Francis The Anti-Campion

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Yes, Dr. Welby, that is, the Anglican layman Justin Welby, the false "archbishop" of Canterbury, does make house calls. As was the case with the fictional Dr. Marcus Welby, portrayed by the late Robert Young, Dr. Justin Welby brings with him a pleasant, cheerful, ecumaniacal bedside manner when making a house call upon a fellow "believer," Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, as happened on Friday, June 14, 2013, the Octave Day of the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Commemoration of Saint Basil the Great. The two adherents of closely related false religions, Anglicanism and conciliarism, exchanged pleasantries as they gave elegies of praise to each other and to the alliances that have developed despite the existence of still unresolved difficulties impeding the establishment of "full communion" between their false churches. 

The statements made by Bergoglio/Francis and Justin Welby echoed themes that their predecessors in apostasy have sounded ever since the Anglican layman named Michael Ramsey met with Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick met in the Vatican on Wednesday, March 23, 1966, proceeding to issue a joint declaration the following day, Thursday, March 24, 1966, the Feast of Saint Gabriel the Archangel. That joint declaration defamed the very memory of the English Martyrs, those champions of the Catholic Faith who preferred death to even the slightest degree of recognition accorded to the false, schismatic and heretical Anglican sect:

 

In this city of Rome, from which St. Augustine was sent by St. Gregory to England and there founded the cathedral see of Canterbury, towards which the eyes of all Anglicans now turn as the centre of their Christian Communion, His Holiness Pope Paul VI and His Grace Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, representing the Anglican Communion, have met to exchange fraternal greetings.

At the conclusion of their meeting they give thanks to Almighty God who by the action of the Holy Spirit has in these latter years created a new atmosphere of Christian fellowship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches of the Anglican Communion.

This encounter of the 23rd March 1966 marks a new stage in the development of fraternal relations, based upon Christian charity, and of sincere efforts to remove the causes of conflict and to re-establish unity.

In willing obedience to the command of Christ who bade his disciples love one another, they declare that, with His help, they wish to leave in the hands of the God of mercy all that in the past has been opposed to this precept of charity, and that they make their own the mind of the Apostle which he expressed in these words: "Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press towards the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 3, 13-14).

They affirm their desire that all those Christians who belong to these two Communions may be animated by these same sentiments of respect, esteem and fraternal love, and in order to help these develop to the full, they intend to inaugurate between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion a serious dialogue which, founded on the Gospels and on the ancient common traditions, may lead to that unity in truth, for which Christ prayed.

The dialogue should include not only theological matters such as Scripture, Tradition and Liturgy, but also matters of practical difficulty felt on either side. His Holiness the Pope and His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury are, indeed, aware that serious obstacles stand in the way of a restoration of complete communion of faith and sacramental life; nevertheless, they are of one mind in their determination to promote responsible contacts between their Communions in all those spheres of Church life where collaboration is likely to lead to a greater understanding and a deeper charity, and to strive in common to find solutions for all the great problems that face those who believe in Christ in the world of today.

Through such collaboration, by the grace of God the Father and in the light of the Holy Spirit, may the prayer of Our Lord Jesus Christ for unity among His disciples be brought nearer to fulfilment, and with progress towards unity may there be a strengthening of peace in the world, the peace that only He can grant who gives "the peace that passeth all understanding", together with the blessing of Almighty God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that it may abide with all men for ever. (Common Declaration of Paul the Sick and Layman Arthur Michael Ramsey.)

The cause of the "conflict" between the Anglican sect and the Catholic Church was the declaration that was passed by the English Parliament at the command of King Henry VIII stating that he was the supreme head of the Church in England, thereby permitting him to marry his mistress, the plotting, scheming Anne Boleyn. The Anglican sect started as a result of the carnal lust of a debauched man, Henry Tudor, who was egged on by disciples of the heretic Martin Luther such as Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.

The false, heretical and schismatic Anglican sect thus has no right from God to exist. While individual adherents of Anglicanism must convert to the true Faith to save their immortal souls, an expressed desire to "re-establish unity" admits that the Anglican sect is a legitimate church that simply lacks what the conciliar revolutionaries call "full communion."

Moreover, Paul The Sick gave his own episcopal ring to Arthur Michael Ramsey, who did not use his first name in most instances, thereby signifying, at least in a de facto manner that he, Ramsey, was a true Successor of the Apostles, and that the principal "difficulty" that had to be overcome was Pope Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curiae, September 15, 1896, that declared Anglican orders null and void. Paul The Sick even went so far as to do something that his predecessor in apostasy, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, did not do when he met Ramsey's predecessor, layman Geoffrey Fisher, privately in the Vatican on December 2, 1960: prompt the Anglican layman to give a "joint blessing" with him.

Consider the recollection of an English Catholic seminarian of this this moment in ecumaniacal history:

It was within this context that Archbishop Ramsey arrived in Rome in March 1966 and, together with his colleagues, stayed with us at the English College. He was received as a friend and fellow Christian - a welcome that blew to bits many of the preconceptions of my upbringing.

I received an invitation to the service in the Sistine Chapel at which the pope and the archbishop presided together. You have to imagine the scale of something like this, in which we witnessed the pope in the Sistine Chapel sharing the presiding role with a non-Catholic. And I had a splendid vantage point. As young clerics, some of us enjoyed playing games in the Vatican, such as weaseling our way into the private areas without getting stopped. The way to do this was to walk around as if you owned the place and knew exactly where you were going. On this occasion, I noticed two spare seats in the second row with all the ambassadors, made for them with confidence and sat down.

I recall the end of the service. The pope stepped up to give his blessing, and clearly this part of the ceremony had not been rehearsed. He then signalled to Archbishop Ramsey, who was next to him at the altar, to give the blessing with him. Archbishop Ramsey was a bit nonplussed, and there may have been a language problem in the pope's request. The pope then calmly took hold of Archbishop Ramsey's arm and moved it into a blessing. The message got through!

I remember too the mighty banquet mounted by the Vatican to celebrate the visit at the English College. Even then, we felt caviar was a little "over the top" and something simpler would have reflected better the beautiful simplicity of the service in the Sistine Chapel. However, I suppose it was the Vatican's way of recognising the importance of the meeting.

On 24 March a public service was held at San Paolo fuori le Mura. Again the service was presided over jointly by the pope and the archbishop. But it was the scene outside the church after the service that has stayed in my memory and that of many others who were there at the time. The church was packed. Not only were there the many representatives of the English Catholic and Anglican Churches, but also many Italians, who were keen to see the pope and this unknown English figure with whom the pope was spending a lot of time. I can picture now the scene in the massive courtyard of St Paul's as the pope and the archbishop left the basilica. They found themselves surrounded by thousands of enthusiastic and curious people. As he was about to bid farewell to the archbishop, the pope took off the ring he was wearing and placed it on the archbishop's hand. The pope was then swiftly whisked off into his car to take him back to the Vatican, leaving the archbishop standing alone in the midst of the crowd.

This simple gesture from the pope moved him to tears. Still surrounded by countless local people, the archbishop gave his blessing amid the tears. Later, we all gathered in the English College courtyard to bid farewell to the archbishop and his colleagues. The Senior Student asked the archbishop to give us his blessing. We all knelt down to receive it. As you read this you are probably thinking this was no big deal. But this was 1966 and here were 90 Catholic seminarians in Rome, all in their cassocks, kneeling down to receive the blessing from the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have to tell you we all felt a bit mischievous. Indeed we very much hoped the press would pick up on this event. We wanted our own bishops to see it, since at the time they were not "up to speed" on ecumenism. Like the students of the 1960s we were rebellious, and this felt like our own rebellion. Unfortunately, all the journalists were already at Fiumicino Airport awaiting the archbishop's arrival, so our misdemeanours went unreported.  (Alive At The Dawn?)

 

The meeting between the heretic Ramsey and the apostate [the conciliar revolutionaries have rejected the Catholic Faith as It has been handed down to us through the centuries of have boasted of a "new church" that can be understood in "light of tradition"] Montini/Paul The Sick occurred as the ecumania was being celebrated by agents of Antichrist everywhere.

Indeed, The Catholic Courier, the diocesan newspaper of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, ran the following story in its Thursday, January 21, 1965, edition:

 

For the first time in more than 400 years, a Roman Catholic priest is officiating this week at services in St. Andrew's Anglican Cathedral, Rochester, England.

The ancient cathedral, once the seat of the bishopric of St. John Fisher, now patron of the Diocese of Rochester, N.Y., was taken over by the Church of England at the time of the Reformation.

Father John Burke, pastor of the church of St. John Fisher, Rochester, Kent, England, disclosed in a recent letter to Very Rev. Charles J. Lavery, C.S.R., president of St. John Fisher College that he would participate in the history-making event.

"The British hierarchy," he wrote, "have given us permission to accept invitations to take part in non-Eucharistic services in non-Catholic churches, and I have been invited by the Dean of Rochester to preach in the Cathedral Crypt here during the Unity Octave Week Jan. 18 to 25. It will be the first time that a Catholic priest has officiated within these walls since the days of St. John Fisher. It is something that I feel excited about."

Bishop Kearney authorized a diocesan-wide special collection in 1952 which realized $30.000 for the construction and outfitting of a church honoring the martyred St. John Fisher in "Old Rochester," a small town 30 miles from London, which had not had a Catholic church since Henry VIII confiscated the cathedral and put its bishop to death.

Students of St. John Fisher College here purchased a chalice for the new church, which opened in 1953. (The Catholic Church, Thursday, January 21, 1965, p. 1.  See  A Catholic Voice Returns to John Fisher's Liturgy.)

Although this article was written in a spirit of full support for ecumania, it was nonetheless more honest about the causes of the "conflict" between Anglicans and Catholics than was reflected in the "joint declaration" issued after the meeting of Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick and Arthur Michael Ramsey.

What the likes of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis have done by treating the Anglican layman who masquerades as the Archbishop of Canterbury as an "equal" to them speaks volumes about the fact that the lords of conciliarism really do consider Apostolicae Curiae the most "difficult" obstacle of reaching "full communion" between them, a point that was handled by Walter Kasper, then the President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, ten years ago now, that is, on May 24, 2003, in address before the Anglicans in England:

As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co-opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.

To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.

This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of another Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.

It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re-evaluation of Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life, and shared apostolic mission.

Before venturing further on this decisive point for the ecumenical vision, that is a renewed communio ecclesiology, I should speak first on another stumbling block or, better, the stumbling block of ecumenism: the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or as we say today, the Petrine ministry. This question was the sticking point of the separation between Canterbury and Rome in the 16th century and it is still the object of emotional controversies.

Significant progress has been achieved on this delicate issue in our Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues, especially in the last ARCIC document The Gift of Authority (1998). The problem, however, is that what pleased Catholics in this document did not always please all Anglicans, and points which were important for Anglican self-understanding were not always repaid by Catholic affection. So we still have a reception problem and a challenge for further theological work.

It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.

Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.

These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis Walter Kasper, A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation.)

 

This is a denial of the Catholic Faith.

Apostolic succession is not "an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles"?

The perpetually binding nature of Apostolicae Cenae needs to be re-evaluated?

No member of the Catholic Church is free to assert such things and remain a Catholic in good standing (see Number 9, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The dogmatic decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are historically conditioned?

Oh, please do not even attempt to say that Kasper was not reflecting the exact view of the conciliar "pope" who appointed him, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, and the now retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI concerning the "time-conditioned" nature of past dogmatic decrees and/or papal encyclical letters. Ratzinger/Benedict incessantly told us in his very words that he believed this precise thing, a proposition that has been condemned by that Vatican Council and to which he, Ratzinger, had to swear against in The Oath Against Modernism.

Ah, but this is why, you see, the conciliar revolutionaries, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, do not believe that there is any need to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of Anglicans to the Catholic Church, who they clearly believe have true bishops and true priests. It is simply up to the Lambeth Committee to chart its own "direction," to determine, in Kasper's words, whether Anglicans belongs more "to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox," which leads to the second major error in Kasper's recent remarks: that the patriarchies of the East constituted a separate "church" prior to the Greek Schism of 1054. No such "church" existed.

No matter the year or the date, however, the results are always the same when the Anglican "archbishop" of Canterbury pays a house call upon the universal public face of apostasy in the Vatican, and thus it is that the speeches given two days ago were could have been given by Montini/Paul Sick or Wojtyla/John Paul II or Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as each gave similar speeches throughout their own respective tenures as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Here is what Bergoglio/Francis said two days ago now, the presentation of which will be interrupted by brief interjectory comments:

Your Grace, Dear Friends,

On the happy occasion of our first meeting, I make my own the words of Pope Paul VI, when he addressed Archbishop Michael Ramsey during his historic visit in 1966: “Your steps have not brought you to a foreign dwelling ... we are pleased to open the doors to you, and with the doors, our heart, pleased and honoured as we are ... to welcome you ‘not as a guest or a stranger, but as a fellow citizen of the Saints and the Family of God’” (cf. Eph 2:19-20).

I know that during Your Grace’s installation in Canterbury Cathedral you remembered in prayer the new Bishop of Rome. I am deeply grateful to you – and since we began our respective ministries within days of each other, I think we will always have a particular reason to support one another in prayer. (Francis the Anti-Campion Welcomes Fellow Layman Welby.)

 

Interjection One:

"Respective ministries"?

Justin Welby is a layman who belongs to a false church.

Jorge Bergoglio/Francis is a layman who belongs to a false church.

Well, I guess they really do have "respective ministries" as they serve the same master, the devil himself.

 

The history of relations between the Church of England and the Catholic Church is long and complex, and not without pain. Recent decades, however, have been marked by a journey of rapprochement and fraternity, and for this we give heartfelt thanks to God. This journey has been brought about both via theological dialogue, through the work of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, and via the growth of cordial relations at every level through shared daily lives in a spirit of profound mutual respect and sincere cooperation. In this regard, I am very pleased to welcome alongside you Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster. These firm bonds of friendship have enabled us to remain on course even when difficulties have arisen in our theological dialogue that were greater than we could have foreseen at the start of our journey.

I am grateful, too, for the sincere efforts the Church of England has made to understand the reasons that led my Predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, to provide a canonical structure able to respond to the wishes of those groups of Anglicans who have asked to be received collectively into the Catholic Church: I am sure this will enable the spiritual, liturgical and pastoral traditions that form the Anglican patrimony to be better known and appreciated in the Catholic world. (Francis the Anti-Campion Welcomes Fellow Layman Welby.)

Interjection Two:

"Profound mutual respect and sincere cooperation"?

"Theological dialogue" has been more "difficult" than was foreseen at the start of ecumania?

It is of the nature of heresy and error to mutate into that which has no tenuous, attenuated relationship whatsoever to the Deposit of Faith.

Rank unbelief in the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is very common among the Anglican "clergy."

"Ordination" of women in the worldwide "Anglican Communion" and of "women" as "bishops" in its Episcopal branch could have been foreseen very easily by one who was possessed of the sensus Catholicus.

Why the surprise, Jorge?

Ah, the "surprise" comes precisely as part of the tearing down of the Catholic bastions that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI before him have said is a necessary step in the "renewal" of what they contend is the Catholic Church.

Note also the very weak support that Bergoglio/Francis gave to Ratzinger/Benedict's Anglicanorum Coetibus, November 9, 2009, as a means merely to make the "the spiritual, liturgical and pastoral traditions that form the Anglican patrimony to be better known and appreciated in the Catholic world" even though those traditions have no right from God to exist and are indeed hideous in His very sight.

The passage of time does not confer legitimacy on that which has its very origins from the devil in a rejection of the Catholic Faith and the authority of the Catholic Church. Has the passage of time conferred legitimacy on the "Anglican Book of Common Prayer"? If not, then why should it receive "protection"  in the counterfeit church of concilairism that presents itself to the world as the Catholic Church?

Pope Saint Pius V declared the books of Anglican liturgy to be heretical:

Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who persevered in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorious among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defense or evasion. (Regnans in Excelsis, the decree issued by Pope Saint Pius V on March 5, 1570, excommunicating Queen Elizabeth I.)

 

How has the passage of time corrected the heretical content of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (which is a replacement for the four parts of the liturgy used in the Catholic Church: the Breviary, the Missal, the Pontifical, and the Ritual)? Obviously, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio believe that "beauty" can exist in a liturgy without regard to truth, heedless of the fact that nothing can be beautiful if it is not true and that the liturgy is meant to protect the Faith, which is beautiful because it is true.

Back to Bergoglio now:

 

Today’s meeting is an opportunity to remind ourselves that the search for unity among Christians is prompted not by practical considerations, but by the will of the Lord Jesus Christ himself, who made us his brothers and sisters, children of the One Father. Hence the prayer that we make today is of fundamental importance.

This prayer gives a fresh impulse to our daily efforts to grow towards unity, which are concretely expressed in our cooperation in various areas of daily life. Particularly important among these is our witness to the reference to God and the promotion of Christian values in a world that seems at times to call into question some of the foundations of society, such as respect for the sacredness of human life or the importance of the institution of the family built on marriage, a value that you yourself have had occasion to recall recently.

Then there is the effort to achieve greater social justice, to build an economic system that is at the service of man and promotes the common good. Among our tasks as witnesses to the love of Christ is that of giving a voice to the cry of the poor, so that they are not abandoned to the laws of an economy that seems at times to treat people as mere consumers.

I know that Your Grace is especially sensitive to all these questions, in which we share many ideas, and I am also aware of your commitment to foster reconciliation and resolution of conflicts between nations. In this regard, together with Archbishop Nichols, you have urged the authorities to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian conflict such as would guarantee the security of the entire population, including the minorities, not least among whom are the ancient local Christian communities. As you yourself have observed, we Christians bring peace and grace as a treasure to be offered to the world, but these gifts can bear fruit only when Christians live and work together in harmony. This makes it easier to contribute to building relations of respect and peaceful coexistence with those who belong to other religious traditions, and with non-believers. (Francis the Anti-Campion Welcomes Fellow Layman Welby.)

Interjection Three:

"Search for unity"?

"Grow towards unity"?

There is no need to "search for unity" as it is exists in one place on earth, the Catholic Church, and nowhere else:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

There is no such thing as "growing" "towards unity" as the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to the true Church, the Catholic Church, must be sought with urgency:

 

It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . .  Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be 'careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

"Our witness to the reference to God and the promotion of Christian values"?

"Achieve greater social justice"?

How do Catholics and Anglicans give witness to God when they have different beliefs about Him and the Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope?

Pope Leo XIII had just a little something to say about this contention:

 

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

How can the family be defended and "social justice" be achieved when the Anglicans endorsed the very thing that has undermined the integrity and stability of the family, contraception, eighty-three years ago now the Seventh Lambeth Conference?

 

Resolution 15

The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex

Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience. (Resolution 15 - The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage.)

One can see the disastrous results that have occurred in the wake of this decision, which prompted a Protestant federation in the United States of America to follow suit shortly thereafter. Even a secular newspaper's editorial board saw clearly that it was impossible to make the use of contraceptives "careful and restrained:"

The Federal Council of Churches in America some time ago appointed a committee on "marriage and the home," which has now submitted a report favoring a "careful and restrained" use of contraceptive devices to regulate the size of families. The committee seems to have a serious struggle with itself in adhering to Christian doctrine while at the same time indulging in amateurish excursions in the field of economics, legislation, medicine, and sociology. The resulting report is a mixture of religious obscurantism and modernistic materialism which departs from the ancient standards of religion and yet fails to blaze a path toward something better.

The mischief that would result from an an attempt to place the stamp of church approval upon any scheme for "regulating the size of families" is evidently quite beyond the comprehension of this pseudo-scientific committee. It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of human birth. The church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the “scientific” production of human souls. Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report if carried into effect would lead to the death-knell of marriage as a holy institution, by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be “careful and restrained” is preposterous. If the churches are to become organizations for political and 'scientific' propaganda they should be honest and reject the Bible, scoff at Christ as an obsolete and unscientific teacher, and strike out boldly as champions of politics and science as substitutes for the old-time religion. ("Forgetting Religion," Editorial,  The Washington Post, March 22, 1932.)

 

It is equally preposterous for the conciliar "popes," including the current Petrine Minister, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, to contend that heretics and schismatics who formally endorse various moral evils and endorse others, such as sodomy, on a de facto basis can serve as instruments of giving "Christian witness" in the pursuit of "social justice."

Say farewell to Jorge for now as the last passage of his speech to Justin Welby, M.D. (Master of Deceit), is hereby presented to you:

 

The unity we so earnestly long for is a gift that comes from above and it is rooted in our communion of love with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. As Christ himself promised, “where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them” (Mt 18:20). Let us travel the path towards unity, fraternally united in charity and with Jesus Christ as our constant point of reference. In our worship of Jesus Christ we will find the foundation and raison d’être of our journey. May the merciful Father hear and grant the prayers that we make to him together. Let us place all our hope in him who “is able to do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think” (Eph 3:20). (Francis the Anti-Campion Welcomes Fellow Layman Welby.)

Pope Pius XI will have the final word on this score:

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one." And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed.

Admonished, therefore, by the consciousness of Our Apostolic office that We should not permit the flock of the Lord to be cheated by dangerous fallacies, We invoke, Venerable Brethren, your zeal in avoiding this evil; for We are confident that by the writings and words of each one of you the people will more easily get to know and understand those principles and arguments which We are about to set forth, and from which Catholics will learn how they are to think and act when there is question of those undertakings which have for their end the union in one body, whatsoever be the manner, of all who call themselves Christians. . . .

And here it seems opportune to expound and to refute a certain false opinion, on which this whole question, as well as that complex movement by which non-Catholics seek to bring about the union of the Christian churches depends. For authors who favor this view are accustomed, times almost without number, to bring forward these words of Christ: "That they all may be one.... And there shall be one fold and one shepherd," with this signification however: that Christ Jesus merely expressed a desire and prayer, which still lacks its fulfillment. For they are of the opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not to-day exist. They consider that this unity may indeed be desired and that it may even be one day attained through the instrumentality of wills directed to a common end, but that meanwhile it can only be regarded as mere ideal. They add that the Church in itself, or of its nature, is divided into sections; that is to say, that it is made up of several churches or distinct communities, which still remain separate, and although having certain articles of doctrine in common, nevertheless disagree concerning the remainder; that these all enjoy the same rights; and that the Church was one and unique from, at the most, the apostolic age until the first Ecumenical Councils. Controversies therefore, they say, and longstanding differences of opinion which keep asunder till the present day the members of the Christian family, must be entirely put aside, and from the remaining doctrines a common form of faith drawn up and proposed for belief, and in the profession of which all may not only know but feel that they are brothers. The manifold churches or communities, if united in some kind of universal federation, would then be in a position to oppose strongly and with success the progress of irreligion. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

The conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, are truly anti-Campions, men who blaspheme and spit upon the witness that champions of the Catholic Faith such as Blessed Edmund Campion, S.J., demonstrated in their refusal to compromise with Anglicanism or to accord it any kind of legitimacy or marks of respect:

"A lady was lately told that she should be let out of prison if she would just once allow herself to be seen walking through an Anglican church. She refused. She had come into prison with a sound conscience and would depart with it, or die. In Henry's day [King Henry VIII], the whole kingdom, with all its bishops and learned men, abjured its faith at one word of the tyrant. But now, in his daughter's days [the daughter was Queen Elizabeth], boys and women boldly profess their faith before the judges and refuse to make the slightest concession even at the threat of death.

"The adversaries are very mad that by no cruelty can they move a single Catholic from his resolution, no, not even a little girl. A young lady of sixteen was questioned by the sham bishop of London about the Pope, and answered him with courage, and even made fun of him in public, and so was ordered to be carried to the public prison . . . On the way she cried out that she was being carried to that place for her religion." (Letter of Blessed Edmond Campion, S.J., to his Jesuit superiors in Rome, quoted in Father Harold C. Gardiner, S.J., Edmund Campion, Hero of God's Underground, Vision Books: Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1957.)

 

Readers can see the contrast between Catholicism and conciliarism for themselves. No further commentary is necessary.

In the midst of the incredible apostasies taking place before our very eyes, we must, as always, have recourse to Our Lady as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit and as we keep her company in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and in our time in fervent prayer before her Divine Son's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. She will help us to cleave only to true bishops and to true priests who make absolutely no concessions to the abominable apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its "popes" and "bishops" who offend God so boldly, so openly and so brazenly--and with the full support and admiring approval of most of the world's baptized Catholics.

While each person must come to recognize this for himself (it took me long enough to do so; I defended the indefensible for far too long!), we must nevertheless embrace the truth once we do come to recognize and accept it without caring for one moment what anyone else may think about us as we make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

As I have noted in the past, we can never grow accustomed to defaming our martyrs. We can never grow accustomed to offenses given to God by the conciliar "popes" and their conciliar "bishops."

We must cleave to the Catholic Church, not to the counterfeit church of conciliarism, as we attempt to plant the seeds for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

What are we waiting for?

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints