Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                 September 2, 2013

Conciliarism's Weapons of Mass Destruction

Part Three

by Thomas A. Droleskey

The spirit of the toleration of error as something that is not offensive to God and immediately injurious to souls that has spread throughout the veins and arteries of most Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism did not begin overnight.

Although we know that all human problems have their Remote Cause in Original Sin and are aided proximately by our own Actual Sins, for which we must do penance to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, there are other Proximate Causes for the problems of Modernity, ushered in with various aspects of the Renaissance and aided along its way by the Protestant Revolt against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through His Catholic Church as he ordered his life socially in light of his Last End and institutionalized by means of the naturalistic philosophies of the "enlightenment" and the rise of Judeo-Masonry. There are also other Proximate Causes for the spread of Modernism in the minds and hearts of so many Catholics.

One of those Proximate Causes for the spread of Modernism--and for the spirit of the toleration of theological and philosophical errors that are offensive to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the holy Cross--can be found in the Opening Address that Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII delivered to the Fathers of the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962:

In these days, which mark the beginning of this Second Vatican Council, it is more obvious than ever before that the Lord's truth is indeed eternal. Human ideologies change. Successive generations give rise to varying errors, and these often vanish as quickly as they came, like mist before the sun.

The Church has always opposed these errors, and often condemned them with the utmost severity. Today, however, Christ's Bride prefers the balm of mercy to the arm of severity. She believes that, present needs are best served by explaining more fully the purport of her doctrines, rather than by publishing condemnations.

Contemporary Repudiation Of Godlessness

Not that the need to repudiate and guard against erroneous teaching and dangerous ideologies is less today than formerly. But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces such fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord—especially that way of life which repudiates God and His law, and which places excessive confidence in technical progress and an exclusively material prosperity. It is more and more widely understood that personal dignity and true self-realization are of vital importance and worth every effort to achieve. More important still, experience has at long last taught men that physical violence, armed might, and political domination are no help at all in providing a happy solution to the serious problems which affect them.

A Loving Mother

The great desire, therefore, of the Catholic Church in raising aloft at this Council the torch of truth, is to show herself to the world as the loving mother of all mankind; gentle, patient, and full of tenderness and sympathy for her separated children. To the human race oppressed by so many difficulties, she says what Peter once said to the poor man who begged an alms: "Silver and gold I have none; but what I have, that I give thee. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, arise and walk." In other words it is not corruptible wealth, nor the promise of earthly happiness, that the Church offers the world today, but the gifts of divine grace which, since they raise men up to the dignity of being sons of God, are powerful assistance and support for the living of a more fully human life. She unseals the fountains of her life-giving doctrine, so that men, illumined by the light of Christ, will understand their true nature and dignity and purpose. Everywhere, through her children, she extends the frontiers of Christian love, the most powerful means of eradicating the seeds of discord, the most effective means of promoting concord, peace with justice, and universal brotherhood. (Angelo Roncalli/ John XXIII 's Opening Address)


"But all such error is so manifestly contrary to rightness and goodness, and produces fatal results, that our contemporaries show every inclination to condemn it of their own accord"? Behold the proliferation of error and confusion and ambiguity and uncertainty that has taken place as a result of this benign view of error that was expressed by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who was under suspicion of heresy during the pontificate of Pope Saint Pius X.

This proliferation of error is so pronounced and so widespread in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the average Catholic, noting, of course, exceptions here and there, has become so very accustomed to apostasy that he is incapable of recognizing that is a Mortal Sin, objectively speaking, for a Catholic to enter into a place of false worship and then to praise that place of diabolical rites as "sacred" and to praise the "values" held by the adherents of that false religion.

Each of the conciliar "pontiffs" has demonstrated this broad, liberal sense of toleration of error, at least to a greater or lesser extent depending upon the particular issues of Faith involved. This includes Albino Luciani/John Paul I:

John Paul I is often portrayed as a humble, saintly prelate of the Church. His doctrinal stand was very questionable as evidence by his pastoral letter of 1967 in which he advised his clergy to "see, if instead of uprooting and throwing down [error], it might be possible to trim and prune it patiently, bringing to light the core of goodness and truth which is not often lacking even in erroneous opinions" [Reference 839: Our Sunday Visitor, September 28, 2003, "Celebrating the Smiling Pope," by Lori Pieper.] This is like a doctor telling his patient: "I won't take out all the cancer; it might be good for you. (Fathers Dominic and Francisco Radecki, CMRI, Tumultuous Times,  page 530.)


The conciliar spirit of the toleration of error was condemned prophetically by many true popes, including Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 12, 1950:


For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling." (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

This is far, far removed the false spirit of the toleration of error under the guise of "mercy" and "patience" expressed by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII in his Opening Address at the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, 1962. Error does not simply "go away." It needs to be opposed.

Pope Leo XIII's Custodi di Quella Fede rejects outright the Masonic "respect for all religions" and "universal tolerance" that is at the heart of the conciliar spirit:

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


Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's newly appointed Secretary of State, "Archbishop" Pietro Parolin, who served under his predecessor, the egregious protector of perverted clergy and enemy of Our Lady of Fatima, Tarcisio Bertone, as the Vatican's Undersecretary Undersecretary for Relations with States from 2002 to 2009, is very well-practiced in his own revolutionary right as a firm exponent of the erroneous proposition that "religions" can help to build "peace."

Here is what the then "Monsignor" Parolin said in 2009 following Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's pilgrimage to Jordan and Israel that featured the now-retired apostate calling a mosque in Amman, Jordan, as "sacred" and a "jewel that stands out on the face of the earth" and taking off his shoes to enter the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem."

What fruits do you expect to see from the Holy Father’s visit to the Holy Land?

We have to let the seed to grow. We need to give it time, but I think the visit was very positive. This is the general assessment of the Holy Father. I think the Holy Father said to everyone what he wanted to say and it was a message of hope, looking to the future, and building trust between the parties. From that we can start a new process of delivering peace. Then one can say the visit was successful. We need time to see. I think the message the Pope gave is that we are a people of faith — Christian, Muslim and Jews. Faith is a resource to build peace, and we have to use these resources which are inside each faith to build peace.

And also have religions more directly involved in the peace process?

Yes, to take new resources, motivation and emphases on building peace from the convictions of faith among the different religions. (Vatican Clarifies Obama Stance.)


"Building peace from the convictions of faith among the different religions," "Archbishop Parolin?

Your apostasy stands condemned by, among other popes, Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 12, 1950, and by Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)


Catholicism, "Archbishop" Parolin, is the one and only foundation for personal and social order, not the false religion of conciliarism's toleration of errors and the praise its "pontiffs" and "bishops" and "cardinals" and "monsignori" and priests/presbyters render to other false religions by daring to associate the Catholic Church with their own blasphemous expressions of "respect" and "admiration" for places that are "sacred" only to the devil himself.

Alas, respect those who violate the First Commandment by partaking of the worship of false religions, thus showing a blithe and most sanguine "toleration" of that which offends God most grievously, and one will show great "respect" and toleration for those who break the Fifth Commandment's injunction against the direct, intentional taking of any innocent life, whether before or after birth, for any reason at all time or under any circumstance.

Pietro Parolin worked behind the scenes under Tarcisio Bertone to establish a tone of "respectful, tactful diplomacy" with the newly-inaugurated Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in 2009, refusing to treat this Marxist supporter of the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn in the spirit of Pope Pius XI's condemnation of those in public life who support the slaughter of the preborn.

Consider, for example, the "diplomatic" language that Parolin used in June of 2009 to speak of the conciliar Vatican's position on abortion after the editor of L'Osservatore Romano, Gian Maria Van, ran an editorial in which he said that Obama/Soetoro was not "pro-abortion":


“It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue.”

Those are the words of Msgr. Pietro Parolin, the Holy See’s Undersecretary for Relations with States and one of the Vatican’s leading diplomats.

Here is the complete text of my interview yesterday with Msgr. Parolin, in which he also discusses Pope Benedict XVI’s recent trip to the Holy Land. The interview will be published in the next issue of the Register.

Q. There’s been some confusion about the mixed signals coming out of the Vatican regarding President Obama — that while U.S. bishops have strongly criticized his position on life issues, L’Osservatore Romano, for example, has been offering comparatively positive assessments of the administration. Why is this?

Msgr. Pietro Parolin: It’s very simple. It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue. So this — in a few words — is the policy of the Holy See.

Q. So bishops need to focus more on these internal issues while the Vatican is more interested on international, foreign policy issues?

No, I wouldn’t say we’re not concerned about these decisions that have been taken by the administration. But this does not prevent us from having a dialogue with the administration.

Is this the reason for the generally positive comments from L’Osservatore Romano on the administration?

I don’t know because I was absent at that time, I was in Jerusalem when L’Osservatore Romano wrote that article. (Vatican Clarifies Obama Stance.)

First of all, Gian Maria Van's assertion four years ago that Obama/Soetoro is not a pro-abortion president was itself remarkable.

I mean, what at does it take make a public official be pro-abortion?

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro supports the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973. He had signed an Executive Order to restore full funding for the surgical assassination of children under all conditions by means of international "family planning" agencies outside of the United States of America with American taxpayers' dollars almost as soon as he took office in 2009. Little babies have been killed as a result of that Executive Order, and this is to say nothing of United States Attorney General Eric Holder's aggressive war against pro-life Americans and of the pro-abortion ObamaCare, whose implementation is being supervised by a pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic, United States Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro is not pro-abortion?

No rational, sane Catholic can make such a statement, no less one who has been chosen by conciliar officials to be the editor of their semi-official newspaper.


As to the Pietro Parolin himself, what was your comment that "It is true we don’t share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues, but at the same time the traditional policy of the Holy See is to try to always have open channels, to follow a policy of dialogue through which you can tell people you don’t agree on certain issues, but at the same time keep on with a dialogue" supposed to have meant?

Excuse me, "Archbishop" Parolin?

The conciliar Vatican does not "share many views with the present administration on bioethical issues"?


The direct, intentional taking of innocent preborn life in a mother's womb, whether by surgical or chemical means, is a matter of God's Law, engraved in the human heart by means of the Natural Law and explicated clearly by Him to us in the Fifth Commandment, which, along with each of His Commandments. It is not a "view" over which people of "good will" can have legitimate disagreements.

Bioethical issues?

Bioethical issues?

The madness of conciliarism, replete with its insanity of "dialogue" and respect for errors and false religions, is a long, long way from the clarity provided us by Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

"Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven." (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)


This is the language of the Catholic Church, not "dialogue" and "toleration." How many more babies must be killed for the conciliar revolutionaries to realize that their own soul-killing liturgies and false doctrines have made it more possible for men such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro to rise to political prominence and to have the enthusiastic support of large numbers of Catholics. The apostasy of the conciliar ethos does indeed have consequences.

In truth, you see, Pietro Parolin comes from a long line of conciliar appeasers of Marxists and statists in the office of the conciliar-occupied offices of the Vatican Secretariat of State.

After all, Monsignor Giovanni Montini, later to become Paul The Sick, sold out Catholic priests serving behind the Iron Curtain, each of whom was discovered and killed, as Soviet agents blackmailed him over his, shall we say, clandestine, nocturnal encounters (details of which are found in Paul The Sick and also in Nikita Roncalli). Paul the Sick also engineered the sellout of Josef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary, in the furtherance of his policy of Ostpolitik (East Politics), that is, an opening to Communist bloc nations in order to end a spirit of "confrontation" as a means to institute an ethos of "dialogue" and "mutual understanding."

It with this in mind that it should come as no surprise to readers of this site that Pietro Parolin played a major role behind-the-scenes under Tarcisio Bertone to extend Ostpolitik a few thousand miles west of the former Warsaw Pact nations that were held in Soviet captivity for so long and that still suffer the effects of Marxist-Leninist atheism.

Yes, Pietro Parolin played a major role in the sellout of the underground Church in Red China to the so-called Chinese Patriotic Association as he engaged in negotiations with the brutal, murderous Communist dictators in the world's most populous nation, which paved the way for his "negotiations" with Communist butchers headquartered in Hanoi, Vietnam, once a stronghold of Catholicism during the French colonial rule over Indochina.

The murderous Ho Chi Minh, the founder of the Viet Minh guerilla army that fought, successively, the Japanese occupiers of Indochina during World War II and the French colonial forces under the fall of Dien Bien Phu on May 7, 1954, who was recently praised by Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro (see Obama Says Vietnamese Dictator Inspired by Founding Fathers), initiated a brutal campaign against Catholics in Vietnam that killed countless thousands of them and sent over 450,000 of our co-religionists to the protection found in the newly established Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) below the Seventeenth Parallel.

Ah, that is before the conciliar revolutionaries began to show forth their "respect" for errors that, according to Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, just kind of go away all on their own, and Paul the Sick's Ostpolitik was implemented.

Never mind the fact that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Letter to Bishops, Priests, Consecrated Persons and Lay Faithful of Red China, June 30, 2007, represented a sellout of the long-suffering Catholics in the underground Church in China that has meet met with a worsening of their conditions as a result of the intransigent hatred of the murderous thugs in Beijing and elsewhere throughout the country (see Red China Still A Workshop For The New Ecclesiology).

No, Pietro Parolin, who worked behind the scenes to make Ratzinger/Benedict's June 30, 2007, letter a reality, helped to organize a "musical concert" in the Vatican to showcase performers from Red China even in the midst of the continued sufferings of the faithful Catholics in that country:


Remember ping-pong diplomacy, the exchange of ping-pong players between the United States and communist China in the 1970s that was one of the first steps that led to a thaw in relations between the two countries? If the Vatican had a ping-pong team, perhaps China would have considered sending their squad to the walled city in Rome for a match.

But the Vatican does not have a ping-pong team, as far as we know. So, the next best thing appears to be music. This week, Vatican Radio made a surprise announcement on its daily 2 p.m. bulletin. The China Philharmonic Orchestra of Beijing and the Shanghai Opera House Chorus will perform Mozart’s Requiem for Pope Benedict on May 7 in the Vatican’s audience hall, adding a stop to its already scheduled European tour.

As one diplomat said, “this could not have happened without the Beijing government approving it.” Given the fact that relations between the Vatican and Beijing have been scratchy to say the least, one can only wonder if this is the start of a mating game. It could lead to diplomatic relations and China’s recognition of the pope as leader of all Catholics in the world, including Chinese Catholics, many of whom have been forced to join the state-backed Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association.

Something seemed afoot in the last few months. In November, Monsignor Pietro Parolin, undersecretary for relations with states, was reported to have made a secret visit to China. The Vatican never denied the reports. In March, a Chinese delegation secretly had talks in the Vatican, sources confirmed.

One precedent for baton diplomacy that comes to mind is a similar event that happened in the Vatican on February 20, 1988 when the now mostly-forgotten Cold War still existed.

The then-Soviet Union’s Red Army Choir performed for Pope John Paul, singing, of all things, Ave Maria. It, too, was a shocker when it was announced. But on Dec 1, 1989, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev made his historic visit to the Vatican, turning relations between the Kremlin and the Vatican on their head after some 70 years of mutual distrust. Relations between Russia and the Vatican were established in 1990 and the rest, as they say, is history.

So, if music be the food of diplomacy, play on. (Can China and the Vatican make beautiful music together?)

Yes, yes, yes.

Pietro Parolin will feel right at home again in the Vatican Secretariat of State. He is well-qualified in serving as a weapon of mass destruction within the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Indeed, "Archbishop" Pietro Parolin played the role of "diplomat" when serving as the conciliar church's nuncio in Venezuela, treating the Marxist tyrant Hugo Chavez with great respect as he attempted to tamp down overt criticism of the now-deceased thug on the part of some of the conciliar "bishops" in Venezuela.

One will see in the following interview that he gave to the "ultra-progressive" National Catholic Reporter a short while ago before his recent promotion back to the Vatican that he is a supporter of "liberation theology, rejecting most gratuitously, of course, any Marxist models, and that he downplays the scandal of perverted clergy in his perverted and corrupted conciliar church:

What’s happening in the church since March 13, when Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected as the new pope?

Parolin: I don’t believe anything new is happening in the church, in the sense that the new is also ordinary.

[The church] is always well-disposed to renewal?

Exactly so, always, because the principal protagonist in the church is the Holy Spirit

How do you interpret the ‘Francis phenomenon’?

What’s struck me, and I consider it a miracle of the election of Pope Francis, is the sudden change of climate that was felt immediately. Before, there was pessimism – unjustly, I would add, because Pope Benedict XVI did everything possible to reform the church, if we look, for instance, at his enormous commitment with regard to pedophilia.

Could it be said that the tension of facing pedophilia and corruption exhausted him?

Yes, I suppose so. We were focused on these problems, and it seemed that maybe the church didn’t have the capacity for renewal. All of a sudden, after the election and the first pronouncements of the pope, the situation changed completely and a new climate of hope took hold, of renewal, of a future that beforehand seemed irreparably blocked. I truly consider this a great miracle. The courage and the humility of Benedict XVI to take a step back moves in the same direction as the courage and humility of Francis to accept the papacy, and the new air that he’s brought.

What’s struck you the most about the papacy of Francis?

What’s struck me is that the perception of the church has been completely changed. From a church under siege with thousands of problems, a church that seemed, let’s say, a little sick, we’ve passed to a church that has opened itself up.

He’s revitalized it?

Exactly so, and now it’s looking with great confidence towards God’s future. That seems to me the most beautiful thing that’s happened.

What does it mean that the pope made his first trip to Brazil?

It’s a coincidence, because it had already been decided that World Youth Day would take place in Brazil. Correspondingly the pope, any pope, would be there.

Was it also a coincidence that Pope Francis chose the poor, and Brazil is the cradle of the Theology of Liberation?

On the Theology of Liberation, and I say this with all my heart because there was much suffering, things are much clearer now. Recent years, painfully, passionately, have served to make things more clear. The church, it’s true, has a preferential option for the poor, and it’s a choice the church has made at the universal level. But it’s also always clarified that it’s not an exclusive option, or one that excludes anyone.

But it’s preferential?

Preferential, yes, but that means the church is for everyone, the church offers the Gospel to all, but with a special attention to the poor because they are the Lord’s favorites, and also because we’ve learned anew that the Gospel can be embraced only with an attitude of poverty.

The simplicity proclaimed by Francis …

Pope Francis moves in this direction. The attention that he’s shown from the first moments of his pontificate puts this fundamental option at the center of the church, an option for everyone but with special attention to the poor.

That’s a reading that applies to the Latin and Caribbean faithful. What reading of it can be made among the African faithful?

There are differences. The Theology of Liberation has had fewer repercussions in Africa with respect to Latin America.

Also, in Europe, with the worker priests …

Yes, certainly, but not in Africa. Francis’ concern for the poor is good news for Africa, which is living with conflicts in various countries and situations of injustice. I think that the emphasis of the pope is also important for Africa, for everything that regards the theme of social justice and peace, which were considered in the last two synods for Africa held in the Vatican.

For the church, poverty is a human subject. But it’s also a classic theme for the Marxists …

The church must not assume Marxist categories, or class struggle. One of the points among the different problems that arose [with the Theology of Liberation] was the use of Marxist categories and the idea of class struggle that was proclaimed. The church always proposes, as the first step, the education of persons in the idea of solidarity, a solidarity that allows the problems of society to be overcome both personally and structurally. On the subject of poverty, the church has an enormous patrimony in its social doctrine.

What weight does the church give to corruption as the base of these problems?

The pope has drawn attention to it. It’s a theme that also concerns the church, because it knows that corruption damages the fabric of society and generates many consequences, such as those already mentioned. It’s important that there be a fight against corruption, above all in education, which is a fundamental arena for the church. [We need] education of the person toward legality, honesty, coherence between words and deeds, in such a way that people are capable of rejecting these temptations and know how to build a healthy, positive society.

Pope Francis has encouraged interreligious relations, at least among the monotheistic religions … what about Latin and Caribbean mixtures of beliefs?

On ecumenical dialogue among Christians as well as interreligious dialogue, the pope is following in the footsteps of his predecessors, for example John Paul II with his meeting in Assisi. Pope Francis is very clear that we have to move forward in this direction.

But what about Latin and Caribbean mixtures of beliefs?

The church follows the principle of St. Paul of taking note of everything and choosing what’s good and healthy. Everything that’s compatible with the Gospel can be taken up.

What view does the church take of the social suffering as a result of the economic crisis in diverse countries of Europe?

The church and all Christians, as the Second Vatican Council said, the fiftieth anniversary of which we’re now celebrating, takes upon itself all the dramas of the contemporary world. The church has issued an appeal that human suffering be considered in any solution to the crisis Europe is currently experiencing.

What’s happening with ‘savage capitalism’? John Paul II criticized it, Benedict XVI criticized it, and so has Pope Francis. Is this tendency still dominant in Europe?

It’s a worrying thing. The church continues to ask that in whatever needs to be corrected, human imperatives should take precedence over economic ones, the ethical and moral dimension. The human person must take precedence over the laws of the market. From there, a sense of love for the poor, of solidarity, of a truly human economy that helps people develop and doesn’t humiliate them or damage their dignity, is born. This is a fundamental concern for the church, and we’ve got all the papal encyclicals from Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII in 1891 up to Caritas in Veritate of Benedict XVI in 2009. (Parolin's last interview before taking top Vatican job.)


Only a few pertinent comments need to be made about this very standard fare from the mouth of a believing conciliarist.

First, anyone who can claim that there is any kind of connection between Pope Leo XIII's Rerurm Novarum, May 15, 1891, and such conciliar "papal" encyclical letters as Paul the Sick's Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1967, which spoke of a "population" problem which was then an is now entirely nonexistent, and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Caritas in Veritate, June 29, 2009, which called for an globalist "economic" overseer that would respect both national sovereignty and the principle subsidiarity even though such a entity is incapable of realizing either goal, is, to be put it most charitably, delusional.

Second, while it is correct to assert that the "Second" Vatican Council took "upon itself the dreams of the contemporary world," it must be remembered that those "dreams" were Judeo-Masonic and were premised upon the fundamental and specific rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of the immutable teaching that Catholicism and Catholicism alone is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Third, to assert that Saint Paul the Apostle supported syncretism's mixture of elements of the true religion with false religions, including outright superstition, is both heretical in and of itself and blasphemous.


St. Paul also exhorts us to "give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son." (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and "departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils". (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they "have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts". (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. "Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light, . . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness". (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience. (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

You are busted, Pietro Parolin, as Saint Paul puts the lie to your blasphemous assertion about his teaching and to your support for Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's commitment to false ecumenism.

In other words, good readers, "Archbishop" Pietro Parolin, stands a very good chance of succeeding Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism if Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ does not intervene before Bergoglio/Francis resigns or dies. Pietro Parolin is simply another human weapon of mass destruction to be found in a false church that is founded on a Modernist deconstruction and destruction of the Catholic Faith.

It is only by means of the merciful designs of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus that any of us have been able to reject conciliarism and the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds after having deluded ourselves into thinking  that it was necessary to "stay within the structures" to "fight" errors and blasphemies and apostasies and sacrileges at the "local" level that had--and continue to have--approval from the conciliar Vatican and its "popes" and officials. We need to thank Our Lady for sending us the graces to see the truth, and we must ever pray to her to abide in it as it is easy go to "go back" for the sake of "fellowship."

Catholics do not embrace error.

They flee from it. (See Father Frederick Faber's meditation for the Sixth Dolor of Our Lady contained in Our Mother of Sorrows.)

They make reparation for it as they make reparation for their our sins as the consecrated slaves of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as their states-in-life permit.

We must also remember Our Lady's words to Juan Diego on Tepeyac Hill near Mexico City on December 12, 1531:

Know for certain that I am the perfect and perpetual Virgin Mary, Mother of the True God. . . . Here I will show and offer my love, my compassion, my help and my protection to the people. I am your merciful Mother, the Mother of all those who love me, of those who cry to me, of those who have confidence in me. Here I will hear their weeping and their sorrows and will remedy and alleviate their suffering, necessities and misfortunes. . . . Listen and let it penetrate into your heart. . . . Do not be troubled or weighed down with grief. So not fear any illness or vexation, anxiety or pain. Am I not here who am your Mother? Are you not under my shadow and protection? Am I not your fountain of life? Are you not in the folds of my mantle? In the crossing of my arms? Is there anything else that you need?


No, dear Blessed Mother. We have you. There is nothing else we need as you pray for us to your Divine Son now, and at the hour our deaths. There is nothing else we need other than for you to pray for us to remain faithful to your Divine Son without making any concessions or compromises at all to the figures of Antichrist in the counterfeit church of conciliarism or in the realm of politics and civil government. Help us to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of your Immaculate Heart as the fruit of the fulfillment of your Fatima Message.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

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, especially on your feast day today!

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Stephen of Hungary, pray for us.



© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.