Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                September 11, 2009

Airbrushing The Truth

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Revolutionaries must seek to deconstruct (that is, to tear apart) all aspects of truth in order to galvanize popular support for their revolutions and their revolutionary precepts. Essential to this effort of deconstructing all aspects of truth is to attack logic and reason on the merely natural level in order to do violence to language as a means of propagandizing whole lies and half-truths as absolute truths that are beyond anyone's ability (or even "right") to question or to criticize. In other words, the very people who reject the dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Church believe that own revolutionary precepts in a dogmatic manner, castigating anyone who dares to criticize these "dogmas" as "reactionary" and/or as veritable "threats" to the "progress" of mankind.

What is true of social revolutionaries is also true of the theological revolutionaries of Modernism and the New Theology in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as they seek to use, according to the words of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, "a thousand noxious devices" to rob Catholics of their sensus Catholicus, which is supposed to enable Catholics to detect and to reject that which is opposed to the Faith and thus to the salvation of their own immortal souls, as an artificial "memory" of the past is created in order to convince Catholics, especially those who have no direct, personal memories of the past or who have not studied authentic Catholic history, that the revolutionary precepts of conciliarism are either in accord with the Faith or that they represented simply a logical "progression" of the "truth" according to the logically absurd and dogmatically condemned principle advanced by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity."

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, a true conciliar revolutionary, has attempted to convince Catholics that the true God of Revelation has made Himself to obscure to us that we are only now "discovering" things that have eluded the grasp of dogmatic councils and true popes prior to the advent of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes." This, of course, is as blasphemous as it is absurd as it means that God the Holy Ghost has failed those dogmatic councils and true popes as they declared with certainty and in precise terms various dogmas of the Faith that are considered by Ratzinger/Benedict to have been formulated only in a "contingent" manner given the historical circumstances in which those pronouncements were made and given the "imprecise" nature of language, which is itself allegedly subjected to the vicissitudes of time and place.

Ratzinger/Benedict does not believe, ultimately, that God reveals Himself clearly and unambiguously. Ratzinger/Benedict believes in a conception of false god, one who is obscure in his revelation, one whose work must always be refined by human effort, one who "reveals" himself even through false religions, including those that deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

To give just one example of this "obscure" "god" who hides his "revelation," one can look at Ratzinger/Benedict's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity." Ratzinger/Benedict's "god" had to this "truth" from men prior to his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, making it known to us in his Christmas address to the members of the conciliar curia on December 22, 2005. Yes, Ratzinger/Benedict's "god" kept the "knowledge" of the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" from the minds of men hidden until Ratzinger/Benedict revealed it when he wrote:

"It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

"On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

"It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within"? It was necessary to learn? This means that God had hidden this "truth," which is, of course a philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned exercise in blasphemy against God the Holy Ghost, for nearly two millennia. This means that the following dogmatic degree of the [First] Vatican Council was erroneous, that God the Holy Ghost failed the Fathers of that Vatican Council, that God the Holy Ghost failed Pope Pius IX, under whose solemn authority the following decree was issued:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


If it was, as Ratzinger/Benedict contends, "necessary" to "learn" how we can "understand" the expressions of dogmatic truths differently at different times, then God the Holy Ghost did indeed fail Holy Mother Church at the [First] Vatican Council. Ratzinger/Benedict does not think in these terms,  however, as to disbelieve in the nature of dogmatic truth as it has been defined by Holy Mother Church is to disbelieve in the very nature of God, which means that Ratzinger/Benedict, like his late mentor Hans Urs von Balthasar before him, believes that Divine revelation is obscure of its nature and is subject to perfection over time. What Ratzinger/Benedict and his eager apologists in the counterfeit church of conciliarism do not understand, however, is that the expressions of the Faith in the past were made in "contingent" terms, why should not anything and everything he says be viewed as nothing more as a contingent expressions that bind no one as they are subject to further "refinement" in the future?

There is thus no mystery at all as to why Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict is very selective in his representation of the writings and the works of various saints as he has attempted to coerce perjury out of them to make them appear to be witnesses in behalf of the apostasies of concilairism. Ratzinger/Benedict, a direct disciple of the Hegelian Hans Urs von Balthasar, has even gone so far as to claim that the first martyrs of the Church died in behalf of the heresy of "religious liberty," ignoring the plain historical truth that the thirteen million Catholics who were killed by the brute force of the Roman empire and other anti-Catholic zealots between the time of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Passion, Death, and Resurrection in the year 33 A.D. and the time of the Edict of Milan died for the Catholic Faith, refusing to accept accept false religions as equal to the one, true religion revealed by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in His Most Blessed Mother's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost. This is blasphemous.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has also attempted to make Saint Augustine of Hippo a witness in behalf of "religious liberty" even though the great convert to the Faith at the hands of Saint Ambrose, the Archbishop of Milan, in the year 387 A.D. wrote that the "death of the soul is worse than the freedom of error."

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has given a discourse on Saint John Chrysostom as a means of appealing to the Orthodox, conveniently ignoring the fact that Saint John Chrysostom had a decidedly "un-conciliar" view of the false religion of Talmudic Judaism that contrasts very sharply with his, Ratzinger/Benedict's, own view that the adherents of the blasphemous Talmud have a "religion" worthy of respect and admiration:

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons.

(2) But at any rate the Jews say that they, too, adore God. God forbid that I say that. No Jew adores God! Who says so? The Son of God says so. For he said: "If you were to know my Father, you would also know me. But you neither know me nor do you know my Father". Could I produce a witness more trustworthy than the Son of God?

(3) If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place. (Saint John Chrysostom: Eight Homilies Against the Jews)


Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is one of those people who pay the synagogue "honor as a holy place," is he not? It is thus necessary for him to airbrush the truth about Saint John Chrysostom as the golden-mouthed saint so venerated in the East speaks directly against the apostasy of the counterfeit church of conciliarism's treatment of the false religion of Talmudic Judaism as a valid means of sanctification and salvation for its adherents.

It is thus no wonder that Ratzinger/Benedict, fresh from his summer vacation, has started yet another round of deconstructing the lives of the saints, focusing two days ago on the life and the work of Saint Peter Damian, doing so, of course, without mentioning the saint's famous letter, The Book of Gomorrah, to Pope Leo IX on the problem of the clergy's infestation with perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Why the mystery? Why the consternation?

Have we learned nothing? Are we so blind as to the truth about the Hegelian mindset that possesses the Modernist heart of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to be "shocked" every time that Ratzinger/Benedict does or say something that is perfectly consistent with the condemned methodology of the New Theology that is his particular means of deconstructing the truth about the Faith and of airbrushing the very lives and the works of the saints?

Ratzinger/Benedict's approach to the truth is really nothing new at all. Apart from its being a perfect embodiment of the apostate spirit of Modernism condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis by way of the New Theology that were condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, Ratzinger/Benedict's airbrushing of the truth has its antecedent roots in the heresies and errors of Orthodoxy, heresies and errors which were refined and propagated more universally by means of the Protestant Revolution. What are Orthodoxy and Protestantism other than blasphemous assaults against the Deposit of Faith as various methods are employed to represent lies as coming from God, Who is the Author of Truth?

What is true about Protestantism and Orthodox is true about conciliarism, represented today by one of his chief architects and its currently "reigning" chief propagandist, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, whose apostate views have been evaluated honestly by any number of authors, including those who reject sedevacantism outright and oppose it completely (see The War Against Being, Si, Si, No, No on Cardinal Ratzinger, The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones.) Pope Pius XII has taught us very clearly how the disciples of the New Theology attempt to deconstruct the Faith to "accommodate" it to the "needs" of "modern" man and to make it more "appealing" to those outside of the household of the Holy Faith:

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.


Ratzinger/Benedict's attempts to make the likes of Saints Augustine, John Chrysostom, Peter Damian and even Saint Paul the Apostle himself as "witnesses" in behalf of conciliarism are simply par for the conciliar course. No honest observer of the events of recent decades can ignore the fact that one conciliar revolutionary after another has tried to turn Saints Teresa of Avila and Therese of Lisieux into prototypes of feminism. Some have gone so far as to blaspheme the Mother of God herself as a feminist. And who is unfamiliar with the efforts to portray the thoroughly Catholic Saint Francis of Assisi, a man who hated heresy and who had a zeal for the conversion of souls, into a witness in behalf of one conciliar lie after another, including false ecumenism?

Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict gave his "blessing" to a meeting (which, contrary to yet another subtle misstatement of fact found on the Traditio site, which, although it bills itself as a source of "independent" news and commentary, has yet to inform its readers about the arrest of Bishop Dennis McCormack on Long Island on July 15, 2009, Ratzinger/Benedict himself did not "organize"), organized actually by the self-promoting Sant'Egidio community and sponsored by the conciliar "archbishop" of Krakow, Poland, Stanislaus Dziwisz, the former personal secretary to the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, that was meant to keep the "spirit of Assisi" alive. Believing Catholics know full well that the "spirit of Assisi" refers to the apostate spirit of the travesties that took place in 1986 and 2002 in which leaders of the "world's religions" gathered in Assisi, Italy, to "pray for peace."

As a reminder to those who are new to this site, here is a very good description of this false "spirit of Assisi" as found in the anti-sedevacantistThe Great Facade:

No doubt the height of the fever engendered by the virus of dialogue was the World Day of Peace at Assisi in October 1986. In the plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi, the "representatives of the world's great religions" stepped forward one by one to offer their prayers for peace. These "prayers" included the chanting of American Indian shamans. The Pope was photographed standing in a line of "religious leaders," including rabbis, muftis, Buddhist monks, and assorted Protestant ministers, all of them holding potted olive plants. The official Vatican publication on the World Day of Prayer for Peace at Assisi, entitled "World Day of Pray for Peace," pays tribute to the "world's great religions by setting forth their prayers, including an Animist prayer to the Great Thumb. The world's great religions" are honored by the Vatican in alphabetical order: the Buddhist prayer for peace; the Hindu prayer for peace; the Jainist prayer for peace; the Muslim prayer for peace; the Shinto prayer for peace; the Sikh prayer for peace; the Traditionalist African prayer for peace (to "The Great Thumb"); the Traditionalist Amerindian prayer for peace; the Zoroastrian prayer for peace. In a glaring symptom of the end result of ecumenism. and dialogue in the Church, the only prayer not included in the official book is a Catholic prayer for peace. There is only a Christian prayer for peace, which appears after the prayers of the "world's great religions"--and after the Jewish prayer. Catholicism has been subsumed into a generic Christianity.

At the beginning of the list of prayers of the world's religions, there is an amazing statement by Cardinal Roger Etchergary, president of the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue. According to Etchergary, "Each of the religions we profess has inner peace, and peace among individuals and nations, as one of its aims. Each one pursues this aim in its own distinctive and irreplaceable way." The notion that there is anything "irreplaceable" about the false religions of the world seems difficult to square with the de fide Catholic teaching that God's revelation to His Church is complete and all-sufficient for the spiritual needs of men. Our Lord came among us--so Catholics were always taught--precisely to replace false religions with His religion, with even the Old Covenant undergoing this divinely appointed substitution. Yet the members of all "the world's great religions" were invited to Assisi and asked for their "irreplaceable" prayers for world peace--the "irreplaceable" prayers of false shepherds who preach abortion, contraception, divorce, polygamy, the treatment of women like dogs, the reincarnation of human beings as animals, a holy war against infidel Christians and countless other lies, superstitions and abominations in the sight of God. . . .

[Italian journalist Vittorio] Messori was merely observing the obvious when he stated that the Assisi 2002 implied that the doctrine of every religion is acceptable to God. For example, the invited representative of Voodoo (spelled Vodou by its native practitioners), Chief Amadou Gasseto from Benin, was allowed to sermonize on world peace from a wooden pulpit suitable for a cathedral set up in the lower plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis. The Chief declared to the Vicar of Christ and the assembled cardinals and Catholic guests: "The invocation to take prayer in the Prayer for Peace at Assisi is a great honour for me, and it is an honour for all the followers of Avelekete Vodou whose high priest I am." The high priest of Avelekete Vodou then give the Pope and all the Catholic faithful the Vodou prescription for world peace, which included, "asking forgiveness of the protecting spirits of regions affected by violence" and "carrying out sacrifices of reparation and purification, and thus restoring peace." This would involve slitting the throats of goats, chickens, doves, and pigeons and draining their blood from the carotid arteries according to a precise ritual prescription. In other words, the Pope invited a witch doctor to give a sermon to Catholics on world peace.

Among other "representatives of the various religions" who came to the pulpit was one Didi Talwakar, the representative of Hinduism. Talwakar declared that the "divinization of human beings gives us a sense of the worth of life. Not only am I divine in essence, but also everyone else is equally divine in essence...." Talwakar went on to exclaim: "My divine brothers and sisters, from whom much above the station of life where I am, I dare to appeal to humanity, from this august forum, in the blessed presence of His Holiness the Pope...." While Talwakar acknowledges that the Pope is a holy man, he is only one of many such holy men who lead the various religions. Didi prefers to follow another holy man: the Reverend Pandung Shastri Athawale, who heads something called the Swadyaya parivari, which teaches "the idea of acceptance of all religious traditions" and the need to "free the idea of religion from dogmatism, insularity and injunctions," Just the thing Catholics of the postconciliar period need to hear.

The spectacle of Assisi 2002 staggers the Catholic mind, and human language fails in its attempt to adequately describe the unparalleled ecclesial situation in which we now find ourselves--a situation even the Arian heretics of the fourth century would find incredible. Yet, true to form, the neo-Catholic press organs reported the event as if it were a triumph for the Catholic faith--while carefully avoiding any of the shocking images and words that would give scandal to any Catholic who has not been spiritually lobotomized by the postconciliar changes in the Church. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 83-85; 213-215).


The conciliar misrepresentation of Saint Francis of Assisi, who bore the brand marks of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on his holy body (the Feast of the Impression of the Stigmata on Saint Francis is Thursday, September 17, 2009) as a witness in behalf of false ecumenism is, like almost everything else to do with conciliarism, at odds with the truth, which can be found in the excellent book written by Mr. Frank Rega, Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims:

St. Francis was bold yet gentle. His gentleness and Christian meekness were not timid or cowardly and did not cause him to draw back and shrink before the threatening situation, especially during his initial encounters with the [Muslim] sentries and the hostile imams. His confidence and fearlessness reflected the action of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit inspired his zeal and emboldened him to overcome human weakness. Pope Gregory IX, in the Bull of Canonization of the Saint, wrote that Francis conquered "by his simple preaching, unadorned with the persuasive words of human wisdom and made forceful by the power of God, who chooses the weak of this world to confound the strong."

What then was the specific content of his preaching that caused it to make such an impact on the Sultan? The Franciscan Rule is the key that reveals the substance of Francis' preaching. Chapter XVI of the Rule of 1221, regarding the mission to the unbelievers, was in all likelihood written soon after his return from Egypt, as noted previously (Chapter 13). In it he declares that the friars, when they have seen that it is pleasing to the Lord, are to "announce the word of God." This is the very first teaching precept that he mentions. And to what purpose is the word of God announced? That the infidels and Saracens may believe in the Triune God and in Jesus the Redeemer, in order to be baptized and become Christians. Essentially, Francis was presenting Jesus as a Divine Person and the Saviour of mankind, rather than as just another prophet who was no different from the prophets who had come before Him, as the Koran teaches. (Koran 2: 136). (Frank Rega, Saint Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, TAN Books and Publishers, 2007, pp. 128-129.)


Pope Pius XI, writing in Rite Expiatis, April 13, 1926, warned anyone who would try to paint Saint Francis of Assisi as one who was indifferent to the doctrines of the Catholic Church that they were sadly mistaken:

What evil they do and how far from a true appreciation of the Man of Assisi are they who, in order to bolster up their fantastic and erroneous ideas about him, imagine such an incredible thing as that Francis was an opponent of the discipline of the Church, that he did not accept the dogmas of the Faith, that he was the precursor and prophet of that false liberty which began to manifest itself at the beginning of modern times and which has caused so many disturbances both in the Church and in civil society! That he was in a special manner obedient and faithful in all things to the hierarchy of the Church, to this Apostolic See, and to the teachings of Christ, the Herald of the Great King proved both to Catholics and nonCatholics by the admirable example of obedience which he always gave. It is a fact proven by contemporary documents, which are worthy of all credence, "that he held in veneration the clergy, and loved with a great affection all who were in holy orders." (Thomas of Celano, Legenda, Chap. I, No. 62) "As a man who was truly Catholic and apostolic, he insisted above all things in his sermons that the faith of the Holy Roman Church should always be preserved and inviolably, and that the priests who by their ministry bring into being the sublime Sacrament of the Lord, should therefore be held in the highest reverence. He also taught that the doctors of the law of God and all the orders of clergy should be shown the utmost respect at all times." (Julian a Spira, Life of St. Francis, No. 28) That which he taught to the people from the pulpit he insisted on much more strongly among his friars. We may read of this in his famous last testament and, again, at the very point of death he admonished them about this with great insistence, namely, that in the exercise of the sacred ministry they should always obey the bishops and the clergy and should live together with them as it behooves children of peace. (Pius XI, Rite expiatis)


That the ministers of the counterfeit church of concilairism have seen fit to deconstruct the life and the work and the mission of various saints, including Saints John Chrysostom, Augustine, Peter Damian and Francis of Assisi, among so many others, speaks to us quite prophetically about the nature of the apostasy that is upon us as these saints, each and every single one of them, are witnesses against conciliarism, not for it and its blasphemous offenses against the honor and glory and majesty of God.

Although a revised and republished article, A Name That Must Be On Our Lips At All Times, will be posted on the home page of this site tomorrow morning, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, it is good for us to recognize today, Friday, September 11, 2009, the Feast of Saints Protus and Hyacinth, that we must keep the Holy Name of Mary ever on our lips and in our hearts, consecrated as they must be to the Most Sacred Heart of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, recognizing that the demons flee at the mere mention of her Holy Name, which we invoke at least one hundred fifty-three times a day if we pray all fifteen mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary.

The demons will flee from the counterfeit church of conciliarism once the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is made manifest. It is enough for us, however, to recognize and to reject the efforts of the part of this false church's leaders to deconstruct the Faith and to attempt, most blasphemously, to make saint after saint as witnesses in its behalf. It is enough for us to entrust our souls to true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs at this time who make no concessions to conciliarism whatsoever, making sure to pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, living penitentially as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

May we take refuge in the sure shelters provided by the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary as we seek to get to Heaven by growing in sanctity and making reparation for our sins, always conscious that this very night our very lives may be demanded of us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a full fifteen decade Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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.

See also: A Litany of Saints


© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.