" Muller, who is the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Montini/Paul The Sick endorsed what he called the "preferential option for the poor" when addressing the CELAM conference on August 24, 1968, in Medellin, Colombia and when he issued Octagesima Adveniens, May 15, 1971:

23. Through the statement of the rights of man and the seeking for international agreements for the application of these rights, progress has been made towards inscribing these two aspirations in deeds and structures (16). Nevertheless various forms of discrimination continually reappear-ethnic cultural, religious, political and so on. In fact, human rights are still too often disregarded, if not scoffed at, or else they receive only formal recognition. In many cases legislation does not keep up with real situations. Legislation is necessary, but it is not sufficient for setting up true relationships of justice and equity. In teaching us charity, the Gospel instructs us in the preferential respect due to the poor and the special situation they have in society: the more fortunate should renounce some of their rights so as to place their goods more generously at the service of others. If, beyond legal rules, there is really no deeper feeling of respect for and service to others, then even equality before the law can serve as an alibi for flagrant discrimination, continued exploitation and actual contempt. Without a renewed education in solidarity, an overemphasis of equality can give rise to an individualism in which each one claims his own rights without wishing to be answerable for the common good.

In this field, everyone sees the highly important contribution of the Christian spirit, which moreover answers man's yearning to be loved. "Love for man, the prime value of the earthly order" ensures the conditions for peace, both social peace and international peace, by affirming our universal brotherhood (17).  (Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick, Octagesima Adveniens, May 15, 1971.)

This was nothing other than an attempt to graft a Marxist diatribe onto the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, and it had nothing to do with commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891.

Love for "man, the prime vaulue of the earthly order," not love of Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us exclsively through His true Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

"Love for man," of course is one of the chief tenets of Marxism, something that the late Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn noted at his famous commencement address at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

As humanism in its development became more and more materialistic, it made itself increasingly accessible to speculation and manipulation at first by socialism and then by communism. So that Karl Marx was able to say in 1844 that "communism is naturalized humanism.'     

This statement turned out not to be entirely senseless. One does see the same stones in the foundations of a despiritualized humanism and of any type of socialism: endless materialism; freedom from religion and religious responsibility, which under communist regimes reach the stage of anti-religious dictatorship; concentration on social structures with a seemingly scientific approach. (This is typical of the Enlightenment in the Eighteenth Century and of Marxism). Not by coincidence all of communism's meaningless pledges and oaths are about Man, with a capital M, and his earthly happiness. At first glance it seems an ugly parallel: common traits in the thinking and way of life of today's West and today's East? But such is the logic of materialistic development.   

The interrelationship is such, too, that the current of materialism which is most to the left always ends up by being stronger, more attractive and victorious, because it is more consistent. Humanism without its Christian heritage cannot resist such competition. We watch this process in the past centuries and especially in the past decades, on a world scale as the situation becomes increasingly dramatic. Liberalism was inevitably displaced by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism and socialism could never resist communism. The communist regime in the East could stand and grow due to the enthusiastic support from an enormous number of Western intellectuals who felt a kinship and refused to see communism's crimes. When they no longer could do so, they tried to justify them. In our Eastern countries, communism has suffered a complete ideological defeat; it is zero and less than zero. But Western intellectuals still look at it with interest and with empathy, and this is precisely what makes it so immensely difficult for the West to withstand the East. (Dr. Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, A World Split Apart. June 8, 1978.)  

Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick believed in "man" as he attempted in Octagesima Adveniens, May 15, 1971, to graft graft a Marxist diatribe onto the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King that had nothing to do with commemorating the eightieth anniversary of Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, May 15, 1891. Montini/Paul VI's ideological sloangeering helped to  let loose a series of Soviet armed and financed and Cuban trained revolutions throughout Central America in the name of serving the "Gospel."

No, I am not suggesting that Montini/Paul the Sick intended to start those revolutions, only that he, a thorough doctrinal, liturgical, social and moral revolutionary, helped revolutionary movements to find a pretext for garnering the support of "the people" who had been the victims of repressive military juntas and economic injustices. Montini/Paul the Sick made "liberation theology" a fashionable way for Soviet-backed and Cuban-trained guerillas who were more brutally murderous than the governments they were attempting to overthrow.

Evo Morales, the coca leaf-chewing earth worshiper, is but a product, at least in some part, of that "liberation theology," which was endorsed and practiced by the Marxist-influenced Jesuit, Father Luis Espinal Camps, who designed the Marxist representation of Our Lord as crucified on a hammer and a sickle at the direct inspiration and direction of none other than the devil himself.  It is not surprising, therefore, that a man who could do such violence to Our Lord on His Holy Cross, the very instrument of our Redemption, was gunned down violently by agents of Bolivia's then-dictator. God will not be mocked. Father Luis Espinal died violently because he did violence to the Holy Faith and to the very sacredness of the Holy Cross upon which the Divine Redeemer offered up His very life to His Co-Eternal, Co-Equal God the Father in atonement for human sins, thereby paying back in His Sacred Humanity the very debt of sin that was owed to Him in His Infinity as God. 

Did Jorge Mario Bergoglio recoil in horror when he was presented with this sacrilegious crucifix on Thursday, July 9, 2015 (a Ferial Day in the Roman Calendar of 1954 on which the feasts of Saints John Fisher and Thomas More, Saint Maria Goretti, Saint John of Cologne, O.P., and Saint Veronica Giuliani could be celebrated or commemorated), Bolivia?


Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not even object to receiving Luis Espinal Camp’s demonic crucifix, saying only that “he did know” that his beloved Espinal had designed it, to which Evo Morales (whom I have confused in the past with the now-former president of Paraguay, Fernando Lugo, who was a one-time conciliar “bishop”), said, “Now you know.” Those who are attempting to explain away this act of infidelity to the Divine Redeemer and the sacredness of His Holy Cross must answer to God Himself for seeking to defend the indefensible. (See the informative posts at Novus Ordo Watch Wire and Francis the Humble Marxist at Call Me Jorge blogspot.)

The spin doctors who are accompanying Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay  have been working overtime to deal with the fallout of Evo Morales’s “gift” to their Judeo-Masonic boss from Argentina. One will find nothing on the conciliar Vatican’s website from the spin doctors, who have, however, released a statement to the representatives of the media cover the antipapal journey to his home turf of Latin America. I will interject throughout the article to make relatively brief points, something that the late hour deserves:

SANTA CRUZ, Bolivia (AP) — Bolivian President Evo Morales' controversial gift of a "Communist crucifix" to Pope Francis threatened to overshadow the pope's visit to Bolivia on Thursday, with the Vatican and Bolivia both insisting that no offense was intended or taken. (Vatican: "Communist crucifix" sign of dialogue.)

No offense intended or taken?

Millions upon millions of Catholics have permitted themselves to undergo all manner of tortures to the point of their own martyrdom rather than to give even the appearance of seeming pleased with, no less smiling at, blasphemous representations of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

No offense intended or taken?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio should have rejected that “crucifix” if he thought that it was blasphemous and sacrilegious. He did not do so. He accepted it graciously.

What, some of you might say? You think that Senor Jorge did not want to “offend” the pantheist cocoa leaf chewer, Evo Morales, that that would have been bad form and had caused an international incident.


We should be willing to die rather than to offend God. We have not been baptized and confirmed to please men, no matter what earthly position of power and influence they may hold. We have been baptized and confirmed to please God as He has revealed Himself to be exclusively through His Catholic Church.

No offense intended or taken?

Every believing Catholic should be offended by Luis Espinal Camp’s “crucifix.” Indeed, the belief that Jorge Mario Bergolio and his predecessors in the conciliar “Petrine Ministry” have been true and legitimate successors of Saint Peter is offensive in and of itself as each of these men said and did things that were directly contrary to the words of the Divine Redeemer Himself and the totality of Divine Revelation, which consists of both Sacred Scripture and Apostolic (or Sacred) Tradition.

This is not a minor point. Not at all, especially if one considers the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio really does not believe in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. He does not accept Apostolic Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation. He believes in a “pure” reading of the Gospel that has not been corrupted by the “filter” of the Fathers and Doctors of Holy Mother Church and by the true general councils of the Second Millennium.

No justification for such a conclusion?

Au contraire, mes amis, au contraire.

Bergoglio himself has proved that he rejects Apostolic Tradition by referring constantly to the “Gospel,” meaning his own revolutionary interpretation of Sacred Scripture that is evocative of Martin Luther, John Calvin, and an endless parade of “evangelical” Protestants today.

Just consider this one example from the Argentine Apostate’s current visit to Boliva:

The Church cannot and must not remain aloof from this process in her proclamation of the Gospel. Many priests and pastoral workers carry out an enormous work of accompanying and promoting the excluded throughout the world, alongside cooperatives, favouring businesses, providing housing, working generously in the fields of health, sports and education. I am convinced that respectful cooperation with the popular movements can revitalize these efforts and strengthen processes of change. (Speech at World Meeting of Popular Movements.) 

Jorge's "gospel" is a false "gospel," one that is  all about secular, Judeo-Masonic humanitarianism with a socialist bent, not Catholicism. Bergoglio is not in the least concerned with the salvation of souls, which he presumes to be a given. He is concerned only about the temporal welfare of man on earth without regard to the horror of personal sin and how it is responsible for all of the problems that exist on the face of the earth without exception.

Bergoglio’s “gospel” and the social program for secular salvation that he discusses constantly, including on his current trip to Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay, stands condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The rest of the news report quoted above contained the Vatican’s efforts to spin Bergoglio’s reception of the hideous crucifix designed by Father Luis Espinal Camp, a Marxist who died a violent death on March 21, 1980, the Feast of Saint Benedict, as he was gunned down by government troops, who were, no matter the injustice of the act these troops committed, certainly used by Our Lord Himself to chastise a man who had dared to represent Him, the Divine Redeemer, as a friend of Marxist-Leninist ideology and/or of conciliarism’s “liberation theology”:

Morales gave Francis the crucifix carved into a hammer and sickle upon Francis' arrival in Bolivia Wednesday, immediately raising eyebrows given Morales' past attacks on the church and his socialist bent.

It turns out, the crucifix was originally designed by a Jesuit activist, the Rev. Luis Espinal, who was assassinated in 1980 by suspected paramilitaries during the months that preceded a military coup. Francis, a fellow Jesuit, stopped his motorcade to pray at the site where Espinal's body had been dumped.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Thursday the pope had no idea that Espinal had designed the crucifix and was surprised to receive it — a reaction clearly visible in the footage of the encounter. Some reports suggested the pope told Morales "This isn't good;" one of Francis' friends sent a tweet quoting him as saying such. But Lombardi said it wasn't known what the pope had said.

Lombardi said Espinal had designed the crucifix as a symbol of dialogue and commitment to freedom and progress for Bolivia, not with any specific ideology in mind. Lombardi said he personally wasn't offended by it.

"You can dispute the significance and use of the symbol now, but the origin is from Espinal and the sense of it was about an open dialogue, not about a specific ideology," Lombardi said.

He noted the context in which Espinal was living: as a priest working for social justice in Bolivia during a period of instability that preceded a right-wing dictatorship known for human rights abuses.

However, one of Espinal's friends and fellow Jesuits, the Rev. Xavier Albo, said Espinal's intent was for the church to be in dialogue with Marxism, and said Espinal had altered his crucifix to incorporate the Communists' most potent symbol: the hammer and sickle.

"In this he clearly wanted to speak about the need to permanently dialogue not just with Marxism but with peasants and miners etc.," Albo told The Associated Press earlier this month.

The Vatican launched a harsh crackdown on Liberation Theology in the 1970s and 1980s, fearing that Marxists were using its "preferential option for the poor" to turn the Gospel into a call for armed revolution.

The Bolivian government insisted the gift wasn't a political maneuver of any sort, but was a symbol that Morales thought the "pope of the poor" would appreciate.

"That was the intention of this gift, and it was not any sort of maneuver ... It was really from great affection, a work designed by the very hands of Luis Espinal," Communications Minister Marianela Paco told the Patria Nueva radio station. (Vatican: "Communist crucifix" sign of dialogue.)

“Father” Federico Lombardi, another lay Jesuit, would justify a crucifix that depicted Our Lord in “dialogue” with Satan himself. He is a reprehensible human being, a man of such shallowness and intellectual dishonesty as the make the wife of the forty-second president of the United States of America seem like a paragon of honesty and virtue.

Here is what Pope Pius XI taught about “dialogue” with any form of socialism, including Communism:


We make this pronouncement: Whether considered as a doctrine, or an historical fact, or a movement, Socialism, if it remains truly Socialism, even after it has yielded to truth and justice on the points which we have mentioned, cannot be reconciled with the teachings of the Catholic Church because its concept of society itself is utterly foreign to Christian truth. . . .

120. If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist. (Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931.)

Writing in Divini Redemptoris, which was issued on March 19, 1937, two days after he had issued his firm denunciation of Nazism, Mit Brennender Sorge, Pope Pius XI forbade Catholics to provide any kind of cooperation with Communism at any time for any reason:

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.)

This condemnation of any kind of cooperation with Communism was reinterred by the Holy Office on July 1, 1949, the Feast of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, under the pontificate of our last true pope, Pope Pius XII:

This Sacred Supreme Congregation has been asked:  

1. whether it is lawful to join Communist Parties or to favour them;
2. whether it is lawful to publish, disseminate, or read books, periodicals, newspapers or leaflets which support the teaching or action of Communists, or to write in them;
3. whether the faithful who knowingly and freely perform the acts specified in questions 1 and 2 may be admitted to the Sacraments;
4. whether the faithful who profess the materialistic and anti-Christian doctrine of the Communists, and particularly those who defend or propagate this doctrine, contract ipso facto excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See as apostates from the Catholic faith.

The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Fathers entrusted with the supervision of matters concerning the safeguarding of Faith and morals, having previously heard the opinion of the Reverend Lords Consultors, decreed in the plenary session held on Tuesday (instead of Wednesday), June 28, 1949, that the answers should be as follows:

To 1. in the negative: because Communism is materialistic and anti-Christian; and the leaders of the Communists, although they sometimes profess in words that they do not oppose religion, do in fact show themselves, both in their teaching and in their actions, to be the enemies of God, of the true religion and of the Church of Christ; to 2. in the negative: they are prohibited ipso iure (cf. Can. 1399 of the Codex Iuris Canonici); to 3. in the negative, in accordance with the ordinary principles concerning the refusal of the Sacraments to those who are not disposed; to 4. in the affirmative.

And the following Thursday, on the 30th day of the same month and year, Our Most Holy Lord Pius XII, Pope by the Divine Providence, in the ordinary audience, granted to the Most Eminent and Most Reverend Assessor of the Sacred Office, approved of the decision of the Most Eminent Fathers which had been reported to Him, and ordered the same to be promulgated officially in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given at Rome, on July 1st, 1949. (As found at Decree Against Communism.)

The counterfeit church of conciliarism’s penchant for “dialogue” is false in and of itself and Catholic truth is proclaimed without apology. It is not the subject of any kind of colloquy to “search for truth” as the totality of Sacred Deposit of Faith resides in the Catholic Church alone, she who enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy, a truth that Bishop Bernard Fellay of the Society of Saint Pius X, deconstructs to suit his own nefarious purposes (Bergoglio’s antics in South America have pushed back the article I intend to write about Bishop Fellay’s recent interview with DICI). The Catholic Church does not enter into “dialogue” with leaders of false religions and she does not do so with false ideologies that are founded upon atheism and materialism. Period.

The situation in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is so pathetic that two “priests” quoted in the press report about the Vatican spin doctoring wind up proving they believe in a false religion by seeking to justify that which is beyond any justification before the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity:

The Catholic blogosphere was buzzing Thursday with the "Communist crucifix" and what, exactly, Morales intended by giving it to the pope.

The Rev. James Bretzke, a theologian at Boston College in Massachusetts, said there is no church legislation that addresses whether Christian imagery is sacrilegious since Christian art is often portrayed in a variety of ways.

But, he continued: "Is this in good taste? Does this seem to be using the Crucifix for political agenda? And I would say the answer is probably yes. Therefore, I would judge it personally in bad taste and especially manipulative to present it to the Holy Father in a situation like that where it clearly hadn't been cleared ahead of time."

The Rev. Robert Gahl, a moral theologian at Rome's Pontifical Holy Cross University in Rome, said it all boils down to Espinal's intent in designing the cross and Morales' intent in giving it to the pope.

"I'd suppose that, given Morales' warm welcome and Espinal's personal convictions, the intent was not to offend but rather to indicate potential for dialogue and even synergy," he said in an email. "Christians tend to see our symbols from the perspective of universal love, redemption, and even Christ's triumph over evil. Indeed, that is what the cross is all about!" (Vatican: "Communist crucifix" sign of dialogue.)

Father James Bretzke needs “legislation” to recognize blasphemy and sacrilege? He believes that the crucifix given by Evo Morales to Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply in “bad taste” because it represents a political agenda, something that is truly absurd as Bergoglio himself has a political agenda that is identical with the goals of both Marxism-Leninism and of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic concept of the world that made its rise inevitable.

Does anyone really think that Russia has been consecrated properly to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart with all of the world’s bishops?

Does anyone really think at this late date that the errors of Russia are not being spread far and wide across the world, including right here in the United States of America by our caesars and caesarettes and the high priests and priestesses of popular culture, commerce, law, education, health care, science, entertainment and news?

Does anyone reading this article not recognize the extent that Bergoglio himself is influenced by the errors of Russia?

Insofar as Opus Dei’s “Father” Robert Gahl’s efforts to justify Luis Espinal Camp’s work of blasphemy and sacrilege in behalf of Communism, an intention that was, as noted in the news story itself, confirmed by one of his friends, “Father” Xavier Albo, S.J., to reconcile Christianity with Marxism, are beneath contempt.

Open your eyes, “Father” Gahl, and read what “Father” Albo himself said:

However, one of Espinal's friends and fellow Jesuits, the Rev. Xavier Albo, said Espinal's intent was for the church to be in dialogue with Marxism, and said Espinal had altered his crucifix to incorporate the Communists' most potent symbol: the hammer and sickle.

"In this he clearly wanted to speak about the need to permanently dialogue not just with Marxism but with peasants and miners etc.," Albo told The Associated Press earlier this month. (Vatican: "Communist crucifix" sign of dialogue.)

Supposedly “good intentions” do not redeem that which our sensus Catholicus tells us is hideous in the sight of the Divine Redeemer and that must be rejected and condemned in the strongest terms possible. Then again, priests and presbyters of Opus Dei would, like Lombardi himself, spin for a reconciliation with Lucifer if it meant defending the “pope” even when all good Catholic common sense demands outrage and condemnation.

Moreover, “Father” Gahl’s misrepresentation of the nature of the Holy Cross stands completely condemned by Pope Leo XIII:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God.  (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.) 


It is past three o’clock in the morning on the Feast of the Seven Holy Brothers and of Saints Rufina and Secunda.


Let those who have the eyes to see the truth accept it and act accordingly.

Those of us who have come to accept the truth of our ecclesiastical situation in this time of apostasy and betrayal simply have to be about the business of seeking to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world 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 state-in-life permits.

May God have mercy on us all as we beg Our Lady to help us to persevere in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church until the time we draw our last breath.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Fatima, 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.

The Seven Holy Brothers, pray for us.

Saints Rufina and Secunda, pray for us.