Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                                   December 21, 2005

Upholding the Revolution

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although there are many apologists for the Second Vatican Council who contend that none of the patrimony of the Church has been contradicted by the documents issued by that "pastoral" council, the actual truth of the matter is that the novelties of ecumenism and religious liberty do contradict the Church's actual patrimony. Popes no longer speak of the urgency of converting souls to the true Church in order to be saved, appearing with mullahs and rabbis and make-believe "Christian ministers" and "bishops" to lend them the veneer of legitimacy. And no pope has spoken of the Social Reign of Christ the King since the death of Pope Pius XII, who was not, it should be noted, as forceful in his promotion of that doctrine as had been his predecessor, Pope Pius XI.

Following the example of his immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI is not only refusing to speak of the Social Reign of Christ the King in any recognizable way whatsoever. No, he is actively praising principles that are opposed to the rights of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus to the welfare of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood.

Speaking to the French ambassador to the Holy See on December 19, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI discussed the Church's embrace of the "lay state" that permits the Church an opportunity to fulfill her mission. The separation of Church and State wrought by Modernity, therefore, is something that the Holy Father considers "healthy" as long as the civil state does not interfere with the Church's internal governance and permits her the right to speak on public issues of importance to the common good. This acceptance of the separation of Church and State as a "good" reflective of the "irreversible" realities of the modern world stands in stark contrast with the cogent summary of the Church's authentic Social Teaching by numerous popes.

Here are some examples of just how completely contradictory the novelties ushered in by the Second Vatican Council and the words of the postconciliar popes are to papal teaching of the past 183 years.

The words contained in Pope Gregory XVI's Mirari Vos, 1832, completely contradict Pope John Paul II's and Pope Benedict XVI's words about the nature of the relationship between Church and State:

Nor can We predict happier times for religion and government from the plans of those who desire vehemently to separate the Church from the state, and to break the mutual concord between temporal authority and the priesthood. It is certain that that concord which always was favorable and beneficial for the sacred and the civil order is feared by the shameless lovers of liberty.

Blessed Pope Pius IX warned against any acceptance of the "dialectical spirit" in matters pertaining to doctrine. That is, Pope Pius IX rejected the belief held by Pope Benedict XVI that previous teachings must give way to new expressions of them in light of "modern" developments. Writing in Qui Pluribus in 1846, Pope Pius IX noted:

It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived?

But how many wonderful and shining proofs are ready at hand to convince the human reason in the clearest way that the religion of Christ is divine and that "the whole principle of our doctrines has taken root from the Lord of the heavens above"; therefore nothing exists more definite, more settled or more holy than our faith, which rests on the strongest foundations. This faith, which teaches for life and points towards salvation, which casts out all vices and is the fruitful mother and nurse of the virtues, has been established by the birth, life, death, resurrection, wisdom, wonders and prophecies of Christ Jesus, its divine author and perfector! Shining forth in all directions with the light of teaching from on high and enriched with the treasures of heavenly wealth, this faith grew famed and notable by the foretellings of so many prophets, the lustre of so many miracles, the steadfastness of so many martyrs, and the glory of so many saints! It made known the saving laws of Christ and, gaining in strength daily even when it was most cruelly persecuted, it made its way over the whole world by land and sea, from the sun's rising to its setting, under the single standard of the Cross! The deceit of idols was cast down and the mist of errors was scattered. By the defeat of all kinds of enemies, this faith enlightened with divine knowledge all peoples, races and nations, no matter how barbarous and savage, or how different in character, morals, laws and ways of life. It brought them under the sweet yoke of Christ Himself by proclaiming peace and good tidings to all men!

Writing in Quanta Cura in 1864, Pope Pius IX warned:

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?. . . . Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of "Communism and Socialism," they assert that "domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education." By which impious opinions and machinations these most deceitful men chiefly aim at this result, viz., that the salutary teaching and influence of the Catholic Church may be entirely banished from the instruction and education of youth, and that the tender and flexible minds of young men may be infected and depraved by every most pernicious error and vice. For all who have endeavored to throw into confusion things both sacred and secular, and to subvert the right order of society, and to abolish all rights, human and divine, have always (as we above hinted) devoted all their nefarious schemes, devices and efforts, to deceiving and depraving incautious youth and have placed all their hope in its corruption. For which reason they never cease by every wicked method to assail the clergy, both secular and regular, from whom (as the surest monuments of history conspicuously attest), so many great advantages have abundantly flowed to Christianity, civilization and literature, and to proclaim that "the clergy, as being hostile to the true and beneficial advance of science and civilization, should be removed from the whole charge and duty of instructing and educating youth."

The Syllabus of Errors issued by Pope Pius IX specifically condemned as false the notion of the "separation of Church and State:"

55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852

It is impossible for anything to be clearer than this. Pope Pius IX condemned as an error the very notion of "separation of Church and State" that Pope Benedict XVI, who has called the Second Vatican Council a "Counter-Syllabus of Errors," says is "healthy." This is simply a flat-out, undeniable contradiction. No legitimate "development of doctrine" can contradict anything that has preceded it.

Pope Pius IX's successor, Pope Leo XIII, elaborated on the proper relationship between Church and State throughout his twenty-five year pontificate (1878-1903). His encyclical letters have been quoted on this site frequently. One brief excerpt from Longinqua Oceani, an encyclical letter written to the American bishops in 1895, will suffice to illustrate just one of many contradictions between the writing of Pope Leo XIII and the acceptance of Modernity by the Second Vatican Council and the postconciliar popes. After praising the state of worship and catechesis found in the Church in the United States, Pope Leo lowered the boom on the framework in which the Church was "permitted" to conduct her business:

Yet, though all this is true, it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced. The fact that Catholicity with you is in good condition, nay, is even enjoying a prosperous growth, is by all means to be attributed to the fecundity with which God has endowed His Church, in virtue of which unless men or circumstances interfere, she spontaneously expands and propagates herself; but she would bring forth more abundant fruits if, in addition to liberty, she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority.

That is, Pope Leo XIII was telling the American that the growth of the Church in the United States was not the result of the American constitutional system but the work of the Holy Ghost. The Church would enjoy even greater growth if "she enjoyed the favor of the laws and the patronage of the public authority," a direct rejoinder to those, including Pope Benedict XVI and even some "traditional" Catholics, who state that a mere "toleration" of the Church's ability to conduct her business is "good enough," that a confessional state is not necessary. Such a view was specifically rejected by Pope Leo XIII, echoing the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter.

Pope Leo XIII never ceased stressing the error of the separation of Church and State, doing so a Review of His Pontificate, 1901:

Hence in proportion as society separates itself from the Church, which is an important element of its strength, by so much does it decline, or its woes are multiplied for the reason that they are separated whom God wished to join together.

Pope Leo XIII's successor, Pope Saint Pius X, reiterated the erroneous nature of the Modernist belief in the "separation of Church and State" on numerous occasions. He did so with razor sharp precision in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, issued on the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, September 8, 1907:

But it is not only within her own household that the Church must come to terms. Besides her relations with those within, she has others with those who are outside. The Church does not occupy the world all by herself; there are other societies in the world., with which she must necessarily have dealings and contact. The rights and duties of the Church towards civil societies must, therefore, be determined, and determined, of course, by her own nature, that, to wit, which the Modernists have already described to us. The rules to be applied in this matter are clearly those which have been laid down for science and faith, though in the latter case the question turned upon the object, while in the present case we have one of ends. In the same way, then, as faith and science are alien to each other by reason of the diversity of their objects, Church and State are strangers by reason of the diversity of their ends, that of the Church being spiritual while that of the State is temporal. Formerly it was possible to subordinate the temporal to the spiritual and to speak of some questions as mixed, conceding to the Church the position of queen and mistress in all such, because the Church was then regarded as having been instituted immediately by God as the author of the supernatural order. But this doctrine is today repudiated alike by philosophers and historians. The state must, therefore, be separated from the Church, and the Catholic from the citizen. Every Catholic, from the fact that he is also a citizen, has the right and the duty to work for the common good in the way he thinks best, without troubling himself about the authority of the Church, without paying any heed to its wishes, its counsels, its orders -- nay, even in spite of its rebukes. For the Church to trace out and prescribe for the citizen any line of action, on any pretext whatsoever, is to be guilty of an abuse of authority, against which one is bound to protest with all one's might. Venerable Brethren, the principles from which these doctrines spring have been solemnly condemned by Our predecessor, Pius VI, in his Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei.

Pope Pius XI's entire pontificate was devoted to the restoration of the "Peace of Christ in the Kingship of Christ." I have quoted his encyclical letters at length in recent articles. Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio and Quas Primas state his absolute, unwavering commitment to the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King and his complete opposition to the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic separation of Church and State. Pope Benedict XVI is clearly in total opposition to the consistent teaching enunciated by his pre-conciliar predecessors.

Moreover, Pope Benedict XVI has gone so far as to praise the sloganeering principles of the French Revolution that were condemned by these same popes. Writing as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger in his Principles of Catholic Theology, our current Holy Father said that the Second Vatican represented the Church's "reconciliation with the principles of 1789." Pope Benedict has more or less reiterated this recently, explaining that the riots of the Mohammedan thugs in France were an indication that "youth" were attempting to "send a message." Pope Benedict told French leaders on December 19, 2005:

The challenge today is to uphold the values of equality and fraternity, which are a constituent part of French identity, so that all the country's citizens, while respecting legitimate differences, may form part of an authentic shared culture, one that carries fundamental moral and spiritual values."

Yes, the principles of the French Revolution, which resulted in the murder of countless thousands upon thousands of Catholics, are a "constituent part of French identity," according to Pope Benedict XVI. It is necessary once again to have recourse to Pope Saint Pius X, who eviscerated the erroneous contentions of the Sillonists that the Church had to reconcile herself to the principles of that same Revolution. In other words, Pope Saint Pius X condemned sharply the positions expressed by the late Pope John Paul II and by Pope Benedict XVI concerning the relationship of the slogans "liberty, equality, fraternity" with the Catholic Faith. These words from Pope Saint Pius X's Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910, provide a stinging rebuttal to Pope Benedict's embrace of the Sillonist errors:

Our Apostolic Mandate requires from Us that We watch over the purity of the Faith and the integrity of Catholic discipline. It requires from Us that We protect the faithful from evil and error; especially so when evil and error are presented in dynamic language which, concealing vague notions and ambiguous expressions with emotional and high-sounding words, is likely to set ablaze the hearts of men in pursuit of ideals which, whilst attractive, are nonetheless nefarious. Such were not so long ago the doctrines of the so-called philosophers of the 18th century, the doctrines of the Revolution and Liberalism which have been so often condemned; such are even today the theories of the Sillon which, under the glowing appearance of generosity, are all too often wanting in clarity, logic and truth. These theories do not belong to the Catholic or, for that matter, to the French Spirit. . . .

The Sillon has a praise-worthy concern for human dignity, but it understands human dignity in the manner of some philosophers, of whom the Church does not at all feel proud. The first condition of that dignity is liberty, but viewed in the sense that, except in religious matters, each man is autonomous. This is the basis principle from which the Sillon draws further conclusions: today the people are in tutelage under an authority distinct from themselves; they must liberate themselves: political emancipation. They are also dependent upon employers who own the means of production, exploit, oppress and degrade the workers; they must shake off the yoke: economic emancipation. Finally, they are ruled by a caste preponderance in the direction of affairs. The people must break away from this dominion: intellectual emancipation. The leveling-down of differences from this three-fold point of view will bring about equality among men, and such equality is viewed as true human justice. A socio-political set-up resting on these two pillars of Liberty and Equality (to which Fraternity will presently be added), is what they call Democracy. . . .

To sum up, such is the theory, one could say the dream of the Sillon; and that is what its teaching aims at, what it calls the democratic education of the people, that is, raising to its maximum the conscience and civic responsibility of every one, from which will result economic and political Democracy and the reign of justice, liberty, equality, fraternity.

This brief explanation, Venerable Brethren, will show you clearly how much reason We have to say that the Sillon opposes doctrine to doctrine, that it seeks to build its City on a theory contrary to Catholic truth, and that falsifies the basis and essential notions which regulate social relations in any human society. The following considerations will make this opposition even more evident. . . .

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people?

We close here Our observations on the errors of the Sillon. We do not claim to have exhausted the subject, for We should yet draw your attention to other points that are equally false and dangerous, for example on the manner to interpret the concept of the coercive power of the Church. But We must now examine the influence of these errors upon the practical conduct and upon the social action of the Sillon.

The Sillonist doctrines are not kept within the domain of abstract philosophy; they are taught to Catholic youth and, even worse, efforts are made to apply them in everyday life. The Sillon is regarded as the nucleus of the Future City and, accordingly, it is being made to its image as much as possible. Indeed, the Sillon has no hierarchy. The governing elite has emerged from the rank and file by selection, that is, by imposing itself through its moral authority and its virtues. People join it freely, and freely they may leave it. Studies are carried out without a master, at the very most, with an adviser. The study groups are really intellectual pools in which each member is at once both master and student. The most complete fellowship prevails amongst its members, and draws their souls into close communion: hence the common soul of the Sillon. It has been called a "friendship". Even the priest, on entering, lowers the eminent dignity of his priesthood and, by a strange reversal of roles, becomes a student, placing himself on a level with his young friends, and is no more than a comrade.

In these democratic practices and in the theories of the Ideal City from which they flow, you will recognize, Venerable Brethren, the hidden cause of the lack of discipline with which you have so often had to reproach the Sillon. It is not surprising that you do not find among the leaders and their comrades trained on these lines, whether seminarists or priests, the respect, the docility, and the obedience which are due to your authority and to yourselves; not is it surprising that you should be conscious of an underlying opposition on their part, and that, to your sorrow, you should see them withdraw altogether from works which are not those of the Sillon or, if compelled under obedience, that they should comply with distaste. You are the past; they are the pioneers of the civilization of the future. You represent the hierarchy, social inequalities, authority, and obedience - worn out institutions to which their hearts, captured by another ideal, can no longer submit to. Occurrences so sad as to bring tears to Our eyes bear witness to this frame of mind. And we cannot, with all Our patience, overcome a just feeling of indignation. Now then! Distrust of the Church, their Mother, is being instilled into the minds of Catholic youth; they are being taught that after nineteen centuries She has not yet been able to build up in this world a society on true foundations; She has not understood the social notions of authority, liberty, equality, fraternity and human dignity; they are told that the great Bishops and Kings, who have made France what it is and governed it so gloriously, have not been able to give their people true justice and true happiness because they did not possess the Sillonist Ideal!

The breath of the Revolution has passed this way, and We can conclude that, whilst the social doctrines of the Sillon are erroneous, its spirit is dangerous and its education disastrous.

But then, what are we to think of its action in the Church? What are we to think of a movement so punctilious in its brand of Catholicism that, unless you embrace its cause, you would almost be regarded as an internal enemy of the Church, and you would understand nothing of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ! We deem it necessary to insist on that point because it is precisely its Catholic ardor which has secured for the Sillon until quite recently, valuable encouragements and the support of distinguished persons. Well now! judging the words and the deeds, We feel compelled to say that in its actions as well as in its doctrine, the Sillon does not give satisfaction to the Church.

In the first place, its brand of Catholicism accepts only the democratic form of government which it considers the most favorable to the Church and, so to speak, identifies it with her. The Sillon , therefore, subjects its religion to a political party. We do not have to demonstrate here that the advent of universal Democracy is of no concern to the action of the Church in the world; we have already recalled that the Church has always left to the nations the care of giving themselves the form of government which they think most suited to their needs. What We wish to affirm once again, after Our Predecessor, is that it is an error and a danger to bind down Catholicism by principle to a particular form of government. This error and this danger are all the greater when Religion is associated with a kind of Democracy whose doctrines are false. But this is what the Sillon is doing. For the sake of a particular political form, it compromises the Church, it sows division among Catholics, snatches away young people and even priests and seminarists from purely Catholic action, and is wasting away as a dead loss part of the living forces of the nation.

And, behold, Venerable Brethren, an astounding contradiction: It is precisely because religion ought to transcend all parties, and it is in appealing to this principle, that the Sillon abstains from defending the beleaguered Church. Certainly, it is not the Church that has gone into the political arena: they have dragged here there to mutilate and to despoil her. Is it not the duty of every Catholic, then, to use the political weapons which he holds, to defend her? Is it not a duty to confine politics to its own domain and to leave the Church alone except in order to give her that which is her due? Well, at the sight of the violences thus done to the Church, we are often grieved to see the Sillonists folding their arms except when it is to their advantage to defend her; we see them dictate or maintain a program which nowhere and in no degree can be called Catholic. Yet this does not prevent the same men, when fully engaged in political strife and spurred by provocation, from publicly proclaiming their faith. What are we to say except that there are two different men in the Sillonist; the individual, who is Catholic, and the Sillonist, the man of action, who is neutral!

This is a complete and total repudiation of Pope Benedict XVI's contention that the Church has to reconcile herself to the "principles of 1789." It is a point-by-point delineation of how Pope Benedict XVI is himself possessed of the very Sillonist errors condemned in no uncertain terms by a canonized saint, Pope Saint Pius X, who said that the real friends of the Church are not innovators but the traditionalists. As the the First Vatican Council stated:

The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not proposed like a theory of philosophy which is to be elaborated by the human understanding, but as a divine deposit delivered to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared.

Pope Benedict XVI does indeed treat that which has been handed down through the ages as so much "philosophy," parts of which can be discarded solely on the basis of personal theological preferences that are at odds with the actual patrimony of the Church, believing that the formulations of the past are now irrelevant to the demands of our "modern" day.: This is but an echo of Paragraph 15 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, which indicates the necessity of conforming the Mass to "the new insights of modern theology." Pope Leo XIII warned in Testem Benevolentiae in 1899 that those who would propose such alterations would alienate Catholics from the Church while not converting others to her:

Far be it, then, for any one to diminish or for any reason whatever to pass over anything of this divinely delivered doctrine; whosoever would do so, would rather wish to alienate Catholics from the Church than to bring over to the Church those who dissent from it. Let them return; indeed, nothing is nearer to Our heart; let all those who are wandering far from the sheepfold of Christ return; but let it not be by any other road than that which Christ has pointed out.

There was a saint who governed France according to the mind of the Divine Redeemer. This saint understood that he would be judged on the basis of how well he administered justice according to the Deposit of Faith that that Divine Redeemer had entrusted to His true Church, and that he had the further obligation to help to foster those conditions in society that would make it more possible for his subjects to save their immortal souls. This sainted king knew that the Church could, as a last resort after exercising her Indirect Power of preaching and teaching and exhortation, interpose herself over his temporal authority in her exercise of the Social Reign of Christ the King to safeguard the good of souls. That king was Saint Louis IX, who wrote the following letter to his son:

My dearest son, my first instruction is that you should love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your strength. Without this there is no salvation. Keep yourself, my son, from everything that you know displeases God, that is to say, from every mortal sin. You should permit yourself to be tormented by every kind of martyrdom before you would allow yourself to commit a mortal sin.

If the Lord has permitted you to have some trial, bear it willingly and with gratitude, considering that it has happened for your good and that perhaps you well deserve it. If the Lord bestows upon you any kind of prosperity, thank Him humbly and see that you become no worse for it, either through vain pride or anything else, because you ought not to oppose God or offend Him in the matter of His gifts.

Listen to the divine office with pleasure and devotion. As long as you are in church, be careful not to let your eyes wander and not to speak empty words, but pray to the Lord devoutly, either aloud or with the interior prayer of the heart.

Be kindhearted to the poor, the unfortunate and the afflicted. Give them as much help and consolation as you can. Thank God for all the benefits he has bestowed upon you, that you may be worthy to receive greater. Be just to your subjects, swaying neither to the right nor left, but holding the line of justice. Always side with the poor rather than with the rich, until you are certain of the truth. See that all your subjects live in justice and peace, but especially those who have ecclesiastical rank and those who belong to religious orders.

Be devout and obedience to our mother the Church of Rome and the Supreme Pontiff as your spiritual father. Work to remove all sin from your land, particularly blasphemies and heresies.

This is what Pope Benedict XVI should be praising, not the Protestant/Judeo-Masonic notion of the "separation of Church and State." The Vicar of Christ should not be giving any quarter to Mohammedan thugs who desire to seize now what they were prevented from seizing by Charles Martel in the Eighth Century. As long as he refuses to consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, however, Pope Benedict will suffer under the diabolical disorientation spoken of by the late Sister Lucia, being unable to see the truth because of his own proud immersion in the re-packaged Modernism that is the "New Theology" of his warped mentors (Maurice Blondell, Henri du Lubac, Hans Urs von Balthasar). All the more reason to continue pray for the miracle that it will take for him to respond to Our Lady's graces to fulfill her Fatima Message and to repent of ever having uttered words the uphold the Revolution at every turn.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us and protect us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint Denis, pray for us.

Saint Martin of Tours, pray for us

Saint Joan of Arc, pray for us.

Saint Louis IX, pray for us.

Saint Genevieve, pray for us.

Saint Vincent de Paul, pray for us.

Saint Louise de Marillac, pray for us.

Saint Jean de Perboyre, pray for us.

Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, pray for us.

Saint Therese Lisieux, pray for us.

Saint Catherine Laboure, pray for us.

Saint Philomena, pray for us.

Blessed Jacinta, pray for us.

Blessed Francisco, pray for us.

Sister Lucia, pray for us.

















































© Copyright 2005, Christ or Chaos, Inc. All rights reserved.