Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

               January 24, 2014

No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio

Part Six

by Thomas A. Droleskey


The insanity, yes, the total and complete insanity of "resignationism"--the delusional belief that the "defender" of doctrinal orthodoxy, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, was forced to "resign" from the conciliar "papacy" last year--is at a fever pitch.

It would appear (tongue inserted in cheek as I know this site's audience, though pretty large, does not include a lot of those in the inanity of the Motu world) that the first five parts of this series have not been read by the priests and presbyters attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism who wrote the following insane latter to Ratzinger/Benedict on January 23, 2014, the Feast of Saint Raymond of Pennafort and the Commemoration of Saint Emerentiana (and the Commemoration of the Espousal of Our Lady and Saint Joseph and the Commemoration of Saint Ildephonsus):

Holy Father:

The December 17, 2012 the Cardinals Herranz, Tomko and De Giorgi gave you the file of the results of research that asked them to do about leaks of confidential documents known as “Vatileaks” and about especially the threat of death that was against your person, leaked to the newspaper “Il Fatto Quotidiano”, and which I had reported at the time Cardinal Darío Castrillón.

In finding that, indeed, high prelates in the Vatican, belonging to the lodge of ecclesiastical Masonry, had decided to kill you, you resolved you to resign. A few days later you communicated to your brother, the priest Georg Ratzinger, that you would abandon the See of Peter, knowing he never imagined “that face of the Church.” Before Christmas you had already decided to resign, but waited to publicly announce it until February 11, 2013.

Not that you have been afraid of losing your life, knowing that you promised to be ready to give your life for Christ since your appointment as cardinal, but you did it for the good of the Church, considering that if they actually managed to kill you, your death would have caused an earthquake, triggering a hellish struggle for influence and shady maneuvers arising from internal antagonisms in the curia facing succession. Not fearing death, but for the damage it may have caused to the Church, you decided it was best to step aside to remove threats and advance a peaceful succession. And, here, yes you did.

In a report that was prepared by the Jesuit priest Arnaldo Zenteno, posted on April 9, 2013 (ingrupobasesfys.blogspot.mx) noted that when the newly elected Pope Francis came to you to Castel Gandolfo, he trusted that same: that one of the causes that influenced your resignation threats were received, since you could find that they had already made ​​the decision to kill.

In this sense, Holy Father, if it is true that you expressed in your statement given “freely”, the fact is that you were more or less forced by the pressure of a strong rush, so your freedom, according to the canonical doctrine was conditional “in radice” . While it took the decision to resign in accordance with the powers you grant the Code of Canon Law, took it under the duress of a moral violence, which, Holy Father, from the root invalidated your final decision and finally made invalid act you performed.

We must recognize that while the Church has always considered a sacred law that the election of a pope is ad vitam, it is good that canon law provides for the possibility of waiver in cases of extreme gravity, such as exile, persecution or other serious cause. In this sense, the waiver provided for in Canon 332 of the CDC is like a emergency exit door, and it is convenient to have both so that output helped you, Holy Father, to flee from the threat hanging over your person and the Church.

The fact is, Holy Father, that act being the vitiated at the root, a single moral violence, your waiver lacked canonical validity. Therefore, the seat was never vacant and the conclave that followed was completely invalid.

In this conclave, distorted and confused, not having you at any time ceasing to be the Vicar of Christ, an anti-pope, who took the name of Francis, emerged.

To say that Bergoglio is an antipope does not necessarily mean he is a bad person, or mean-spirited. In the history of the Church there have been 38 anti-popes. It only means that he is not the Vicar of Christ and, therefore, does not enjoy the charisma of inerrancy.

The proof that it has is that it has already fallen into various heresies and errors to Tradition, as the echo of Docetist heresy saying that Christ is not angry at all, but only pretended, or that the Mosaic covenant was not abrogated God, contradicting the Conciclio Florence and the teachings of several popes, or to apply, on a libearcionsita and marxistoide analysis, there must be a “poor Church for the poor,” when our Lord taught that the Church should be for everyone, rich and poor, or to veto the Mass of St. Pius V, that you, Holy Father had approved various communities of religious and lay, or to wash the feet of two Muslims in the ceremony of the Last Supper on Holy Thursday, and not twelve priests, as you always did you and those before you, that tradition was founded by our Savior to wash the feet of his disciples. False inter-religious dialogue that threatens to reach dire consequences for the faith of God’s people. This, not to mention the continuing transgressions in the liturgy and tradition, which reveal the meager appreciation Francis has for the papal investiture.

More and more priests have privately discussed the absurdities of Bergolio. Some, like Father Paul Kramer, an expert in the apparitions of Fatima, has dared to publicly demand the resignation of Francis, following the doctrine established by St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, San Anthony and Pope Innocent III, the which taught that when a pope is shown as a manifest heretic automatically ceases to be pope, it is not a Catholic: “He who is not a member, can not be head”. And Saint Francis of Assisi, of whom Bergolio too his name, predicted that there would come a “non canonically elected” Pope, which would not be “a true Pastor, but a destroyer of the Church.”

We know, Holy Father, who until now have preferred a prudent silence to many abuses, strengthening you spiritually as Christ was strengthened when he retired to the desert before his passion and death.

But you have to raise your voice the day seeking to adulterate the sacrament of the Eucharist to take the character of sacrifice and leave only the memorial, the Protestant style, so not to inconvenience other faiths. That day is not far off, no one will be outraged and resist and publicly condemn apostasy and sacrilege. Unfortunately, many have already been duped and have strayed from faith.

In this sense, Holy Father, will begin to be realized the situation predicted by saints and mystics, who predicted the painful schism in the Church, the division between the apostate church and the faithful Church.

The prophecies say that this schism is simultaneous to a sudden invasion of Russia on Europe, coinciding with the war described by the prophet Ezekiel (Ezekiel 38), the Third World War. Then, the legitimate Pope, you Holy Father, you will be betrayed and persecuted, and have to flee Rome for refuge hidden in a faraway place, while the antipope will rule the Church supporting the false peace, unification of religions sacrilegious . That false peace will support the religious world government of the Antichrist. That will be the last and greatest test will suffer the faithful Church.

At that time, the antipope betray faith accepting the coalition of all faiths and renouncing the Catholic identity. You Benedict XVI, you will be pursued to the end, and you will die a martyr of the Eucharist by a cruel death, according to his vision Pius X and Lucia had also narrated in the third secret of Fatima.
St. Francis of Assisi said: “There will be a pope canonically elected not to cause a great schism”. And Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, Augustinian religious, said: “I saw a strong opposition between two popes, and saw how dire the consequences of the false church (…) This will cause the greatest schism that has been seen in the world “.

The Blessed Virgin said explicitly in the Salette: “Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.”

And there are many private revelations and announcements of church leaders:

• Says P. Paul Kramer, “The antipope and his apostate collaborators will be like Lucy, supporters of the devil, those who work for evil without being afraid of anything Sister said.”
• And the above, disclosed by Pope St. Pius X “I’ve had a terrible vision: I do not know if I or one of my successors, I will be, but I saw a Pope fleeing Rome among the corpses of his brothers he took refuge incognito somewhere and after a short time die a cruel death. “.
• John Rocapartida: “Approaching the End Times, the Pope and his cardinals will have to flee Rome in tragic consequences to a place where they will not be recognized, and the Pope will suffer a cruel death in exile.”
• Nicolas de Fluh: “The Pope with his cardinals will have to flee Rome in dire situation to a place where they will be unknown Pope die atrociously during his exile The sufferings of the Church will be greater than any historical moment prior…”
• Venerable Bartholomew Holzhauser, founder societies secular clergy in the eighteenth century: “God will allow a great evil against His Church: come suddenly and unexpectedly bursting while bishops and priests are asleep will enter Italy and devastate Rome, burn churches. destroy everything “.
• The revelation received by Mother Elena Aiello, famous stigmatized it was often consulted by Pope Pius XII: “Italy will be shaken by a great revolution (…) Russia will be imposed on nations, especially on Italy, and raise the red flag on the dome of St. Peter. “
• John’s words of Vitiguero: “When the world be disturbed, Pope change of residence”.
• Elena Leonardi, power spiritual Padre Pio ” The Vatican will be invaded by communist revolutionaries betrayed the pope Italy will suffer a major revolt and be cleansed by a great revolution Russia march on Rome and the Pope will be severely endangered…. “
• Enzo Alocci: “Pope temporarily disappear and this will happen when there is a revolution in Italy. “
Ana Maria • Blessed Taigi: “Religion is persecuted and massacred priests, the Holy Father will be forced to leave Rome.”.
• Mystical Mary Steiner: “The Holy Church will be persecuted, Roma will be without a shepherd “.
• Revelations in Garabandal. “Pope may not be in Rome, you have to chase and hide”
• Al P. Stefano Gobbi, mystic and founder of the Marian Movement of Priests, Our Lady confided: “The Masonic forces have entered the church and hides in a disguised form, and established his headquarters in the same place where he lives and works the Vicar of my . son Jesus is being carried as is contained in the third part of my message, which has not yet been revealed, but it has already become clear by the same events that are living “.
• Your predecessor Pope Paul VI: “The smoke of Satan has entered through the cracks of the Church “(Homily of June 29, 1972).
• According to St. Paul, the Antichrist will be revealed just after the Pope be cast aside: “Just to put away means the one who holds it, then the wicked be revealed “(2 Thessalonians 2: 6-8).

Canon Rock wrote excommunicated Enlightenment who helped infiltration against the Church: “In its current form, the papacy will disappear, the new social order will be implemented from Rome but outside of Rome, not Rome, although Rome against Roma . And this new church though perhaps I should not keep anything of scholastic discipline and rudimentary form of the ancient Church of Rome however receive consecration and canonical jurisdiction. “
The new church, led by the antipope, support the unification of religions and false peace, fulfilled which was spoken by Jesus Christ in the sense that even the elect will be deceived.

Cardinal Karol Wojtyla was very clear when he declared, before the Eucharistic Congress in Pennsylvania in 1977. “We are facing the greatest historical confrontation humanity has ever had We are at the final contest between the Church and the anti-Church, the Gospel and the anti-Gospel. This confrontation lies within the plans of Divine Providence and is a challenge that the whole Church has to accept. “

In 1917 they were revealed to three shepherd children in Fatima, Portugal, the revelation that had Pope St. Pius X a few years ago, only in an even more precise: “We saw a bishop dressed in white, we had a feeling out the Holy Father, flee a city trembling unsteadily and ruins. “

Fatima’s version aims to further that it could be you, most blessed Father, and explain the phrase “We saw a bishop dressed in white, we had a feeling it was the Holy Father.” If it had been evident that it was the reigning pope, they would have said so undeniable. Instead, they saw a “bishop dressed in white”. They could never imagine your theme “waiver” so that they only had “a feeling”.

The second element is even more precise and revealing: they saw fleeing “trembling with halting step,” which may be due to old age you already have.
A third element is also revealing: of the same bishop dressed in white who are fleeing before Rome after state, when it is killed, yes it was the “Holy Father”.

Following the flight of the legitimate pope, antipope in Rome will lead the “new church”, supporting the union apostate religions. It is the “abomination of desolation” foretold since ancient times by the prophet Daniel, established in the holy place, which will coincide with the installation of the antichrist in the temple of Jerusalem rebuilt for the third time.

In the words of Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, personal theologian to Pope John Paul II: “The Third Secret refers to the loss of faith in the Church, i.e, apostasy, will enter the top of the Church.”

We want to tell you, Holy Father, we are continually praying for you, that your faith may not fail and God will give you the necessary to testify and be willing to embrace martyrdom for His sake forces always remember one of your last words while still in the See of Peter: “You will be with me, even though to the world remains hidden” (Address to the Roman Clergy, February 14, 2013). We, Holy Father, and will continue to be with you in the future which Providence throws at you. (Letter to Ratzinger.)

Here is news for the supposed "remnant clergy:" the last true pope to have sat on the Throne of Saint Peter was Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli, Pope Pius XII, who died on October 9, 1958.

Angelo Roncalli was an antipope (see Two For The Price Of One, part one and Francis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrants).

Giovanni Montini was an antipope (see "Blessed" Paul The Sick).

Albino Luciani was an antipope (see Conciliarism's Weapons of Mass Destruction, part three).

Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was an antipope (see Two For The Price Of One, part two.)

And your supposed "restorer of Tradition," Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, was an antipope. Only the intellectually dishonest can review the facts contained in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now and not conclude that the very same canonical precepts that you apply to Jorge Mario Bergoglio apply also to your man Ratzinger, a progenitor of the conciliar revolution who is a heretic to the core of his Modernist being. After all, a man who can make war upon the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than a direct warfare upon the very nature of God Himself, is not only a man unworthy of anyone's admiration, he is worthy of our condemnation as an enemy of Christ the King and the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

The close theological ties that bind Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to his successor as the universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, have been proved repeatedly on this site, including in this ongoing series.

Although much is being made of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "Communication at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter," which merely rehashes the revolutionary tripe that he has repeated ad nauseam, ad infinitum, the wilfully deluded who cling to the insanity that Joseph Ratzinger was truly "Pope Benedict XVI" and never "resigned" from an office he never held legitimately must come to understand that "Pope Francis's" remarks of yesterday are indistinguishable from those of "Pope Benedict XVI."

Here is an excerpt of what Bergoglio released yesterday:


“Effective Christian witness is not about bombarding people with religious messages, but about our willingness to be available to others 'by patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts as they advance in their search for the truth and the meaning of human existence' (BENEDICT XVI, Message for the 47th World Communications Day, 2013). We need but recall the story of the disciples on the way to Emmaus. We have to be able to dialogue with the men and women of today, to understand their expectations, doubts and hopes, and to bring them the Gospel, Jesus Christ himself, God incarnate, who died and rose to free us from sin and death. We are challenged to be people of depth, attentive to what is happening around us and spiritually alert. To dialogue means to believe that the 'other' has something worthwhile to say, and to entertain his or her point of view and perspective. Engaging in dialogue does not mean renouncing our own ideas and traditions, but the claim that they alone are valid or absolute. ("Communication at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter"-Bergoglio's Message for World Communications Day.)

This is pure Bergoglio. As will be shown shortly, however, it is also Ratzinger as well.

Bergoglio is a theological relativist. So is Ratzinger.

Here is a smattering of "Pope Francis's" belief that we can "learn" from those who believe in false religions and that Catholics must recognize that what he thinks is truth is "encountered," which is of the essence of one of the fundamental precepts of Modernism.

Attention is turned first Jorge Mario Bergoglio's first encyclical letter, Lumen Fidei, July 5, 2013:


Faith, in fact, needs a setting in which it can be witnessed to and communicated, a means which is suitable and proportionate to what is communicated. For transmitting a purely doctrinal content, an idea might suffice, or perhaps a book, or the repetition of a spoken message. But what is communicated in the Church, what is handed down in her living Tradition, is the new light born of an encounter with the true God, a light which touches us at the core of our being and engages our minds, wills and emotions, opening us to relationships lived in communion. There is a special means for passing down this fullness, a means capable of engaging the entire person, body and spirit, interior life and relationships with others. It is the sacraments, celebrated in the Church’s liturgy. The sacraments communicate an incarnate memory, linked to the times and places of our lives, linked to all our senses; in them the whole person is engaged as a member of a living subject and part of a network of communitarian relationships. While the sacraments are indeed sacraments of faith, it can also be said that faith itself possesses a sacramental structure. The awakening of faith is linked to the dawning of a new sacramental sense in our lives as human beings and as Christians, in which visible and material realities are seen to point beyond themselves to the mystery of the eternal.  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Lumen Fidei, July 5, 2013.)

In other words, the doctrinal content of the Faith is insufficient to transmit what God has revealed, which is why It must understood in light of an fluid "living tradition" that is "linked to the times and places of our lives" and "senses" as we grow, and row and mow and show together as "part of a network of communitarian relationships."

Alas, this is all a distortion and misrepresentation of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

You see, we are linked to other Catholics principally by means of the Communion of Saints, which is nowhere mentioned in the text of Lumen Fidei.

There is a reason for this.

Most of the conciliar revolutionaries do not believe in Purgatory, something that Ratzinger/Benedict, whose draft served as the foundation of Lumen Fidei, has made clear on a number of occasions, including thirty-six months ago now (see From Sharp Focus to Fuzziness). It is rather difficult for those who placed doubt upon the existence of Purgatory as a real place of punishment for the forgiven Mortal Sins, unforgiven Venial Sins and general attachment to sin and disordered self-love that the souls of those who have died in a State of Sanctifying Grace did not pay back here on earth by means of their joyful and loving acceptance of suffering as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

At the root and throughout the essence of conciliarism's "theology of encounter" is an ethos evocative of the Modernist view of Faith that was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:


14. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God's existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.

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.

15. There is yet another element in this part of their teaching which is absolutely contrary to Catholic truth. For what is laid down as to experience is also applied with destructive effect to tradition, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church. Tradition, as understood by the Modernists, is a communication with others of an original experience, through preaching by means of the intellectual formula. To this formula, in addition to its representative value they attribute a species of suggestive efficacy which acts firstly in the believer by stimulating the religious sense, should it happen to have grown sluggish, and by renewing the experience once acquired, and secondly, in those who do not yet believe by awakening in them for the first time the religious sense and producing the experience. In this way is religious experience spread abroad among the nations; and not merely among contemporaries by preaching, but among future generations both by books and by oral transmission from one to another. Sometimes this communication of religious experience takes root and thrives, at other times it withers at once and dies. For the Modernists, to live is a proof of truth, since for them life and truth are one and the same thing. Thus we are once more led to infer that all existing religions are equally true, for otherwise they would not survive.  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

In other words, Modernists believe that those who are steeped in error possess certain elements of truth that arise from within their own consciousness that can teach Catholics something about God and His Sacred Truths that they did not understood before, which is why it is necessary to be open to the "surprises" that God is said to have for us as we "encounter" the "other" with his own "beliefs" by laying aside our own "claim" to possess absolute truth. This is what both Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio believe.

Two more examples from the collected "work," if it can be called that, of "Pope Francis" concerning the "theology of encounter" and absolute truth will be provided before providing documentation that there is no "space" between this Argentine Apostate and the German New Theologian, starting with the letter that Jorge Mario Bergoglio wrote to Eugenio Scalfari that provided the foundation for their infamous interview that was published in La Repubblica on October 1, 2013:


As for the three questions you asked me in the article of August 7th. It would seem to me that in the first two, what you are most interested in is understanding the Church's attitude towards those who do not share faith in Jesus. First of all, you ask if the God of the Christians forgives those who do not believe and do not seek faith. Given that - and this is fundamental - God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is in obeying their own conscience. In fact, listening and obeying it, means deciding about what is perceived to be good or to be evil. The goodness or the wickedness of our behavior depends on this decision.

Second of all, you ask if the thought, according to which no absolute exists and therefore there is no absolute truth, but only a series of relative and subjective truths is a mistake or a sin. To start, I would not speak about, not even for those who believe, an "absolute" truth, in the sense that absolute is something detached, something lacking any relationship. Now, the truth is a relationship! This is so true that each of us sees the truth and expresses it, starting from oneself: from one's history and culture, from the situation in which one lives, etc. This does not mean that the truth is variable and subjective. It means that it is given to us only as a way and a life. Was it not Jesus himself who said: "I am the way, the truth, the life"? In other words, the truth is one with love, it requires humbleness and the willingness to be sought, listened to and expressed. Therefore we must understand the terms well and perhaps, in order to avoid the oversemplification of absolute contraposition, reformulate the question. I think that today this is absolutely necessary in order to have a serene and constructive dialogue which I hoped for from the beginning. (Full Text of Francis's letter to atheist Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari.)

"God's mercy has no limits if he who asks for mercy does so in contrition and with a sincere heart, the issue for those who do not believe in God is obeying their own conscience"?

"The goodness of our behavior depends" on the "decision" about what is perceived to be good or to be evil"?

Refusing to speak about an absolute truth absent a "relationship."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is a dangerous, blaspheming, revolutionary heretic of the most vile and criminal sort imaginable. He does violence to both supernatural and natural truth as truths about God, His Revelation and morality exist in the nature of things and do not depend upon human acceptance or "relationship" for their binding force or validity.

Is the truth of the Natural Law unknowable to man, thus making acts of murder, including willful murder of the preborn, acceptable as long as one "decides" for what one perceives to be good?

Are the truths of the Ten Commandments not written on the very flesh of human hearts by the finger of God?

If this is so, then pagan writers such as Aristotle and Cicero had it all wrong about objective truth, admitting that Aristotle's understanding and application of the Natural Law in concrete circumstances was wonting in some instance.

Cicero must have been wrong when he wrote the following in The Republic:


True law is right reason conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil. Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law, and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation. Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice. It needs no other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience. It is not one thing at Rome, and another at Athens; one thing to-day, and another to-morrow; but in all times and nations this universal law must forever reign, eternal and imperishable. It is the sovereign master and emperor of all beings. God himself is its author, its promulgator, its enforcer. And he who does not obey it flies from himself, and does violence to the very nature of man. And by so doing he will endure the severest penalties even if he avoid the other evils which are usually accounted punishments. (Cicero, The Republic.)

Cicero had it almost entirely correct. Almost. He was wrong in asserting that the natural law does not need any "other expositor and interpreter than our own conscience." He lived before the Incarnation and before the founding of the true Church upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Cicero thus did not know that man does need an interpreter and expositor of the natural law, namely, the Catholic Church. Apart from this, however, Cicero understood that God's law does not admit of abrogations by a vote of the people or of a "representative" body, such as the Roman Senate in his day or the United States Congress or state legislatures, et al. in our own day.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has it entirely wrong as he believes that conscience is king, but a man's conscience must be rightly formed, and it is thus the duty of Holy Mother Church to instruct the ignorant, starting with the simple fact that truth in the Order of Nature (Creation) exists independently of human acceptance of it. The physical laws of the universe, for example, do not depend upon our "perception" of them in order for them to be true and binding. One who defies a physical by, say, jumping from a building while "perceiving" there is no law of gravity will suffer the consequences of such a mistaken perception with a variety of bruises and/or broken bones. Indeed, such a stupid person might wind up killing himself in an effort to "prove" his "perception" correct.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is thus a pure subjectivist, unwilling to use the Five Proofs for the Existence of God as provided by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica because they do not conform to the Modernist belief that truth is knowable only by "encounter" and not the very nature of things that exist in the Order of Nature and have been revealed definitively by God and entrusted to His Holy Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. This view of the human knowledge (epistemology) is really pretty identical with that of a philosophical progenitor of the French Revolution, Jean Jacques Rousseau himself:


Rousseau carries on the revolution against the order of the world begun by Luther. Luther’s revolt was that of our individuality and sense-life against the exigencies of the supernatural order instituted by God. It was an attempt to remain attached to Christ, while rejecting the order established by Christ for our return to God. Rousseau’s revolt was against the order of natural morality, by the exaltation of the primacy of our sense-life.

The little world of each one of us, our individuality, is a divine person, supremely free and sovereignly independent of all order, natural and supernatural. he state of Liberty or of sovereign independence is the primitive state of man, and the nature of man demands the restoration of that state of liberty. It is to satisfy this-called exigency that ‘Father of modern thought’ invented the famous myth of the Social Contract.

The Social Contract gives birth to a form of association in which each one, while forming a union with all the others, obeys only himself and remains as free as before. Each one is subject to the whole, but he is not subject to any man, there is no man above him. He is absorbed in the common Ego begotten in the pact, so that obeying the law, he obeys only himself. Each citizen votes in order, that by the addition of the number of votes, the general will, expressed by the vote of the majority, is, so to say, a manifestation of the ‘deity’ immanent in the multitude. The People are God (no wonder we have gotten used to writing the word with a capital letter). The law imposed by this ‘deity’ does not need to be just in order to exact obedience. In fact, the majority vote makes or creates right and justice. An adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force.

To the triumph of those ideals in the modern world, the Masonic denial of original sin and the Rousseauist dogma of the natural goodness of man have contributed not a little. The dogma of natural goodness signifies that man lived originally in a purely natural paradise of happiness and goodness and that, even in our present degraded state, all our instinctive movements are good. We do not need grace, for nature can do for what grace does. In addition, Rousseau holds that this state of happiness and goodness, of perfect justice and innocence, of exemption from servile work and suffering, is natural to man, that is, essentially demanded by our nature. Not only then is original sin nonexistent, not only do we not come into the world as fallen sons of the first Adam, bearing in us the wounds of our fallen nature, is radically anti-natural. Suffering and pain have been introduced by society, civilization and private property. Hence we must get rid of all these and set up a new form of society. We can bet back the state of the Garden of Eden by the efforts of our own nature, without the help of grace. For Rousseau, the introduction of the present form of society, and of private property constitute the real Fall. The setting up of a republic based on his principles will act as a sort of democratic grace which will restore in its entirety our lost heritage. In a world where the clear teaching of the faith of Christ about the supernatural order of the Life of Grace has become obscured, but were men are still vaguely conscious that human nature was once happy, Rousseau’s appeal acts like an urge of homesickness. We need not be astonished, then, apart from the question of Masonic-Revolutionary organization and propaganda, at the sort of delirious enthusiasm which takes possession of men at the thought of a renewal of society. Nor need we wonder that men work for the overthrow of existing government and existing order, in the belief that they are not legitimate forms of society. A State not constructed according to Rosseauist-Masonic principles is not a State ruled by laws. It is a monstrous tyranny, and must be overthrown in the name of "Progress" and of the "onward march of democracy.’ All these influences must be borne in mind as we behold, since 1789, the triumph in one country after another or Rousseauist-Masonic democracy.  (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.)

Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez, Bergoglio's chief ideologist (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four), has said that it is necessary to have a "Congregation for the Laity" as they constitute the "majority" of the Church. Even though this arch-heretic contends that doctrine will be maintained, he continues to insist that pastoral adjustments need to made in light of "new" situations that are just old manifestations of sinful relationships under a new name in a era where it is believed that "the majority vote makes of creates right and justice" and that an "adverse majority vote can not only overthrow the directions and commands of the Heads of the Mystical Body on earth, the Pope and the Bishops, but can even deprive the Ten Commandments of all binding force." This is as applicable to the conciliar revolutionaries as it is to the the adherents of Judeo-Masonic sects as they are, after all, allies in Modernity and Modernism. (For a review of Maradiaga Rodriguez's recent call for "flexibility," see Maradiaga says Müller needs to “be a bit more flexible”. A separate article will be written about this soon as Gerhard Ludwig Muller is very "flexible" when it comes to the Catholic Faith, including the way he denies the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.)

One final quotation from "Pope Francis" on the "theology of encounter" will be offered to demonstrate that his comments of yesterday, Thursday, January 23, 2014, were absolutely nothing new or out of the ordinary for him in his false "pontificate:"


250. An attitude of openness in truth and in love must characterize the dialogue with the followers of non-Christian religions, in spite of various obstacles and difficulties, especially forms of fundamentalism on both sides. Interreligious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christians as well as other religious communities. This dialogue is in first place a conversation about human existence or simply, as the bishops of India have put it, a matter of “being open to them, sharing their joys and sorrows”.[194] In this way we learn to accept others and their different ways of living, thinking and speaking. We can then join one another in taking up the duty of serving justice and peace, which should become a basic principle of all our exchanges. A dialogue which seeks social peace and justice is in itself, beyond all merely practical considerations, an ethical commitment which brings about a new social situation. Efforts made in dealing with a specific theme can become a process in which, by mutual listening, both parts can be purified and enriched. These efforts, therefore, can also express love for truth.

251. In this dialogue, ever friendly and sincere, attention must always be paid to the essential bond between dialogue and proclamation, which leads the Church to maintain and intensify her relationship with non-Christians.[195] A facile syncretism would ultimately be a totalitarian gesture on the part of those who would ignore greater values of which they are not the masters. True openness involves remaining steadfast in one’s deepest convictions, clear and joyful in one’s own identity, while at the same time being “open to understanding those of the other party” and “knowing that dialogue can enrich each side”.[196] What is not helpful is a diplomatic openness which says “yes” to everything in order to avoid problems, for this would be a way of deceiving others and denying them the good which we have been given to share generously with others. Evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish one another.[197] (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that the "interreligious dialogue" that is an essential component of false ecumenism does not represent syncretism although it is nothing other than this. The Catholic Church does not need to "learn" about the evil beliefs of false religions as it is part of her Divine Constitution, a point that has been made on this site repeatedly.

No, nothing that Jorge Mario Bergoglio said yesterday in his "Communication at the Service of an Authentic Culture of Encounter" message was new for him or represents "originality" in any way as it is nothing other than boilerplate conciliarism of the sort that Joseph Ratzinger championed throughout his long career of theological destruction before he became "Pope Benedict XVI" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism on April 19, 2005.

In light of the madness of what can be called "Resignationism Rising," it is necessary to reprise some passages from the 1964 sermon of Ratzinger's that was highlighted in an earlier segment of this ongoing "No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio" series:


Everything we believe about God, and everything we know about man, prevents us from accepting that beyond the limits of the Church there is no more salvation, that up to the time of Christ all men were subject to the fate of eternal damnation. We are no longer ready and able to think that our neighbor, who is a decent and respectable man and in many ways better than we are, should be eternally damned simply because he is not a Catholic. We are no longer ready, no longer willing, to think that eternal corruption should be inflicted on people in Asia, in Africa, or wherever it may be, merely on account of their not having "Catholic" marked in their passport.

Actually, a great deal of thought had been devoted in theology, both before and after Ignatius, to the question of how people, without even knowing it, in some way belonged to the Church and to Christ and could thus be saved nevertheless. And still today, a great deal of perspicacity is used in such reflections.

Yet if we are honest, we will have to admit that this is not our problem at all. The question we have to face is not that of whether other people can be saved and how. We are convinced that God is able to do this with or without our theories, with or without our perspicacity, and that we do not need to help him do it with our cogitations. The question that really troubles us is not in the least concerned with whether and how God manages to save others.

The question that torments us is, much rather, that of why it is still actually necessary for us to carry out the whole ministry of the Christian faith—why, if there are so many other ways to heaven and to salvation, should it still be demanded of us that we bear, day by day, the whole burden of ecclesiastical dogma and ecclesiastical ethics? And with that, we are once more confronted, though from a different approach, with the same question we raised yesterday in conversation with God and with which we parted: What actually is the Christian reality, the real substance of Christianity that goes beyond mere moralism? What is that special thing in Christianity that not only justifies but compels us to be and live as Christians?

It became clear enough to us, yesterday, that there is no answer to this that will resolve every contradiction into incontrovertible, unambivalent truth with scientific clarity. Assent to the hiddenness of God is an essential part of the movement of the spirit that we call "faith." And one more preliminary consideration is requisite. If we are raising the question of the basis and meaning of our life as Christians, as it emerged for us just now, then this can easily conceal a sidelong glance at what we suppose to be the easier and more comfortable life of other people, who will "also" get to heaven. We are too much like the workers taken on in the first hour whom the Lord talks about in his parable of the workers in the vineyard (Mt 20:1-6). When they realized that the day's wage of one denarius could be much more easily earned, they could no longer see why they had sweated all day. Yet how could they really have been certain that it was so much more comfortable to be out of work than to work? And why was it that they were happy with their wages only on the condition that other people were worse off than they were? But the parable is not there on account of those workers at that time; it is there for our sake. For in our raising questions about the "why" of Christianity, we are doing just what those workers did. We are assuming that spiritual "unemployment"—a life without faith or prayer—is more pleasant than spiritual service. Yet how do we know that?

We are staring at the trials of everyday Christianity and forgetting on that account that faith is not just a burden that weighs us down; it is at the same time a light that brings us counsel, gives us a path to follow, and gives us meaning. We are seeing in the Church only the exterior order that limits our freedom and thereby overlooking the fact that she is our spiritual home, which shields us, keeps us safe in life and in death. We are seeing only our own burden and forgetting that other people also have burdens, even if we know nothing of them. And above all, what a strange attitude that actually is, when we no longer find Christian service worthwhile if the denarius of salvation may be obtained even without it! It seems as if we want to be rewarded, not just with our own salvation, but most especially with other people's damnation—just like the workers hired in the first hour. That is very human, but the Lord's parable is particularly meant to make us quite aware of how profoundly un-Christian it is at the same time. Anyone who looks on the loss of salvation for others as the condition, as it were, on which he serves Christ will in the end only be able to turn away grumbling, because that kind of reward is contrary to the loving-kindness of God. (Catholic Church and Salvation.)

Yes, Father Joseph Ratzinger, the "restorer of Tradition" who wore a jacket and tie while serving as a peritus at the "Second" Vatican Council, was rejecting the immutably binding character of dogmatic declarations and speaking against "moralism" to emphasize the "substance of Christianity" that cannot resolve "every contradiction into incontrovertible, unambivalent truth with scientific clarity." He believed then and he believes now, just a little less than three months prior to his eighty-seventh birthday, that "assent to the hiddenness of God is an essential part of the movement of the spirit that we call 'faith'" that will "save" non-Catholics in a way that we cannot understand or explain.

Acting out his fantasy as "Pope Benedict XVI (remember, he signed his name in 2003 on a postcard to a friend in Spain as "Pope Benedict XVI" even though he was then just Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger), Ratzinger used the occasion of a 2010 musical concert in honor of the Russian Orthodox equivalent of Walter Kasper and his successor, Kurt Koch, to discuss the importance of music in the "theology of encounter:"


VATICAN CITY, 21 MAY 2010 (VIS) - Yesterday evening in the Vatican's Paul VI Hall, Benedict XVI attended a concert in honour of his birthday and the anniversary of his election as Pope, offered by Kirill I, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. The concert, which included pieces by nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russian composers, was played by the National Orchestra of Russia conducted by Carlo Ponti, with the Synodal Choir of Moscow and the Horn Capella of St. Petersburg.

At the end of the concert, which was part of the initiative "Days of Russian Culture and Spirituality in the Vatican", the Holy Father listened to a message sent by Patriarch Kirill and was greeted by Archbishop Hilarion of Volokolamsk, president of the Department for External Church Affairs of the Patriarchate of Moscow and composer of one of the pieces played during the concert. The Pope then pronounced a brief address.

"Deep in these works", he said, "is the soul of the Russian people, and therewith the Christian faith, both of which find extraordinary expression in divine liturgy and in the liturgical chants with which it is always accompanied. There is, in fact, a close and fundamental bond between Russian music and liturgical chant. It is in the liturgy and from the liturgy that a large part of the artistic creativity of Russian musicians is released and expressed, giving life to masterpieces which deserve to be better known in the West".

Such nineteenth- and twentieth-century Russian composers as Mussorgsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov "treasured the rich musical- liturgical heritage of Russian tradition, re-modelling it and harmonising it with musical themes and experiences of the West. ...

Music, then, anticipates and in some way creates encounter, dialogue and synergy between East and West, between tradition and modernity.

"It was of just such a unified and harmonious vision of Europe that the Venerable John Paul II was thinking when, referring to the image of the 'two lungs' suggested by Vjaceslav Ivanovic Ivanov, he expressed his hope in a renewed awareness of the continent's profound and shared cultural and religious roots, without which today's Europe would be deprived of a soul or, at least, victim of a reduced and partial vision".

"Modern culture, particularly in Europe, runs the risk of amnesia, of forgetting and thus abandoning the extraordinary heritage aroused and inspired by Christian faith, which is the essential framework of the culture of Europe, and not only of Europe. The Christian roots of the continent are, in fact, made up not only of religious life and the witness of so many generation of believers, but also of the priceless cultural and artistic heritage which is the pride and precious resource of the peoples and countries in which Christian faith, in its various expressions, has entered into dialogue with culture and the arts".

"Today too these roots are alive and fruitful in East and West, and can in fact inspire a new humanism, a new season of authentic human progress in order to respond effectively to the numerous and sometimes crucial challenges that our Christian communities and societies have to face: first among them that of secularism, which not only impels us to ignore God and His designs, but ends up by denying the very dignity of human beings, in view of a society regulated only by selfish interests".

The Holy Father concluded: "Let us again let Europe breathe with both lungs, restore a soul not only to believers, but to all peoples of the continent, promote trust and hope, rooting them in the millennial experience of the Christian faith. The coherent, generous and courageous witness of believers must not now be lacking, so that together we may look to our shared future, a future in which the freedom and dignity of all men and women are recognised as a fundamental value, in which openness to the Transcendent, the experience of faith, is recognised as an essential element of the human being". (MODERN CULTURE RISKS FORGETTING CHRISTIAN HERITAGE.)

Witness of believers?

Believers in what?

The Catholic Faith in Its holy integrity without qualification or reservation whatsoever?

Yes, the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church are supposed to complement those of the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. This is beyond question. Those in the Eastern Rites must, however, believe in everything taught by the Catholic Church or suffer from doctrinal emphysema in their lungs. The Eastern Rites and the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church (as well as the little used Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite proper to parts of Spain) each must breathe the clear, unpolluted air of the totality of the Deposit of Faith exactly as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted It to Holy Mother Church without any shadow of alteration, change, ambiguity or contradiction whatsoever. This is is not done in any Orthodox Church, whether Russian, Greek or Coptic, something that was pointed out in yesterday's commentary, No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part five.

It was four months later that, on September 17k 2010, the Feast of the Impression of the Stigmata on Saint Francis of Assisi, that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, delivered the following remarks to "religious leaders" in Twickenham, England:


Ever since the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church has placed special emphasis on the importance of dialogue and cooperation with the followers of other religions. In order to be fruitful, this requires reciprocity on the part of all partners in dialogue and the followers of other religions. I am thinking in particular of situations in some parts of the world, where cooperation and dialogue between religions calls for mutual respect, the freedom to practise one’s religion and to engage in acts of public worship, and the freedom to follow one’s conscience without suffering ostracism or persecution, even after conversion from one religion to another. Once such a respect and openness has been established, peoples of all religions will work together effectively for peace and mutual understanding, and so give a convincing witness before the world.

This kind of dialogue needs to take place on a number of different levels, and should not be limited to formal discussions. The dialogue of life involves simply living alongside one another and learning from one another in such a way as to grow in mutual knowledge and respect. The dialogue of action brings us together in concrete forms of collaboration, as we apply our religious insights to the task of promoting integral human development, working for peace, justice and the stewardship of creation. Such a dialogue may include exploring together how to defend human life at every stage and how to ensure the non-exclusion of the religious dimension of individuals and communities in the life of society. Then at the level of formal conversations, there is a need not only for theological exchange, but also sharing our spiritual riches, speaking of our experience of prayer and contemplation, and expressing to one another the joy of our encounter with divine love. In this context I am pleased to note the many positive initiatives undertaken in this country to promote such dialogue at a variety of levels. As the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales noted in their recent document Meeting God in Friend and Stranger, the effort to reach out in friendship to followers of other religions is becoming a familiar part of the mission of the local Church (n. 228), a characteristic feature of the religious landscape in this country. (Meeting with Religious Leaders in the Waldegrave Drawing Room of St. Mary’s University College in Twickenham (London Borough of Richmond, 17 September 2010.)

Did Saint Francis Xavier engage in "dialogue" with the adherents of false religions in India? No, he sought with urgency to convert them unconditionally to the Catholic Faith, the one and only true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. (See Without Regard for Results.)

The mania for "dialogue" to "discuss" matters of doctrine that we must accept on the authority of God Who has revealed them to us did not, however, begin with the lords of conciliarism, who are so wedded to this slogan that any thought of actively the conversion of any non-Catholic is considered to be an "offense" against the conciliar falsehood of "religious liberty."

This is what Ratzinger said in his last Christmas address to the conciliar curia on December 21, 2012, the Feast of Saint Thomas the Apostle, although he would address the curia one final time before his free and voluntary "resignation" from the non-papacy took effect:


At this point I would like to address the second major theme, which runs through the whole of the past year from Assisi to the Synod on the New Evangelization: the question of dialogue and proclamation. Let us speak firstly of dialogue. For the Church in our day I see three principal areas of dialogue, in which she must be present in the struggle for man and his humanity: dialogue with states, dialogue with society – which includes dialogue with cultures and with science – and finally dialogue with religions. In all these dialogues the Church speaks on the basis of the light given her by faith. But at the same time she incorporates the memory of mankind, which is a memory of man’s experiences and sufferings from the beginnings and down the centuries, in which she has learned about the human condition, she has experienced its boundaries and its grandeur, its opportunities and its limitations. Human culture, of which she is a guarantee, has developed from the encounter between divine revelation and human existence. The Church represents the memory of what it means to be human in the face of a civilization of forgetfulness, which knows only itself and its own criteria. Yet just as an individual without memory has lost his identity, so too a human race without memory would lose its identity. What the Church has learned from the encounter between revelation and human experience does indeed extend beyond the realm of pure reason, but it is not a separate world that has nothing to say to unbelievers. By entering into the thinking and understanding of mankind, this knowledge broadens the horizon of reason and thus it speaks also to those who are unable to share the faith of the Church. In her dialogue with the state and with society, the Church does not, of course, have ready answers for individual questions. Along with other forces in society, she will wrestle for the answers that best correspond to the truth of the human condition. The values that she recognizes as fundamental and non-negotiable for the human condition she must propose with all clarity. She must do all she can to convince, and this can then stimulate political action. (Apostate Provides Christmas greetings to the members of the Occupy Vatican Movement.)

The Church must "be present in the struggle for man and his humanity"?

This is why Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross?

Our Lord did not tell the Eleven before He Ascended to His Co-Equal an Co-Eternal Father's right hand in glory on Ascension Thursday that they were to engage in a "dialogue" with society or that the mission of His Catholic Church was to be "present in the struggle for man and his humanity." He told them to convert men and their nations to the true Church:


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.)

No Catholic has to "search" for the "truth." This is something that many arch-conciliarists do not understand or accept.

The Catholic Church had to "learn" about the "human condition" over the centuries?


As noted before in this commentary, Holy Mother Church is complete in her Divine Constitution. She lacks nothing to teach, govern and sanctify the flock entrusted to her pastoral care by her Divine Founder and Invisible Head, Christ the King. She alone understands the true nature of man in light of Who has created him, Who redeemed him and Who sanctifies him.

"The Church represents the memory of what it means to be human in the face of a civilization of forgetfulness"?

"Yet just as an individual without memory has lost his identity, so too a human race without memory would lose its identity"?

Excuse me, Father Ratzinger, wherever you are out there in the twilight zone of the new theology on the grounds of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.  Excuse me. You helped to jettison the institutional memory of the Catholic Church, including the Social Reign of Christ the King, and thus have been part of a wholesale revolution that has robbed most Catholics of any understanding of the truth of what Our Lord revealed to us in His Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Ratzinger/Benedict's refusal to seek with urgency the conversion of all non-Catholics to the true Faith--indeed, his disparaging what he called the "ecumenism of the return in Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005--is responsible for helping to keep men plunged deeper and deeper into the errors of Modernity. Many of these "modern men" are steeped in unrepentant sins of one sort or another. What has all of the conciliar church's "dialogue" with "modern man" and its "renewed liturgy," designed as it was to appeal to Protestants as it watered down or denied Catholic doctrine, especially that relating to the need for personal penance and the reality of a God Who judges us when we die, produced except a sea of lost Catholics?

Anyone in the "Resignationism Rising" crowd who does not recognize their beloved "pope" for what he is, a Modernist heretic, would be hard-pressed to reconcile the following passage from that December 21, 2012, curia address with the teaching of the Catholic Church:


Two rules are generally regarded nowadays as fundamental for interreligious dialogue:

1. Dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at understanding. In this respect it differs from evangelization, from mission;

2. Accordingly, both parties to the dialogue remain consciously within their identity, which the dialogue does not place in question either for themselves or for the other.

These rules are correct, but in the way they are formulated here I still find them too superficial. True, dialogue does not aim at conversion, but at better mutual understanding – that is correct. But all the same, the search for knowledge and understanding always has to involve drawing closer to the truth. Both sides in this piece-by-piece approach to truth are therefore on the path that leads forward and towards greater commonality, brought about by the oneness of the truth. As far as preserving identity is concerned, it would be too little for the Christian, so to speak, to assert his identity in a such a way that he effectively blocks the path to truth. Then his Christianity would appear as something arbitrary, merely propositional. He would seem not to reckon with the possibility that religion has to do with truth. On the contrary, I would say that the Christian can afford to be supremely confident, yes, fundamentally certain that he can venture freely into the open sea of the truth, without having to fear for his Christian identity. To be sure, we do not possess the truth, the truth possesses us: Christ, who is the truth, has taken us by the hand, and we know that his hand is holding us securely on the path of our quest for knowledge. Being inwardly held by the hand of Christ makes us free and keeps us safe: free – because if we are held by him, we can enter openly and fearlessly into any dialogue; safe – because he does not let go of us, unless we cut ourselves off from him. At one with him, we stand in the light of truth. (Apostate Provides Christmas greetings to the members of the Occupy Vatican Movement.)

"True, dialogue does not aim at conversion, but better mutual understanding"?

Well, this may be true for the apostates of conciliarism as it invented the madness called "dialogue" and made it the "precondition" for "peace and justice" in the world, thereby flushing the true teaching of the Catholic Church down the Orwellian memory hole.

For the Catholic Church, however, conversion has been her mission from the beginning. Just two quick examples out of so many that could be provided:



"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.)

Not enough? How about testimony from the Mother of God herself?


"Do you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces which, God in His mercy has offered to them." (See: If You Do Not Return to the True Faith, You Will Be Cast Into Hell!)

No, there is no space whatsoever between Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Both are believers in the "theology of encounter." Both are insidious heretics. They differ only in matters of style and emphasis, not in substance. Only the wilfully blind refuse to see this, accept this and to act on it decisively by fleeing from them and everything do with their false church that is but a counterfeit ape of the spotless, virginal Mystical Spouse of Christ the King, the Catholic Church.

Father Charles Arminjon related the attitude that Catholics have in the midst of the storms of the present world, a world that will pass away soon enough, by contrasting the worldly man with the man of Faith:


One thing is certain: there has never been, and never will be, moral sublimity, heroic holiness, or virtue worthy of the name that does not have its principle or draw its growth and strength in suffering freely accepted or dauntlessly undergone.

How is it that our will is often wavering and undecided, that our life is strewn with such strange fluctuations and such unhappy fickleness, that we are so dejected by insignificant things, that an inconsiderate word is said to us, or a change in the serenity of the sky, is enough to make us go from the height of joy to the depths of gloom? The cause of these fluctuations and changes is simply the repugnance and instinctive horror we feel toward suffering.

By the assiduous care we take to refuse the slightest hardship and the least injury, and to keep away from us anything that seems even in the smallest degree demanding, we create for ourselves a state of abject bondage. Our heart falls under the sway of as many tyrants as there are impressions, each of which in turn grips us in its influence. No virtue can subsist in such fickle souls, no high position is compatible with a character that drifts along with ever current and turn of fortune.

Thus, the man in this state turns aside from stern duties and becomes a slave to the most futile fantasies. Forgetting that human life is a reality and not fiction, he seeks diversion in frivolous amusements, squanders his best years in pleasures and idleness and boredom, and consumes fruitlessly the talent that God had entrusted to him. In this enfeebling frame of mind, a man need only come before him with threatening words and the power to interfere with his repose, interests, or pleasures, and that man will at once be his master, will have full power to subject him to a degrading bondage or to unspeakable tortures.

How far removed from the inexhaustible pettiness of these flabby, effeminate souls is the firm, high-minded attitude of him who, by dint of doing battle with suffering, has become, as it were, insensitive to its wounds and blows? How fine it is to see him serene and majestic amidst storms and the agitation of passions, fulfilling the words of the wise man: "Whatsoever shall befall the just man, it shall not make him sad."

Calmly he [the man of Faith] hears the noise of revolutions, and sees republics and dynasties pass; it is as if the scene of men's vain and conflicting interests lay in the nether regions beneath his feet. No disturbance on this earth moves him, because he had learned to see events in the infinite wisdom that governs all thing by its providence, and which permits evil only in order to draw good from it by a striking manifestation. He carries within himself a kind of sanctuary of peace and happiness. Mankind and the elements combined are powerless to offend or harm him. Is he sent into exile? he will reply with a great bishop" For me, the whole earth is my native land and my exile. Is he stripped of his goods? He has learned how to possess them without permitting them to enthrall his heart. Is he put to death? Death, for him, is the transfiguration to a better life, emancipation from his sufferings.

Such was the serenity and heroic constancy of St. John Chrysostom, banished by Eudoxia, Empress of Constantinople:

When I was fleeing the town, I did not feel my misfortune at all, and I was interiorly inundated with the most indescribable consolations. If he Empress sends me into exile--I said to myself--I shall consider that the earth and all that it contains is the Lord's. If she has me thrown into the sea, I shall remember Jonah. If she orders me to be stoned, I shall be the companion of St. Stephen. If she has been beheaded, I shall have the glory of St. John the Baptist. If she strips me of what I possess, I shall reflect that I came forth naked from the bowels of the earth, and must return to it naked and stripped of everything. (Father Charles Arminjon, The End of the Present World and the Mysteries of the Future Life, translated by Susan Conroy and Peter McEnerny. Manchester, New Hampshire: Sophia Institute Press, 2008, pp. 282-284.)

Let us, therefore, trust in Our Lady, whose Immaculate Heart was pierced by Seven Swords of Sorrow, to help us to promote Catholic dogmatism over the madness of "dialogue" and its "theology of encounter," remaining perfectly calm in the storms around us as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, eager to suffer and to suffer even some more as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through that same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, she who is Our Immaculate Queen.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

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 Andrew the Apostle, 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.

Saint Timothy, pray for us.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Haven't heard from a lot of you lately. Although our situation has improved a bit, we still need assistance from those who support the work of this site, especially those who have not given in the past and able to do so now. Thank you.




© Copyright 2014, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.