Fully Active and Conscious Participants on the March to Hell

Words fail. 

There are no more words to describe the insanity of the state of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s evolutionary march on the road to embrace everything contrary to the truth of the Catholic Church’s Divine Constitution and, quite indeed, everything contrary to the very immutable nature of God Himself.

What has caused me, of all people, to be at a loss for words?

These words from the so-called “

“Preparatory Document” for the sixteenth general synod of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false religious sect:

today on different levels (from the local level to the universal one), allow the Church to proclaim the Gospel in accordance with the mission entrusted to Her; and what steps does the Spirit invite us to take in order to grow as a synodal Church?

Addressing this question together requires listening to the Holy Spirit, who like the wind “blows where it wills; you can hear the sound it makes, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes” (Jn 3:8), remaining open to the surprises that the Spirit will certainly prepare for us along the way. Thus, a dynamism is activated that allows us to begin to reap some of the fruits of a synodal conversion, which will progressively mature. These are objectives of great importance for the quality of ecclesial life and for accomplishing the mission of evangelization, in which we all participate by virtue of our Baptism and Confirmation. Here, we will indicate the main objectives, which decline synodality as the form, the style, and the structure of the Church:

· recalling how the Spirit has guided the Church’s journey through history and, today, calls us to be, together, witnesses of God’s love;

· living a participative and inclusive ecclesial process that offers everyone—especially those who for various reasons find themselves on the margins—the opportunity to express themselves and to be heard in order to contribute to the edification of the People of God;

· recognizing and appreciating the wealth and the variety of the gifts and charisms that the Spirit liberally bestows for the good of the community and the benefit of the entire human family;

· exploring participatory ways of exercising responsibility in the proclamation of the Gospel and in the effort to build a more beautiful and habitable world;

· examining how responsibility and power are lived in the Church as well as the structures by which they are managed, bringing to light and trying to convert prejudices and distorted practices that are not rooted in the Gospel;

· accrediting the Christian community as a credible subject and reliable partner in paths of social dialogue, healing, reconciliation, inclusion and participation, the reconstruction of democracy, the promotion of fraternity and social friendship;

· regenerating relationships among members of Christian communities as well as between communities and other social groups, e.g., communities of believers of other denominations and religions, civil society organizations, popular movements, etc.;

· fostering the appreciation and appropriation of the fruits of recent synodal experiences on the universal, regional, national, and local levels. (Documento Preparatorio della XVI Assemblea Generale Ordinaria del Sinodo dei Vescovi .)

None of this has anything to do with the Supreme Law of the Catholic Church: the salvation of soul

The teleology of Modernism’s dogmatic evolutionism is such that it must, to call to mind the words of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, “ruin and wreck all religion” and advance, as Pope Saint Pius X pointed out in Notre Charge Aposolique, August 15, 1910, an
“impotent humanitarianism” that opens way for Socialism in its wake. That which is premised on falsehoods must degenerate over the course of time to such an extent that its progenitors can never admit that their premises are responsible for, in this case, emptied church pews and a complete loss of any sense of the Holy Faith in so many millions upon millions of baptized Catholics. Thus, true sons of John Locke that they are perhaps without even knowing, the conciliar revolutionaries keep proposing this or that further accommodation to the world in the furtive hope that the people who have turned their backs on God because of their lives of unrepentant sin will join in a “synodal” path that is nothing other than a collective march to hell, which is just what the adversary wants.

The conciliar religion is not about God, which is why its Latin Rite liturgy, the Protesant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination, places such an emphasis on the “full, active, and conscious” participation of the lay faithful, which is to imply that countless numbers of canonized saints were not conscious of the meaning of the Holy Sacrifice of Mass because they did not vocally “participate” in its offering. The conciliar sect is all about the “people” and what will tickle their ears as it eschews what its lords consider the “self-referential” nature of interior recollection as opposed to “activity” in the world and its cultural trends. Those responsible for such bilge do not believe that people can participate at Holy Mass by calling to mind the ineffable nature of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Eternal, Co-Equal, Co-Divine God the Father in atonement for our sins during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and joining interiorly in the perfect prayer of Adoration, Thanksgiving, Reparation, and Petition.

Similarly, what the conciliar revolutionaries contend is the Catholic Church must reflect the “voice” and “experiences” of the people, which has nothing to do with the simple fact that the Catholic Church is the sole recipient and infallible teacher of all that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has revealed in His Sacred Deposit of Faith, which is immutable because He is immutable. His teaching does not change to accommodate how the faithful are living in violation of it. The faithful must always conform their lives to His teaching by cooperating with the graces Our Lady sends them to reform their lives.

As I have noted scores of times before in recent years, Pope Pius XII warned the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus about doing precisely what the lay Jesuit revolutionary and his accomplices in all things pernicious have used the recent “synods” to accomplish, namely, to accommodate the Holy Faith to the way people live rather than demanding that the faithful amend their lives or risk the fires of hell:

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

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

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

The entirety of the so-called “Preparatory Document” be summarized in the following words written by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregris, September 8, 1907:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38, September 8, 1907.)

The list of "reforms" that Pope Saint Pius X knew that the Modernists wanted to implement stands out as a prophetic warning as to the agenda that was formed by Modernist theologians in the years before the "Second" Vatican Council and became the fundamental basis for the whole ethos of conciliarism. Consider the prophetic nature of Pope Saint Pius X's list of "reforms" that the Modernists wanted to implement:

1) The passion for innovation. Innovation, which the Church has always eschewed, has become the very foundation of conciliarism. Indeed, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised novelty and innovation repeatedly, doing so during his now infamous December 22, 2005, Christmas address to his conciliar curia. Since when has this been the case in the history of the Catholic Church? It is standard practice in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

2) "They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live." This is a cogent summary of the belief of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself, which he outlined in Principles of Catholic Theology and in his own autobiography, Milestones.

3) "Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to harmonized with science and history." Thus it is, of course, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI told us, both before and during his false "pontificate," that such things as Pope Pius IX's The Syllabus of Errors and even Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis, among other encyclical letters and papal pronouncements (see Witness Against Benedict XVI: The Oath Against Modernism) itself served a useful purpose at one point in history but lose their binding force over time. In other words, we must harmonize Catholicism with the events of history (the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, the institutionalization of Protestant "churches," the rise of the secular state) and not be "tied down" by a "time-centered" view of the Faith. As repetition is the mother of learning, perhaps it is good to repeat once again that this Modernist view of dogma was specifically condemned by the [First] Vatican Council. No Catholic is free to ignore these binding words and remain a Catholic in good standing:

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

• not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
• but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
• Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

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

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

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

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

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

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

4) "Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head." This describes the liturgical thrust of conciliarism quite accurately. Indeed, the last sentence in this sentence has particular application to Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who was somewhat disposed to be "indulgent" to the symbolism of the liturgy but was nevertheless committed to "reforming" the conciliar "reform" Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio comes from a more "liberated" background than his predecessor. The modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition can have its place, according to the falsehoods he published in Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, for those who are "attached" to it. Bergoglio has made sure, of course, that there is no turning back on the "reform" itself, including the reduction of the saints commemorated on conciliarism's universal calendar. Indeed, then “Cardinal” Ratzinger wrote the following in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982:

Among the more obvious phenomena of the last years must be counted the increasing number of integralist groups in which the desire for piety, for the sense of mystery, is finding satisfaction. We must be on our guard against minimizing these movements. Without a doubt, they represent a sectarian zealotry that is the antithesis of Catholicity. We cannot resist them too firmly. (Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 389-390) 

5) "They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified." The conciliarists have summarized Pope Saint Pius X's description of their Modernist view of Church governance very succinctly: Collegiality. It is no accident that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI gave away the Papal Tiara, which is on display in the crypt of the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, D.C., and that Albino Luciani/John Paul I and Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio each refused to be crowned. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI went so far as to remove the tiara from his coat-of-arms, which is reflective of episcopal collegiality with his own bishops and a gesture in the direction of those steeped in the heresies of Photius, the Orthodox. And Jorge Mario Bergoglio has divested what little remained of "papal dignity" in the conciliar Petrine Ministry in the past seventy-seven months.

6) "The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit." This is of the essence of Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965. And it is of the essence of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's belief that the the "Second" Vatican Council represented an "official reconciliation" with the principles of 1789. Just as a little reminder so that readers with short memories do not think that I am misrepresenting the thought of the man who does not believe it to be the mission of the Catholic Church to seek with urgency the conversion of Protestants and Jews and the Orthodox and all others who are outside her maternal bosom: 

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. From this perspective, too, we can understand the different emphases with which the individual parts of the Church entered into the discussion of the text. While German theologians were satisfied that their exegetical and ecumenical concepts had been incorporated, representatives of Latin American countries, in particular, felt that their concerns, too, had been addressed, topics proposed by Anglo-Saxon theologians likewise found strong expression, and representatives of Third World countries saw, in the emphasis on social questions, a consideration of their particular problems. (Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382)

In addition to the above-noted paragraph in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X went on to note the arrogance of the Modernists in their desire for novelty and in their contempt for scholastic theology and their efforts to view the Fathers in light of their own Modernist predilections:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 42)

This paragraph is a ringing condemnation of the work of conciliarism and of its progenitors, the so-called "new theologians" (Henri de Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Joseph Ratzinger, et al.), to say nothing of the diabolical work being done by Jorge Mario Bergoglio to give his antipapal imprimatur to ever false concept preached from many a conciliar pulpit and taught in many a conciliar seminary, university, college, and high school in those giddy postconciliar revolutionary days of the 1970s.

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

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

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was a hundred years later that author Robert Leckie, who wrote American and Catholic, saw some problems with what was happening after the “Second” Vatican Council and was disturbed enough to make some observations that are worth repeating here to demonstrate that even though things may not have been to him fifty-two years ago (and they certainly were not at all clear to me in 1970 as I was focused on my college studies at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York), they are eminently clear today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holy Mother Church is the spotless, mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom. It is impossible for her to give her children anything poisonous, and it is just as impossible for a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter to be a heretic whose teaching must be denounced by lay Catholics.

Once again, therefore, I remind the unconvinced who might within the Providence of God happen upon this website now and again that Pope Saint Pius X made it abundantly clear that no one who is holy can oppose a pope, which means in the present instance that those who believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a true pope while criticizing him must not be holy or that he is no more a “pope” than the five men who preceded him in the conciliar chair of disunity and division:

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.)

This is very clear.

One must obey a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, who is the Principle of Unity and the Guarantor of Doctrinal Orthodoxy. A man claims to be a pope while seeks to follow a “spirit” that is most decidedly unholy and who loves to reaffirm hardened sinners in their lives of perversity in the name of “accompaniment” is no pope at all.

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

We belong to Our Lady, and so it is on this non-universal Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe we call to mind the following words she spoke to Juan Diego about the childlike trust we are to put in her and her loving maternal intercession and protection:

"Listen and take heed, least of my sons," she said quietly. "There is nothing which thou needst dread. Let not thy heart be troubled. Do not fear this illness, neither any other illness or affliction. Am I not here beside thee; I, thy Merciful Mother? Am I not thy hope and salvation? Of what more dost thou have need? Let nothing distress or harass thee. As to the illness of thy uncle, he will not die of it. Indeed, I ask thee to accept as a certainty my assurance that he is already cured." (Frances Parkinson Keyes, The Grace of Guadalupe, published in 1941 by Julian Messner, Inc.,  pp. 47-48.)

We are not to fear any illness or affliction. There is no suffering that we can bear in this life that is the equal of what one of our least Venial Sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His fearful Passion and Death as those Seven Swords of Sorrow were plunged through and through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

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

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

To call to mind once again the words of the late William Charles Koneazny, “Our Lady will come and throw the bums out.”

May we never doubt in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to whom we return in all our difficulties now, and at the hour of our death.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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