Francis Takes Us To Ding Dong School Of Apostasy
Thomas A. Droleskey
Dr. Frances Rappaport, better known as "Miss Frances" to those of us who watched her on television in the early-1950s, conducted Ding Dong School on the National Broadcasting Company television network from 1952 to 1956. "Miss Frances," who had a doctorate from Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, gave simple lessons every day to pre-school children to prepare them for Kindergarten and to some chores around the house. Ding Dong School was one of the first truly educational television programs ever to be broadcast.
"Miss Frances" spoon-fed her lessons to her viewers by speaking very slowly, very deliberately, doing so in a manner that would be considered somewhat condescending today. One lesson available on You Tube teaches boys and girls how to make a sandwich with peanut butter, bananas and lettuce (YUK!!). You can watch it here: Ding Dong School. (You should watch this to understand the style of the next few paragraphs of this commentary.)
Something similar is occurring every day at the Casa Santa Marta as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis conducts his only daily Ding School of Apostasy. Yes, there is a new "Miss Frances," if you will, boys and girls. He is not going to teach you how to make peanut butter, banana and lettuce sandwiches. Oh no! Our "Miss Frances" gives you daily lessons in apostasy.
Yes, today's "Miss Frances" uses the Ding Dong School at the Casa Santa Marta to teach us how to be good apostates. Conciliarism's "Miss Frances" teaches you about the big, bad "No Church" that is opposed to letting the Holy Ghost blow as He will, showing you that there is a new, exciting, fresh and welcoming "Yes Church" that gives you the freedom to be you as you want to be. If you want to know more about the big, bad "No Church" and how it has been stopped by the new, exciting, fresh and welcoming "Yes Church," boys and girls, then just click the little bitty link that will let you know about all about it: Christ The King Says A Decisive NO To Apostasy, part one.
Aren't you happy, boys and girls!
Let Miss Frances of Conciliarism this to you in her own inimitable way.
"Yes, boys and girls, you will learn by following this nice, friendly link all about how those people described by Uncle Reinhard, our cuddly friend in Bavaria--and that is part of Germany, boys and girls, which is a continent called Europe across a big, big, big body of water called the Atlantic Ocean--oh, there lots of mountains with loads of snow in Bavaria--doesn't that sound like fun? oh yes, it does!--living in a museum of the past, are hard-headed as floppy-eared donkeys: "You, Sir, Are A Pharisee!" You don't want to be a donkey like that, do you, boys and girls? Of course you do not want to be a hard-headed donkey like that. You want to be free to be you as you are meant to be.
"So, boys and girls, I want to tell you about the good thing called evangelization and the bad thing called proselytizing, that is, telling others that they must become Catholic to save their immortal souls."
"Let me explain to the grown-ups out there what I mean so that they can tell you all about the exciting world of evangelization that has been rediscovered by some great pioneers of theological exploration who got us out of the museum of the past and brought us into the bright light of the wonderful world of today, a world we call apostasy. Can you say apostasy, boys and girls? I know that it is a big, big word. You really come to love this word once your parents explain the little talk that I gave to your parents yesterday:
(Vatican Radio) Evangelization is not proselytizing. This was the focus of Pope Francis’ remarks to faithful gathered for Mass on Wednesday morning in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae residence in the Vatican. The Pope reiterated that the Christian who wants to proclaim the Gospel must dialogue with everyone, knowing that no one owns the truth, because the truth is received by the encounter with Jesus.
Pope Francis stressed the courageous attitude of Paul St Paul at the Areopagus, when, in speaking to the Athenian crowd, he sought to build bridges to proclaim the Gospel. The Pope called Paul’s attitude one that “seeks dialogue” and is “closer to the heart” of the listener. The Pope said that this is the reason why St Paul was a real pontifex: a “builder of bridges” and not of walls. The Pope went on to say that this makes us think of the attitude that a Christian ought always to have.
“A Christian,” said Pope Francis, “must proclaim Jesus Christ in such a way that He be accepted: received, not refused – and Paul knows that he has to sow the Gospel message. He knows that the proclamation of Jesus Christ is not easy, but that it does not depend on him. He must do everything possible, but the proclamation of Jesus Christ, the proclamation of the truth, depends on the Holy Spirit. Jesus tells us in today's Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it].
But why did Paul act as he did? First, the Pope said, because “this is the way” of Jesus who “spoke with everyone” with sinners, publicans, teachers of the law. Paul, therefore, “follows the attitude of Jesus”:
“The Christian who would bring the Gospel must go down this road: [must] listen to everyone! But now is a good time in the life of the Church: the last 50 or 60 years have been a good time - for I remember when as a child one would hear in Catholic families, in my family, ‘No, we cannot go to their house, because they are not married in the Church, eh!’. It was as an exclusion. No, you could not go! Neither could we go to [the houses of] socialists or atheists. Now, thank God, people do not says such things, right? [Such an attitude] was a defense of the faith, but it was one of walls: the LORD made bridges. First: Paul has this attitude, because it was the attitude of Jesus. Second, Paul is aware that he must evangelize, not proselytize.
Citing his predecessor, Pope Benedict, Francis went on to say that the
Church “does not grow by means of proselytizing," but “by attraction, by
witnessing, by preaching,” and Paul had this attitude: proclamation
does not make proselytization – and he succeeds, because, “he did not
doubt his Lord.” The Pope warned that, “Christians who are afraid to
build bridges and prefer to build walls are Christians who are not sure
of their faith, not sure of Jesus Christ.” The Pope exhorted Christians
to do as Paul did and begin to “build bridges and to move forward”:
teaches us this journey of evangelization, because Jesus did, because
he is well aware that evangelization is not proselytizing: it is because
he is sure of Jesus Christ and does not need to justify himself [or] to
seek reasons to justify himself. When the Church loses this apostolic
courage, she becomes a stalled Church, a tidy Church a nice, a Church
that is nice to look at, but that is without fertility, because she has
lost the courage to go to the outskirts, where there are many people who
are victims of idolatry, worldliness of weak thought, [of] so many
things. Let us today ask St Paul to give us this apostolic courage,
this spiritual fervor, so that we might be confident. ‘But Father,’ [you
might say], ‘we might make mistakes…’ ... ‘[Well, what of it,’ I might
respond], ‘Get on with you: if you make a mistake, you get up and go
forward: that is the way. Those who do not walk in order not to err,
make a the more serious mistake. (Miss Frances at Wednesday Mass: build bridges, not walls.)
"Now, boys and girls, this is very similar to what a man who used to host Ding Dong School a long, long time before me, a man we can call Uncle Charlie [Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II), said while speaking to those nice, peace loving people who follow the teaching of a roly-poly fat man by the name of Buddha who lived a long, long time ago, back in 1995, and those who follow the great religion of Hinduism and those who are followers of the lover of peace-loving prophet named Mohammed as he spoke in Sri Lanka, a little bitty island nation in a far, far away world of adventure and mystery called Asia--that is the largest piece of land in the world, boys and girls--just below the great, great country of India, a land where many people hold cows as sacred and thus do not eat fat, thick, juicy hamburgers the way you and I do":
1. I am very pleased to have this opportunity during my visit to Sri Lanka to meet representatives of the various religions which have lived together in harmony for a very long time on this Island: especially Buddhism, present for over two thousand years, Hinduism, also of very long standing, along with Islam and Christianity. This simultaneous presence of great religious traditions is a source of enrichment for Sri Lankan society. At the same time it is a challenge to believers and especially to religious leaders, to ensure that religion itself always remains a force for harmony and peace. On the occasion of my Pastoral Visit to the Catholics of Sri Lanka, I wish to reaffirm the Church’s, and my own, deep and abiding respect for the spiritual and cultural values of which you are the guardians.
Especially since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has been fully committed to pursuing the path of dialogue and cooperation with the members of other religions.
Interreligious dialogue is a precious means by which the followers of
the various religions discover shared points of contact in the spiritual
life, while acknowledging the differences which exist between them. The
Church respects the freedom of individuals to seek the truth and to
embrace it according to the dictates of conscience, and in this light she firmly rejects proselytism and the use of unethical means to gain conversions. (Meeting with representatives of other religions (January 21, 1995)
"No, boys and girls, we cannot do what Saint Francis Xavier did in seeking converts in India in the Sixteenth Century. We must speak to others in what we call 'dialogue'--that's a conversation, children, where you say one thing and someone else says another and we learn from one another about the world of truth that opens up for us when we encounter Our Lord--rather than threatening them with a know-it-all attitude of 'I know more than you do and you better convert because I own the truth.' Faith, you see, boys and girls, comes from within inside each one of us. You don't want to scare someone by telling them that you have 'the' truth. Other people must encounter Our Lord from within themselves.
"What I told your parents yesterday at the Casa Santa Marta, boys and girls, is also very, very similar to what our dear, dear Uncle Joe, who is moving rather slow these days at the junction, said to lots of nice men in red costumes who go by the name of 'cardinals' even though they are not birds--isn't that clever of me?--but men who are really, really important to help us to know and accept all about the the big, bright, ever-changing world of apotasy--back at the end of the year 2011:
The key theme of this year, and of the years ahead, is this: how do we proclaim
the Gospel today? How can faith as a living force become a reality today? The
ecclesial events of the outgoing year were all ultimately related to this
theme. There were the journeys to Croatia, to the World Youth Day in Spain, to
my home country of Germany, and finally to Africa – Benin – for the consignment
of the Post-Synodal document on justice, peace and reconciliation, which
should now lead to concrete results in the various local churches. Equally
memorable were the journeys to Venice, to San Marino, to
the Eucharistic Congress in Ancona, and to Calabria. And finally there was the important day of encounter
in Assisi for religions and for people who in whatever way are searching for
truth and peace, representing a new step forward in the pilgrimage towards truth
and peace. The establishment of the Pontifical Council for the New
Evangelization is at the same time a pointer towards next year’s Synod on the
same theme. The Year of Faith, commemorating the beginning of the Council fifty
years ago, also belongs in this context. Each of these events had its own
particular characteristics. In Germany, where the Reformation began, the
ecumenical question, with all its trials and hopes, naturally assumed particular
importance. Intimately linked to this, at the focal point of the debate, the
question that arises repeatedly is this: what is reform of the Church? How does
it take place? What are its paths and its goals? Not only faithful believers
but also outside observers are noticing with concern that regular churchgoers
are growing older all the time and that their number is constantly diminishing;
that recruitment of priests is stagnating; that scepticism and unbelief are
growing. What, then, are we to do? There are endless debates over what must be
done in order to reverse the trend. There is no doubt that a variety of things
need to be done. But action alone fails to resolve the matter. The essence of
the crisis of the Church in Europe is the crisis of faith. If we find no answer
to this, if faith does not take on new life, deep conviction and real strength
from the encounter with Jesus Christ, then all other reforms will remain
On this point, the encounter with Africa’s joyful passion for faith brought
great encouragement. None of the faith fatigue that is so prevalent here, none
of the oft-encountered sense of having had enough of Christianity was detectable
there. Amid all the problems, sufferings and trials that Africa clearly
experiences, one could still sense the people’s joy in being Christian, buoyed
up by inner happiness at knowing Christ and belonging to his Church. From this
joy comes also the strength to serve Christ in hard-pressed situations of human
suffering, the strength to put oneself at his disposal, without looking round
for one’s own advantage. Encountering this faith that is so ready to sacrifice
and so full of happiness is a powerful remedy against fatigue with Christianity
such as we are experiencing in Europe today. (Christmas greetings to Alleged Cardinals, Putative Archbishops, Phony Bishops and Apostate Directors
of the Incompetent Governorate of the Occupied Vatican City State, December 22, 2011.)
"Boys and girls, there is a nasty man coming into the studio now. He appears friendly. Take the word of Miss Frances: he is a nasty man. Oh no! boys and girls, the nasty man, something we call a Droleskey, is approaching me! What should I do, boys and girls? I have so much more to teach you. I have to move to another studio now. Just turn down your television sets real low so that you don't have to hear this Droleskey man say:":
"Ding Dong School is dismissed. Goodbye, Miss Frances of Conciliarism. Here is Catholic truth.
First, the alleged "encounter with Jesus" as the basis of Faith is pure Modernism as it denies that Faith, Hope and Charity are Supernatural Virtues that are infused into our souls at Baptism and thus, much in the heretical system begun by Martin Luther, Faith must spring from "within" as one comes to recognize Our Lord as His Saviour. Pope Saint Pius X dissected this perfectly in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the
Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. Thus
they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural,
must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when natural
theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by the rejection
of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied,
it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside of man himself.
It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life,
the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. In this way is
formulated the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, the first actuation,
so to speak, of every vital phenomenon -- and religion, as noted above, belongs
to this category -- is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more
particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which
movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must
conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must
consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This
need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable
circumstances. cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is
first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy,
in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.
It may perhaps be asked how it is that this need of the divine which man
experiences within himself resolves itself into religion? To this question the
Modernist reply would be as follows: Science and history are confined within two
boundaries, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal,
which is consciousness. When one or other of these limits has been reached,
there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of
this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of
nature, or lies hidden within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a
soul which is prone to religion excites -- according to the principles of
Fideism, without any previous advertence of the mind -- a certain special sense,
and this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as
its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with
God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is
what they hold to be the beginning of religion.
8. But we have not yet reached the end of their philosophizing, or, to speak
more accurately, of their folly. Modernists find in this sense not only faith,
but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to
be found revelation. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute a
revelation? Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience,
revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself
manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to
the soul? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith,
this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is
both the Revealer and the Revealed. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
As a disciple of the founder of Communion and Liberation, the late Father Luigi Guissani, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has the exact same belief about man's "inner sense" and "relation to God" that has been
propagated throughout the Joseph Ratzinger's entire priesthood, something that the then "Cardinal" Bergoglio made clear when presenting a book about Guissani's life to Catholics in Buenos Aires, Argentina:
The book presented today, El atractivo de Jesucristo,
is not a theological treatise, it is a dialogue of friendship; these
are table conversations between Father Guissani and his disciples. It is
not a book for intellectuals, but for people who are men and women. It
is the description of that initial experience, which I shall refer to
later on, of wonder which arises in dialogue about daily experience that
is provoked and fascinated by the exceptionally human and divine
presence and gaze of Jesus Christ. It is the story of a personal
relationship–intense, mysterious, and concrete at the same time–of an
impassioned and intelligent affection for the person of Jesus, and this
enables Fr. Giussani to come to the threshold, as it were, of Mystery,
to speak familiarly and intimately with Mystery.
Everything in our life, today just as in
Jesus’ time, begins with an encounter. An encounter with this Man, the
carpenter of Nazareth, a man like all men and yet different. The first
ones, John, Andrew, and Simon, felt themselves to be looked at into
their very depths, read in their innermost being, and in them sprang
forth a surprise, a wonder that instantly made them feel bound to Him,
made them feel different.
When Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love Me?”,
“his ‘Yes’ was not the result of an effort of will, it was not the fruit
of a ‘decision’ made by the young man Simon: it was the emergence, the
coming to the surface of an entire vein of tenderness and adherence that
made sense because of the esteem he had for Him–therefore an act of
reason;” it was a reasonable act, “which is why he couldn’t not say
We cannot understand this dynamic of
encounter which brings forth wonder and adherence if it has not been
triggered–forgive me the use of this word–by mercy. Only someone who has
encountered mercy, who has been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, is
happy and comfortable with the Lord. I beg the theologians who are
present not to turn me in to the Sant’Uffizio or to the Inquisition;
however, forcing things a bit, I dare to say that the privileged locus
of the encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ on my sin.
In front of this merciful embrace–and I
continue along the lines of Giussani’s thought–we feel a real desire to
respond, to change, to correspond; a new morality arises. We posit the
ethical problem, an ethics which is born of the encounter, of this
encounter which we have described up to now. Christian morality is not a
titanic effort of the will, the effort of someone who decides to be
consistent and succeeds, a solitary challenge in the face of the world.
No. Christian morality is simply a response. It is the heartfelt
response to a surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy (I shall return
to this adjective). The surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy, using
purely human criteria, of one who knows me, knows my betrayals and
loves me just the same, appreciates me, embraces me, calls me again,
hopes in me, and expects from me. This is why the Christian conception
of morality is a revolution; it is not a never falling down but an
always getting up again. (The Attraction of the Cardinal.)
Miss Frances of Conciliarism is trying to make this all quite digestible in the daily Ding Dong School of Apostasy that he holds every morning at Casa Santa Marta.
Second, truth is possessed in the soul of a faithful Catholic. It is a gift. It does not result from any kind of "encounter." While those outside of the Catholic Church can be led to discover the truth of the Catholic Faith as they are led to do so by the very loving hand of God Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has revealed this truth to us exclusively through the Catholic Church, and it is readily accessible.
Third, the continuing conciliar effort to disparage the work of converting all men and their nations to the true Faith by creating a false dichotomy between evangelization and proselytism is nothing other than apostasy.
Such a contention makes a mockery of the very words that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ spoke on this very day, Ascension Thursday, to the Eleven before He took into Heaven what was never there before: human flesh:
And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where
Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted.
And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in
heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and
behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
(Matthew 28: 16-20.)
Fourth, the effort by Bergoglio/Francis to make Saint Paul into a witness in behalf of conciliarism's "new evangelization" is, no matter how old-hat it has become in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, beneath contempt. It is also nothing new as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II both spoke in the same manner, conveying an apostate sense that has been codified formally in the
Balamand Statement, June 24, 1993, and the conciliar Vatican's Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, March 25, 1993.
Saint Paul preached in the Areopagus about the "unknown God" (Acts 17: 22-34). He did so by way of analogy to people who had never heard of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as a means of converting them to the true Faith, premising his remarks by telling them that "you are too superstitious (Acts 17: 22). He did not endorse their "temple" of false idols as a "jewel" on the face of the earth! Must it be pointed out that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI went into the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, on November 30, 2006, and took off his shoes so as to signify that he was in a "holy" place and then assumed the Mohammedan "prayer" position as he turned in the direction of Mecca at the behest of his infidel host? Saints gave up their lives rather than even to give the appearance of doing so such a thing.
Father George Haydock's Commentary on the Douay-Rheims Bible provides the following clear explication of Saint Paul's sermon at the Areopagus:
However, from this inscription St. Paul takes an occasion, with wonderful dexterity, with sublime reflections, and with that solid eloquence, of which he was master, and which he employed, as often as it was necessary, to inform them, and instruct them, concerning the works of the one true God, of whom they had little knowledge, by their own fault: that this one true God made the world, and all things in it: that from one man he raised all mankind: that his presence is not confined to temples made by the hands of men, being every where, and in all creatures, preserving them every moment: that in him we live, move, and have our being, or subsist: that it is he, who hath determined the time, limits, or bounds of every empire, and kingdom, and of every man's life: that this true God, who made, preserves, and governs all things in heaven and on earth, cannot be like to gold, silver, or any thing made by the art, or fancy of men. He puts them in mind that according even to one of their own heathen poets, Aratus, men themselves are the offspring of God, being blessed with a being and knowledge above all other creatures in this world: who by the light of reason ought to seek God, and by considering the visible effects of Providence over the world, and the creatures in it, might come to the knowledge of this one God, the author of all, at least to an imperfect knowledge of him, as men find out things by feeling, or as it were, groping in the dark. He then adds, (ver. 30.) that having, as it were, overlooked, and permitted men for many ages to run on in this ignorance and blindness, in punishment of their sins, (this their ignorance of one true God, the author of all things, being wilful and inexcusable) now the same true God hath been pleased to announce to all men, that henceforward they acknowledge, and worship him, that they repent, and do penance for their sins. (Witham)
Ver. 23. It may be asked, why they had not implicit faith, worshipping the true, though unknown, God? 1st. because the worship of the true God can never exist with the worship of idols; 2nd. because an explicit faith in God is required of all; 3rd. because it is repugnant to implicit faith, to admit any thing contrary to it, as comparing this unknown God with the pagan idols; for God to be at all, must be one. Lucan towards the end of his 2nd book, hath these words: What, therefore, you improperly worship, that I preach to you, and
instruct you in the true worship, far different from what you pay to your strange gods. (Haydock Comment on Acts: 17.)
Saint Paul did not preach at the Areopagus to engage the philosophers, many of whom laughed at him when he preached of the resurrection of the dead, in any kind of "dialogue." Saint Paul the Apostle preached at the Areopagus to convert the pagans to the true Faith.
Fifth, to contend that the work of evangelization begun on Pentecost Sunday did not involve a firm, unequivocal proclamation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is to make a mockery of the first papal Urbi et Orbi Address, given by our first pope, Saint Peter, shortly after God the Holy Ghost had descended in tongues of flame on the Apostles and Our Lady and others gathered in the Upper Room in Jerusalem:
Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of
Nazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and
signs, which God did by him, in the midst of you as you also know: This
same being delivered up, by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, you by the hands of wicked men have crucified and slain. Whom
God hath raised up, having loosed the sorrows of hell, as it was
impossible that he should be holden by it. For David saith concerning
him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right
hand, that I may not be moved. For this my heart hath been glad, and my
tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because
thou will not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see
corruption. Thou hast made known to the the ways of life: thou shalt
make me full of joy with thy countenance.
Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the
patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is
with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and
knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne.
Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of
Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see
corruption. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are
witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having
received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured
forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven;
but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, until I make they enemies a footstool.
Therefore let all the house of Israel know most
certainly that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom
you have crucified.
Now when they had heard these things, they had
compunction in their heart, and said to Peter, and to the rest of the
apostles: What shall we do, men and brethren?
But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ., for the remission of
your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the
promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are far off,
whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.
And with very many other words did he testify and exhort them, saying: Save yourselves from this perverse generation.
They therefore that received his word were
baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.
And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the
communication of the breaking of the bread, and in prayers. (Acts
To justify themselves before men, though, the conciliar revolutionaries must attempt to convince us that Saint Peter may never have spoken these words. This is what
"Uncle Joe" himself said in part three of his trilogy of apostasy entitled Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection:
From a theological understanding of the empty tomb, a
passage from Saint Peter's Pentecost sermon strikes me as important,
when Peter for the first time openly proclaims Jesus' Resurrection to
the assembled crowds. He communicates it, not in his own words, but by
quoting Psalm 16:8-10 as follows: "... my flesh will dwell in hope. For
you will not abandon my son to Hades, nor let your Holy One see
corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life" (Acts 2:26-28).
Peter quotes the psalm text using the version found in the Greek Bible.
The Hebrew text is slightly different: "You do not give me up to Sheol,
or let your godly one see the Pit. You show me the path of life" (Ps.
16:10-11). In the Hebrew version the psalmist speaks in the certainty
that God will protect him, even in the threatening situation in which he
evidently finds himself, that God will shield him from death and that
he may dwell securely: he will not see the grave. The version
Peter quotes is different: here the psalmist is confident that he will
not remain in the underworld, that he will not see corruption.
Peter takes it for granted that it was David who
originally prayed this psalm, and he goes on to state that this hope was
not fulfilled in David: "He both died and was buried, and his tomb is
with us to this day" (Acts 2:29). The tomb containing his corpse is the
proof of his not having risen. Yet the psalm text is still true: it
applies to the definitive David. Indeed, Jesus is revealed here as the
true David, precisely because in him this promise is fulfilled: "You
will not let your Holy One see corruption."
We need not go into the question here of whether
this address goes back to Peter and, if not, who else may have redacted
it and precisely when and where it originated. Whatever the answer may
be, we are dealing here with a primitive form of Resurrection
proclamation, whose high authority in the early Church is clear from the
fact that it was attributed to Saint Peter himself and was regarded as
the original proclamation of the Resurrection. (Joseph
Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: Holy Week: From the Entrance into Jerusalem to the Resurrection, pp. 255-256.)
Left unaddressed in this
classic piece of Modernist deconstruction of Sacred Scripture that is a
blasphemous affront to God the Holy Ghost and to Saint Peter was the
little matter that three thousand Jews from all over the Mediterranean
converted because of the stirring words delivered by our first pope
moments after he had received the Seven Gifts and Twelve Fruits of God
the Holy Ghost, being blessed at that moment with the charism of
infallibility of doctrine. Ratzinger/Benedict has to place into
question, no matter how subtly by way of refusing address the question
that he raises, the fact that Saint Peter delivered this sermon as to
admit openly that it is the case is to damn himself for refusing to
speak to Jews as Saint Peter did.
Moreover, as we know that Saint Peter did deliver
this sermon and that the Acts of the Apostles was written by Saint Luke
under the inspiration of God the Holy Ghost, to assert that Saint Peter
was wrong about the authorship of Psalm 16, attributing it "incorrectly"
to King David, is to mock the papal infallibility with which our first
pope had just been clothed by the same God the Holy Ghost.
It is no doubt the case that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes much the same thing as one cannot disparage the firm proclamation of the Catholic Faith while believing that Saint Peter actually delivered the sermon that he did on the first Pentecost Sunday as recorded in the Acts of Apostles.
Sixth, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis offends truth by contending that "dialogue" is more effective in "evangelization" than in proselytism because the former "builds bridges."
All right, Jorge.
How did Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ "build bridges" by engaging in "dialogue" when He gave the Eucharistic Discourse as recorded by Saint John the Evangelist?
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you;
Moses gave you not bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true
bread from heaven. For the bread of God is that which cometh down from
heaven, and giveth life to the world.
They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread.
And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he
that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall
never thirst. But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you
believe not. All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and from
him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. Because I came down from
heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. Now
this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hat
given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the
And this is the will of my Father that sent me:
that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life
everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
The Jews therefore murmured at him, because he had
said: I am the living bread which come down from heaven. And they said:
Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know?
How then saith he, I came down from heaven?
Jesus therefore answered, and saith to them: Murmur
not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father, who
hath sent me, draw him; and I will raise him up in the last day. It is
written in the prophets: And they shall all be taught of God. Every one that heareth heareth of the Father, and hath learned, cometh to me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father; but he who is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Amen, amen I say unto you: he that believeth in me,
hath everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat
manna in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down
from heaven; that if any man eat of it. he may not die. I am the living
bread which came down from heaven. If any mean eat of this bread that I
will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat?
Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you:
Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you
shall not have life in you.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my
flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my
flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by
the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. This
is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat
manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
These things he said, teaching in the synagogue in Capharnaum.
Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples
murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? If then you
shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit
that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have
spoken to you, are spirit and life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For
Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and
who he was, that would betray him.
And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall
we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and
have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God. (John 6:1-70)
"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and
drink his blood, you shall not have life in you." That's not what you can "bridge-building." It is what is called proclaiming the truth, something that the most of Jews of Our Lord's time could not accept any more than most people alive in the world today. So what? Our Lord knew that most of the people would abandon him? Are we supposed to do any less?
To refuse to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of those who
are outside of the Catholic Church, including the Orthodox, not only makes a
complete and total mockery of the work that Saint Peter and the other
Apostles began Pentecost Sunday. It it is also to make a mockery of
the work of Saint Patrick in Ireland and the work Saint Boniface in
Germany and the work Saint Augustine of Canterbury in England and the
work Saint Hyacinth in Central and Eastern Europe and the work Saint
Dominic amongst the Albigensians and work of Saint Vincent Ferrer in the
Iberian Peninsula amongst the Jews and Mohammedans and that of Saint
Francis Xavier in the Far East and the work of Saints Francis de Sales
and Peter Canisius amongst the Calvinists in Europe and the work of
Saint Josaphat amongst the Orthodox in the Ukraine and the work of the
North American Martyrs of Father Pierre Jean De Smet and Sister Rose
Philippine Duchesne and Father Junipero Serra and the work of Saint
Francis Solano and Saint Turibius and Saint Peter Claver, among so many
others, in the New World.
My advice is this: Don't pay any attention to Miss Frances of Conciliarism's daily Ding Dong School as to do so is to permit oneself to be spoon-fed with one heresy after another as you are taught how to make the equivalent of a peanut butter, banana and lettuce sandwich of the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Indeed, one of the comments listed on the You Tube video of that clip from Ding Dong Show linked above ran as follows: "What sort of a deranged serial killer would have lettuce on a peanut butter [sandwich]? Well, what sort of deranged serial killer of souls would have you believe that his daily dose of Ding Dong School has anything to do with the Catholic Faith.
Yes, go now in peace to love and hug each other in apostasy. Ding Dong School for the day has ended.
Pope Saint Pius X explained that that Modernists lead others to reject the true Faith by praising that which they see as "true" in false religions such as Islam, an exact description of what the conciliar "popes," including Bergoglio/Francis, Ratzinger/Benedict and Wojtyla/John Paul II have done:
How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Although the Church Militant on earth has undergone her Mystical Passion, Death and Burial in recent decades, she will, like her Divine Founder out of Whose Wounded Side she was born, know her Resurrection. We must simply and faithfully continue to cleave exclusively to the Catholic Faith while making who make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its apostate "officials," men who are most casual in their acceptance of outrages that have become commonplace in their false church that gives so much offense to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and to His Most Blessed Mother.
We must also recognize that our sins have contributed mightily to the worsening of the state of the Church Militant and to the state of the world. We have much for which to make reparation, especially those of us who were slow to embrace the truth that those who defect from the Faith expel themselves from the Church and cannot hold office within her legitimately. Our Rosaries of reparation today may help to plant the seeds for the restoration of the Church Militant at some point in the future.
The Glorious Mysteries of the Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary during Ascensiontide that begins today prior to Pentecost Sunday presage a glorious future for Holy Mother Church once the conciliarists are vanquished as a result of the fruit of the Triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.
We may not be alive when the Resurrection of the Church Militant occurs. We should and must be content to plant a few seeds for this Resurrection of the Church Militant as the consecrated slaves of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary with joy and with love.
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.
See also: A Litany of Saints