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

                  August 10, 2013


Recruited by Antichrist To Be His Apologists

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Much like the proverbial fog being boiled alive as he sits in a pot filled with water on stove while his amphibious body adjusts to each gradual elevation of the water's temperature until it reaches the boiling point and is thus boiled alive, many "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics in the counterfeit church of conciliarism continue to exhibit higher and higher levels of tolerance of "papal" words and actions that many of them have denounced in the past when hearing and seeing various "priests" and "bishops" say and and do the exact same things as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. By turning a blind eye to Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's apostasies, heresies, sacrileges, blasphemies and outrages, such Catholics permit themselves to be recruited by Antichrist to be his apologists.

Although it is understandable for a believing Catholic to try to "find" "elements" of Catholicism in the man they believe to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, something that many of us did for far, far too long in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s,  such willful blindness to the reality facing the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal is more blameworthy, objectively speaking, as there is more information that is more readily--even instantly--available than was the case even a recently as the 1990s, a time when most people could not access live events on a computer.

Then again, there is less grace in the world now than in the past as the result of the sacramental barrenness of the conciliar liturgical rite, which does, subjectively speaking, mitigate the culpability of those who do not want to see the truth of our situation. We must continue to pray to Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, for those who are bewildered, if not disheartened and disillusioned, by the words and actions of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis to come to see and then to embrace the simple truth that we are in the throes of Antichrists who no more "popes" or "bishops" or even Catholics than Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, whose own false religion and political ideology is very much akin to those of Bergoglio/Francis.

Much, much more blameworthy, though, is the role that some of the more prominent "conservative" Catholics who get paid handsomely to comment on all things "papal" have adopted as complete and total apologists of Antichrist. One of these men, Sandro Magister, has embarrassed himself mightily by daring to compare Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis to Pope Saint Pius X because the former is governing the Vatican in conciliar occupation from Casa Santa Marta with a small coterie of assistants, thus bypassing the curia as had the former. Signore Magister has gone so far as to call Bergoglio as "Francis the Reformer":


ROME, August 8, 2013 – Francis is in no hurry to reform the curia, and some of his big electors are starting to get impatient. "We wanted someone with good managerial skills and leadership skills, and so far that hasn't been as obvious," the cardinal of New York, Timothy Dolan, complained in an interview a few days ago.

But pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio certainly does not like the curia the way it is. And in fact he often and intentionally does without it. The latest chirograph signed "Francis," that of July 18 which instituted a commission of eight experts to rethink the organization of the economic-administrative structure of the Holy See, was made known to the Vatican secretariat of state only as a done deal.

This means that in the little office of pope Bergoglio on the second floor of the Casa di Santa Marta, where he has chosen to reside, many things are decided and done that never even pass through the majestic curial offices of the first and third loggia of the Apostolic Palace, a few steps away from the now-deserted pontifical apartment.

The secretariat of state continues its routine work, but much more at work is another secretariat, miniscule but highly active, which in direct service to the pope attends to the matters that he wants to resolve himself, without any interference whatsoever.

A century ago, under the reign of Pius X, it was called the “segretariola." Pope Giuseppe Sarto had come to a very negative judgment about the curia at the time, but even after he had reorganized it he was very careful to protect the little personal secretariat with which he had surrounded himself immediately after his election in 1903.

With the current pope, the son of Piedmontese emigrants, the Venetian Pius X has many traits in common. He was also born to a poor family, and continued to dedicate himself even as pope to the help of the poor. He was dearly loved by people of humble conditions. He led a simple and austere life. He had a good-natured disposition, not devoid of irony. He had a profound spiritual life and was later proclaimed a saint. He had a tremendous capacity for work, which he extended into the nighttime hours. He did a great many things on his own, keeping the curia in the dark about them.

It comes as no surprise that the "segretariola" of Pius X was very soon the target of tenacious opposition. It was suspected of influencing the pope, guiding his decisions. And these suspicions were also shared by directors of the curia whom Pius X admired, like then-substitute secretary of state Giacomo Della Chiesa, the future Benedict XV, about whom the pope used to say: "He's a hunchback but he marches in line." In fact, none of the secretaries of pope Sarto, once he had gone to heaven, was rewarded by subsequent pontiffs. One of them even ended his days voluntarily isolated in a hermitage, on the mountain above Camaldoli.

The black legend loomed over them until when, a century layer, the documents of that "sacred table" were discovered in a storage closet of the Vatican offices and two talented scholars, Alejandro M. Dieguez and Sergio Pagano, the latter now prefect of the Vatican archive, published between 2003 and 2006 a complete inventory of them and an anthology in two large volumes. From this it was clear that those industrious secretaries were not to blame, because everything was desired, decided, and even written personally by the indefatigable pope Sarto. As seems to be happening today as well, with pope Bergoglio.

The first to join the "segretariola" of Pius X was Fr. Giovanni Bressan, his secretary before he became pope, when he was bishop in Mantua and then patriarch in Venice. Immediately afterward pope Sarto called to his side two other Venetian priests whom he knew well, Francesco Gasoni and Giuseppe Pescini. And then a priest from Como, Attilio Bianchi, nephew of Blessed Giovanni Battista Scalabrini, the founder of the missionaries who take their name from him.

To these four Pius X finally added, "because of his extensive experience in this regard," Monsignor Vincenzo Maria Ungherini, who had been the second secretary of Leo XIII, his predecessor as pope.

Here as well the similarities with today are strong. In the "segretariola" of Pope Francis there appears in fact, and for the same reasons as then, the second secretary of his predecessor Benedict XVI, the Maltese Alfred Xuereb.

Nonetheless, the man in closest contact with the pope is not him but a priest of Buenos Aires, Fabián Pedacchio Leaniz, who came to Rome and the curia in 2007 as an official of the congregation for bishops, at the joint behest of his archbishop at the time, Bergoglio, and of then-prefect of the congregation Giovanni Battista Re, the "very dear" cardinal whom Bergoglio thanked most warmly in his first encounter with the college of cardinals after his election as pope.

Today Fr. Fabian, 49, is a permanent resident at Santa Marta, where he works on a very full-time basis in the service of Pope Francis. He is an expert in canon law and was secretary of the association of Argentine canonists. He loves opera music, the novels of Gabriel Garcia Marquez, and the films of Pedro Almodovar. In soccer his favorite team is not the same as Bergoglio's San Lorenzo, but the more trophied River Plate.

In addition to Fr. Fabián, in the circle of the pope's close collaborators is another Argentine from Buenos Aires, Monsignor Guillermo Javier Karcher, a pontifical master of ceremonies but above all assigned to protocol, the office of the secretariat of state through which all of the documents of the Holy See pass.

And then there is an Italian, Monsignor Assunto "Tino" Scotti, 58, from Bergamo, supervisor of the section of general affairs of the secretariat of state and dean of the camera apostolica, the institute that administers the assets of the Holy See during the interregnum between one pope and another, with the cardinal camerlengo. It is Monsignor Scotti who selects and supervises the fortunate people who are admitted, morning after morning, to the pope's Mass, in the chapel of the Casa di Santa Marta.

To each his task. But like Pius X, Pope Francis as well is not the type who likes to delegate. In Buenos Aires he worked alone at a small and very organized desk. In the adjoining offices he had a secretariat, but this did not even handle his appointments: he was the one who set them down in his own planner. A planner that he never let out of his sight and even wanted to have with him when as pope he boarded the airplane for Rio de Janeiro, in the briefcase seen in the photo published around the world. (The "Segretariola" of Francis,  Who Wants To Do It All Himself.)

Sandro Magister is delusional.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is using bypassing the Vatican curia to promote Modernism more effectively and efficiently than has been done in the past.

Pope Saint Pius X bypassed the Vatican curia to oppose and counteract Modernism and indifference to it among curial careerists.

I am sorry. However, Sandro Magister has earned the treatment that follows below.

All right?


Signore Magister, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis co-authored a book with a pro-abortion, pro-perversity, anti-Catholic Talmudic rabbi, Abraham Skorka. Bergoglio/Francis has gone to Talmudic synagogues to "celebrate" various false holidays.

Query, Signore Magister.

What was Pope Saint Pius X's view of Talmudic Judaism?


No need to be:

POPE: We are unable to favor this movement [of Zionism]. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

HERZL: [The conflict between Rome and Jerusalem, represented by the one and the other of us, was once again under way. At the outset I tried to be conciliatory. I said my little piece. . . . It didn’t greatly impress him. Jerusalem was not to be placed in Jewish hands.] And its present status, Holy Father?

POPE: I know, it is disagreeable to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with it. But to sanction the Jewish wish to occupy these sites, that we cannot do.

HERZL: [I said that we based our movement solely on the sufferings of the Jews, and wished to put aside all religious issues].

POPE: Yes, but we, but I as the head of the Catholic Church, cannot do this. One of two things will likely happen. Either the Jews will retain their ancient faith and continue to await the Messiah whom we believe has already appeared—in which case they are denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot assist them. Or else they will go there with no religion whatever, and then we can have nothing at all to do with them. The Jewish faith was the foundation of our own, but it has been superceded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot admit that it still enjoys any validity. The Jews who should have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ have not done so to this day.

HERZL: [It was on the tip of my tongue to remark, “It happens in every family: no one believes in his own relative.” But, instead, I said:] Terror and persecution were not precisely the best means for converting the Jews. [His reply had an element of grandeur in its simplicity:]

POPE: Our Lord came without power. He came in peace. He persecuted no one. He was abandoned even by his apostles. It was only later that he attained stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had plenty of time in which to accept his divinity without duress or pressure. But they chose not to do so, and they have not done it yet.

HERZL: But, Holy Father, the Jews are in a terrible plight. I do not know if Your Holiness is aware of the full extent of their tragedy. We need a land for these harried people.

POPE: Must it be Jerusalem?

HERZL: We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—for only the secular land.

POPE: We cannot be in favor of it.

[Editor Lowenthal interjects here] Here unrelenting replacement theology is plainly upheld as the norm of the Roman Catholic Church. Further, this confession, along with the whole tone of the Pope in his meeting with Herzl, indicates the perpetuation of a doctrinal emphasis that has resulted in centuries of degrading behavior toward the Jews. However, this response has the “grandeur” of total avoidance of that which Herzl had intimated, namely that the abusive reputation of Roman Catholicism toward the Jews was unlikely to foster conversion. Further, if, “It took three centuries for the Church to evolve,” it was that very same period of time that it took for the Church to consolidate and launch its thrust of anti-Semitism through the following centuries.

HERZL: Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?

POPE: Yes, from my days in Mantua, where there are Jews. I have always been in friendly relations with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. There are other bonds than those of religion: social intercourse, for example, and philanthropy. Such bonds we do not refuse to maintain with the Jews. Indeed we also pray for them, that their spirit see the light. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who became converted in a miraculous manner—on the road to Damascus. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptize all of you. (Marvin Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodore Herzl.)


In case you missed this, Signore Magister, let me repeat what part of what Pope Saint Pius X told the founder of international Zionism, Theodore Herzl, a sworn enemy of Christ the King:

The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people.


Pope Saint Pius X was a Catholic.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not.

You blaspheme a canonized saint, Signore Magister, by daring the compare a man who promotes Modernism and sacrilegiously blasphemous liturgical ceremonies, replete with immodesty and indecency, to a canonized saint who fought against it.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has said repeatedly in the past four months of how much he "respects" adherents of false religions and how those "religions" have a role in helping to build up a "civilization of love."

Pope Saint Pius X condemned The Sillon, whose principles are at the very heart of conciliarism, in large measure precisely because it showed respect for false religious beliefs:

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

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? For the Sillonists who, in public lectures and elsewhere, proudly proclaim their personal faith, certainly do not intend to silence others nor do they intend to prevent a Protestant from asserting his Protestantism, and the skeptic from affirming his skepticism. Finally, what are we to think of a Catholic who, on entering his study group, leaves his Catholicism outside the door so as not to alarm his comrades who, “dreaming of disinterested social action, are not inclined to make it serve the triumph of interests, coteries and even convictions whatever they may be”? Such is the profession of faith of the New Democratic Committee for Social Action which has taken over the main objective of the previous organization and which, they say, “breaking the double meaning which surround the Greater Sillon both in reactionary and anti-clerical circles”, is now open to all men “who respect moral and religious forces and who are convinced that no genuine social emancipation is possible without the leaven of generous idealism. . . .

Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


There is no wiggle room here, Signore Magister, none whatsoever. Jorge Mario Bergoglio teaches the opposite of Pope Saint Pius X.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believes in religious liberty and separation of Church and State.

Pope Saint Pius X, reiterating the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church, condemned both as offensive to God and harmful to men and their societies.

Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of religious liberty can be seen clearly in his rebuke of The Sillon and in his refusal to accord any recognition to the validity of Talmudic Judaism or its "right" to Palestine, and he was no less stinting in his condemnation of separation of Church and State:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."  (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906. Please see the appendix below for two other examples of Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic lie that is separation of Church and State.)


Query, Signore Magister, query.

How can something that was absolutely false in 1906 become "true" in 2013?

Another query, Signore Magister.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believes that the civil government's principal purpose is to serve the poor and to promote "brotherhood" in the name of "human dignity."  Pope Saint Pius X explained that the civil government must aid us in effecting our Last End.

Who is correct?

The following is merely for you to consider, Signore Magister, on the off-chance that you will read these words, lest you attempt to use Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity" to justify what you might think to be merely "apparent" contradictions.

Pope Saint Pius condemned Modernism's contention that the truths of the Holy Faith can be understood differently at different times as human language can never adequately express the multifaceted dimensions of dogmatic pronouncements:


Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 42)

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)


The entire counterfeit church of conciliarism is a direct, incontrovertible contradiction of the magisterium of Pope Saint Pius X, whose whole life and priestly ministry is mocked by the lords of conciliarism, including, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. And those who attempt to justify one bit of this as coming from the authority of the Catholic Church have permitted themselves to be recruited by Antichrist to be his apologists as the lords of conciliarism do and say things that make a mockery of the Sacred Deposit of the Holy Faith and of the very lives of our martyrs, including Saint Lawrence the Deacon, whose feast we celebrate today.

Saint Lawrence the Deacon served the poor for love of their immortal souls as he brought them the true Sacraments, not to make an ostentatious show of himself as he, a truly humble man, wanted only to perform the Corporal Works of Mercy in conjunction with the Spiritual Works of Mercy so as to bring the poor unto supernatural treasures in this life as a preparation for having the eternal treasures of Heaven itself after their deaths. Saint Lawrence was even tormented by the Emperor Decius in the year 258 A.D. to adore his false gods to show respect to him as the Roman emperor, but Saint Lawrence refused to pay any kind of respect to a civil official steeped in pagan superstition or to his false gods. Saint Lawrence was a Catholic. The conciliarists are not:


And then they came to judgment. And he was inquired again of the treasures, and Laurence demanded dilation of three days, and Valerianus granted him on pledge of Hippolitus. And S. Laurence in these three days gathered together poor people, blind and lame, and presented them tofore Decius, in the palace of Salustine, and said: These here be the treasures perdurable, which shall not be minished, but increase, which he departed to each of them. The hands of these men have borne the treasures into heaven. Then Valerianus in the presence of Decius said: What variest thou in many things? Sacrifice anon, and put from thee thine art magic. And Laurence said to him: Whether ought he to be adored that maketh, or he that is made? And then Decius was angry, and commanded that he should be beaten with scorpions, and that all manner of torments should be brought tofore him. And then commanded he him that he should do sacrifice for to eschew these torments, and S. Laurence answered: Thou cursed man, I have always coveted these meats. To whom Decius said: If these be meats for thee, show to me them that be like to thee, that they may eat with thee. To whom Laurence said: They have given their names in to heaven, and thou art not worthy to see them. And then, by the conmmandment of Decius, he was beaten all naked with rods and staves, and pieces of iron burning were laid to his sides. And Laurence said: Lord Jesu Christ, God! Son of God, have mercy upon me, thy servant, which am accused, and I have not denied thee, and they have demanded me, and I have confessed thee to be my Lord. And then Decius said to him: I know well that thou despisest the torments by thine art magic, but me thou mayst not despise. I swear by my gods and goddesses but that thou wilt do sacrifice to them, thou shalt be punished by divers torments. Then he commanded that he should be long beaten with plummets, and then he prayed, saying: Lord Jesu Christ, receive my spirit. And then came a voice from heaven, Decius hearing, which said: Yet many torments be due to thee. And then Decius said, replenished with felony: Ye men of Rome, have ye heard the devils comforting this cursed man, which adored not the gods, ne doubted not the torments, ne dreaded not the prince's wrath? And then commanded he again that he should be beaten with scorpions. And then Laurence smiling rendered thankings to God, and prayed for them that were there. (Jacobus de Vorgaine, O.P., The Golden Legend, Volume Four, The Life of Saint Laurence, p. 98.)

Saint Lawrence the Deacon was no social worker. He was a genuine servant of Christ the King as an ordained deacon in the Catholic Church. He refused to grant any concessions whatsoever to civil officials steeped in error and false worship, and neither must we as we make no concessions whatsoever to the lies of conciliarism and to its illegitimate officials. The slightest concession, you see, can lead us on the path to being apologists of Antichrist as he seeks to recruit us by convincing us to make one compromise and one concession at a time.

We must be about the business of making acts of reparation for our own sins to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

The final victory belongs to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We place our trust in her as we keep her Divine Son company in His Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament and as we console His Most Sacred Heart through her own Immaculate Heart by praying as many Rosaries of reparation as we can each day. And, most importantly, let us never forget to keep a good supply of Green Scapulars and blessed Miraculous Medals on our persons at all times so that we can help the souls who have been so devastated by conciliarism get their way into the catacombs, where they can be served by true bishops and true bishops without any shadow of concession to conciliarism or to the false shepherds found within its structures who have done so much to promote the very thing that caused Our Lord to suffer in His Sacred Humanity and pierced Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart so painfully, sin.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us that we may be conscious of our own need to make reparation for our own sins so that those who persist in sin unrepentantly and promote it openly in the conciliar structures may repent publicly and return to the fold of the Catholic Faith before they die.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!


Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, 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.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Lawrence the Deacon, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


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