Wake Up, America, Your King Is Beckoning
Thomas A. Droleskey
Wake up, America, your King is beckoning. Yes, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is meant to be the King of all human hearts and all nations, is attempting to get the attention of the people of the United States of America, a land steeped in the demonic lies of the abject, wretched evils of Protestantism and the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry as its national laws promote things offensive to His Divine Majesty and Glory and Honor and that harm grievously, the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. The insidious lies of the United States of America have been exported to all parts of the globe, which are now fully immersed in the American standards of immodesty of attire, indecency of speech, agitation of so-called "music," and the violence done to bodies and souls by what passes for motion pictures and television and magazines and newspapers and professional sports.
Yet Americans wonder--yes, wonder--why this land of so much evil that is protected under cover of law and promoted in every single aspect of popular culture is being pounded by the forces of nature and brought to its knees by the greed of financial speculators? There is no wonder about the fact that God is attempting to use His loving, correcting hand to chastise sinners so as to convert them from being under the yoke of the naturalism and religious indifferentism and cultural relativism and legal positivism and Calvinist materialism and semi-Pelagianism and individualism that come from the devil and lead nations into the abyss and souls into Hell for all eternity. God bless America? For what? For what? For what?
For the fact that we have continued about our business of making money and enjoying our leisure time quite blithely for over forty-three years after all laws against contraceptive pills and devices, each of which denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and most of which kill living human beings, were declared invalid by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Griswold v. Connecticut, June 7, 1965?
For the fact that we have continued about our business of making money and enjoying our leisure time quite blithely for over forty-one years as one state after another passed legislation to "permit" the slicing and dicing of innocent human beings in their mothers' wombs under cover of law and as the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973?
For the fact that the naturalistic falsehoods of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of press" have subjected the souls of countless hundreds of millions of people to all manner of intellectual pornography (theological and philosophical error) and to rot of pornography in violation of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, some of which is now broadcast quite freely into American homes and displayed on billboards as we go about our daily business?
For the joys of Calvinist materialism that reduces the entirety of human life and government policy to the making of as much money as possible in order to "enjoy" the goods of this passing, mortal vale of tears as an ultimate end that justifies any means employed to acquire and retain it?
For the "right" of men, women and children to use the Holy Name of God and that of His Co-Eternal Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in vain in speech, on the airwaves and in print?
For the "right" of men, women and children to dress immodestly in violation of the Virtue of Modesty and to provoke others into sinful thoughts and/or actions?
For in vitro fertilization?
For euthanasia under cover of law?
For usury as the essential building block of "growing" the wealth of those who are paid exorbitant salaries that have no relationship at all to the common good or the actual temporal worth of their own alleged "work" while the large masses of people are enslaved by massive debt?
For the statism that grows by leaps and bounds with each passing presidential election no matter which political party holds the White House or constitutes majority of seats in the houses of the Congress of the United States of America?
For the increasing restrictions on legitimate human liberties in the name of "national security"?
For the prosecution of wars against Catholic nations that have resulted in the introduction of Masonic lodges and Protestant "churches" into this nations so as to take souls out of the true Church as they are introduced into the insidious lies and errors of the "American" way, a way that contends that it is not absolutely necessary for every man on the face of this earth to submit himself with humility and docility to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to His true Church and that it is not necessary for each man on the face of this earth to have belief in, access to, and cooperation with Sanctifying Grace in order to be virtuous, to say nothing of scaling the heights of personal sanctity?
For the falsehood of the religiously indifferentist civil state?
For the heresy of religious liberty?
Consider these words, much quoted on this site, from Pope Pius VII's Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814:
For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me."
The "religious liberty" of the Constitution of the United States of America makes it the proliferation of theological error a matter of a fundamental human "right" and not merely a matter that the civil authorities might have to tolerate in some instances for the common temporal good, as Pope Leo XIII noted in Libertas, June 20, 1888. The American concepts of civil and religious liberty have brought forth a pestilence of unimaginable proportions as men have been plunged headlong into the abyss prophesied by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832:
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.
Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?
Has God changed His Mind? Can God change His Mind? Impossible. Absolutely impossible.
The American concepts of religious and civil liberty have brought curses upon its people. They are not deserving of God's blessing, and it is blasphemous to ask God to "bless" a nation where His Holy Name is blasphemed so freely and where each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, including usury itself, is promoted under cover of law and is such an integral part of our public policy, economy and national life.
We pray for God to have mercy on our nation and to convert it, to be sure. This is our duty before Him and before our fellow citizens. God's blessings on a land founded in the promotion of one diabolical error after another? No.
Some labored under the misapprehension that because Marxism-Leninism was such an obvious, overt offense against God and man that the "American" way was the only alternative. Various secular organizations, each of which was steeped in naturalism and religious indifferentism, arose to "fight" Communism without realizing that the Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry of the American founding are but slightly different expressions of the same spirit that produced Bolshevism, namely, the practiced and proclaimed sovereignty of man over his own destiny, albeit in the American experience with generic, Masonic references to "God." (See The Inconvenience of Truth.)
These falsehoods bring an endless variety of disastrous consequences for men and states over the course of the passing of the years. Practical atheism becomes the lowest common denominator as public life is stained with crime, facts that Pope Leo XIII noted in, respectively, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900:
To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November, 1, 1900.)
God alone is Life. All other beings partake of life, but are not life. Christ, from all eternity and by His very nature, is "the Life," just as He is the Truth, because He is God of God. From Him, as from its most sacred source, all life pervades and ever will pervade creation. Whatever is, is by Him; whatever lives, lives by Him. For by the Word "all things were made; and without Him was made nothing that was made." This is true of the natural life; but, as We have sufficiently indicated above, we have a much higher and better life, won for us by Christ's mercy, that is to say, "the life of grace," whose happy consummation is "the life of glory," to which all our thoughts and actions ought to be directed. The whole object of Christian doctrine and morality is that "we being dead to sin, should live to justice" (I Peter ii., 24)-that is, to virtue and holiness. In this consists the moral life, with the certain hope of a happy eternity. This justice, in order to be advantageous to salvation, is nourished by Christian faith. "The just man liveth by faith" (Galatians iii., II). "Without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews xi., 6). Consequently Jesus Christ, the creator and preserver of faith, also preserves and nourishes our moral life. This He does chiefly by the ministry of His Church. To Her, in His wise and merciful counsel, He has entrusted certain agencies which engender the supernatural life, protect it, and revive it if it should fail. This generative and conservative power of the virtues that make for salvation is therefore lost, whenever morality is dissociated from divine faith. A system of morality based exclusively on human reason robs man of his highest dignity and lowers him from the supernatural to the merely natural life. Not but that man is able by the right use of reason to know and to obey certain principles of the natural law. But though he should know them all and keep them inviolate through life-and even this is impossible without the aid of the grace of our Redeemer-still it is vain for anyone without faith to promise himself eternal salvation. "If anyone abide not in Me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up and cast him into the fire, and he burneth" john xv., 6). "He that believeth not shall be condemned" (Mark xvi., 16). We have but too much evidence of the value and result of a morality divorced from divine faith. How is it that, in spite of all the zeal for the welfare of the masses, nations are in such straits and even distress, and that the evil is daily on the increase? We are told that society is quite able to help itself; that it can flourish without the assistance of Christianity, and attain its end by its own unaided efforts. Public administrators prefer a purely secular system of government. All traces of the religion of our forefathers are daily disappearing from political life and administration. What blindness! Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself. Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy, anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home. Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)
The insidious lies of Americanism reject the binding nature of Catholic Social Teaching. Indeed, the insidious lies of Americanism convinced various prelates in the United States of American that they and their own people and the nation-at-large were exempt from this teaching, a contempt for truth that would lead directly to the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with the corrupt principles of Modernity, of which Americanism is an important building-block. Writing an not-so-veiled critique of the Americanism of the late Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., a champion of the heresy of religious liberty, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani noted the modus operandi of the Modernists as they attack the very nature of truth itself:
Here the problem presents itself of how the Church and the lay state are to live together. Some Catholics are propagating ideas with regard to this point which are not quite correct. Many of these Catholics undoubtedly love the Church and rightly intend to find a mode of possible adaptation to the circumstances of the times. But it is none the less true that their position reminds one of that of the faint-hearted soldier who wants to conquer without fighting, or of that of the simple, unsuspecting person who accepts a hand, treacherously held out to him, without taking account of the fact that this hand will subsequently pull him across the Rubicon towards error and injustice.
The first mistake of these people is precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century, and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to Catholics on this subject.
To justify themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular passing conditions. Unfortunately, however, they include in this second zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.
In this matter, the pendulum theory, elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous of keeping the proper measure, maintains its movement by reversing it when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written. Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus. In the field of Theology or Politics, the Encyclicals, Summi Pontificatus, Non abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo, come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."
Now if this were to be understood in the sense that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, are merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals themselves, but also because it is theoretically inadmissible. In the Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me" (St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic doctrine."
Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as belonging to the life and legislation of the Church in all ages. For them is meant the warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows." (Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion, March 2, 1953.)
Cardinal Ottaviani saw the enemies armed with Americanism marching through the citadel of the Church to attempt to posit their falsehoods as "true" and representative of a legitimate "development of doctrine" despite the fact that those falsehoods contradicted entirely the Church's perennial teaching. He lived to see those enemies make their entreaties right inside of the Basilica of Saint Peter during the "Second" Vatican Council. The Protestant Douglas Horton, who wrote a four volume diary of his own observations at the council, described exactly what was happening as the Americanist concept of "religious liberty," enshrined in Section 1 of Article VI and in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, was "winning the day" at the council, much to the delight of the Protestant "observers" and to the joy of those steeped in Judeo-Masonry who saw their own concepts being embraced by what most people in the world believed to be a valid ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.
Look, for example, at the eyewitness testimony of the Protestant Douglas Horton as he saw some of his fondest dreams becoming true at the "Second" Vatican during the debate on the schema that would produce Dignitatis Humanae on December 7, 1965. Mr. Horton reveled in the defeat of the "conservatives" and saw quite clearly that this was a "reconciliation" of what he believed to be the Catholic Church with "progress:"
Yesterday after church Al Outler told us that he had heard that the schema on religious liberty was in trouble and that the presidents of the council, in response to a petition by over a hundred bishops, had decided to postpone the voting upon it--and this morning the newspapers seemed to support this doleful prognostication. This would mean that the delaying tactics of the last two years would again be applied, and possibly again succeed. So today we waited with bated breath for an undesired announcement.
But no such announcement came.
The debate went on, and is likely to be carried on for a day or two more; and in view of the tenseness of emotions it is surely the part of a wise moderatorship to allow the minority to have its say to the last man. As the day has advanced, indeed, I have grown more and more skeptical about the truth of the rumor. Direct word from one peritus who occupies a high seat indicates that the presidents have not acceded to the request of the conservatives, and indirect word from another discloses that the form of the vote on religious liberty is already being considered--I think the ship is still on course in spite of inclement seas--or perhaps I should say sees.
Before the business meeting began this morning [September 20, 1965], the Secretary General read a letter prepared in behalf of the council to be sent to the Holy Father. It expressed warm thanks to His Holiness for establishing the synod of bishops. "It now becomes our concern to obey and cooperate." It also thanked the Pope for his encyclical on the Eucharist, promised prayers for the success of his prospective trip to New York, and asked his blessing. The clapping hands of the fathers signified their approval. An account of the felicities of Felici should not omit his appeal to the fathers who had forgotten to bring with them the text of the schema on divine revelation. Said the Secretary General, "Unfortunately, there are no more available, so borrow a copy if you can--or at least get hold of one in the most honest manner possible."
The array of speakers for the affirmative this morning made it clear that the forces of progress are not lacking either in men or materiel. Of the nine cardinals who made their witness, only one was shadowed by negativism--Cardinal Browne of the Roman curia. Out of the caves of the past he drew the troglodyte theology that in a Catholic state the spreading of another religion is a violation of public morality.
In what contrast were the others! I cite, for instance the Archbishop of Baltimore [Lawrence Sheehan], who made his maiden speech as a cardinal. In a historical address which showed in a most satisfying way the steady evolution of the definition of religious freedom in the church from the time of Leo XIII to the present day, he cannot but have been convincing to the more thoughtful of the fathers.
Cardinal Beran, Archbishop of Prague, who had just stepped out of prison, to which his championing of religious freedom had condemned him, needed hardly to say a word to be convincing. The marks and memories of his incarceration were his eloquence. The council cannot have been impervious to his plea to approve the document as its stands, without dilution.
Equally telling was the testimony of Cardinal Cardijn--who had recently been elevated to his high office from the ranks of the priesthood, without ever having been a bishop, this because of his surpassing saintliness and his founding and developing of the worldwide organization of Young Christian Workers. His sixty years of experience with youth spoke for him when he said, "If this schema is not approved, the hope of tomorrow will be destroyed."
Of the four bishops who spoke this morning, only one condemned the declaration. Two Lefebvres were participants in the debate. The one, the cardinal, the Archbishop of Bourges, had spoken with complete clarity in meeting the several major objections of the conservatives, but now Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre proved himself a cousin so distant as hardly to belong to the same family. He argued that the schema really came from the pens of such eighteenth-century philosophers as Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau and that it paid more attention to the human conscience than it did to the church. He wanted none of it. He is the Superior General of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit; one of my neighbor observers, in a not exactly neutral frame of mind, expressed the wish that the Holy Spirit might be admitted to the order.
Rome must surely see that Rome will be the chief sufferer if the declaration on religious liberty is finally defeated. The cock has crowed twice--in the second and third sessions. I remember Papini's description of Peter after the cock crew for the last time: "Then in the dim light of dawn the last stars saw a man staggering along like a drunkard, his head hidden in his cloak, his shoulders shaken by the sobs of a depressing lament." I do not think that Peter will take that course again today. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary 1965: A Protesant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philaelphia and Boston, United Church Press, pp. 33-35.)
The great apostle of Christ the King, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was at his best when defending Our King in the midst of the lion's den of the revolutionaries, being mocked without his knowledge by an effete Protestant observer.
Major players in the council's debate on the schema that would lead to Dignitatis Humanae were, of course, Americanists such as Francis Cardinal Spellman, the Archbishop of New York, and Richard Cardinal Cushing, the Archbishop of Boston, and the aforementioned Lawrence Cardinal Sheehan of Baltimore. Behind the scenes, of course, Father John Courtney Murray was busy pushing a teaching that even he himself recognized would be hard to reconcile with what had gone before it. Nevertheless, Father Murray was eager to explain to the Protestant observers the importance of stressing the "dignity of the human person," a phrase quite similar to the "dignity of man" that was promoted by the Sillon, whose revolutionary ideas were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.
Douglas Horton related Father Murray's September 17, 1965, talk to the Protestant observers in the offices of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, then directed by Bishop Jan Willebrands:
Fr. John Courtney Murray introduced the schema on religious liberty in a way that revealed his knowledge not only of the document itself but also of the whole area of Christian ethics in which the subject of religious liberty lies. In answer to certain critics he pointed out that the document is based not on the passing social situation of today but upon the eternal truth of the dignity of the human person. He hope the schema would open the way to full dialogue with the World Council of Churches and men of goodwill everywhere. As late as the nineteenth century the church regarded the state as being, as it were, within it, part of itself. Then came the great revolutions, which the church did not understand. Only today the church is coming to see the state as secular, but in a good sense--not hostile or indifferent to religion, but concerned only for the good of the human person, justice, charity, freedom.
In the course of the discussion it became evident that most of the suggestions made by the observers had already been considered by the Secretariat during the now long period of gestation of the schema. (Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston, United Church Press, pp. 27-28.)
So much for Pope Saint Pius X's writing in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, that the separation of Church and State was a thesis absolutely false, and that the civil state has an obligation to aid man in the salvation of his immortal soul. Douglas Horton noted that the Protestant "observers" made contributions that complemented the beliefs of various Modernists. Indeed, one can see in the comments of a Professor van Holk, as reported by Horton, a view of the nature of truth that is identical with the one that has been advanced by Joseph Ratzinger throughout the course of his priesthood, as has been demonstrated on this site time and time again:
Professor van Holk, who has long kept the Remonstrant flag flying at the University of Leiden, saved us from wandering too far into stuffy theologistics (an extremity to which even biblical theology may succumb) by the very tone of his remarks. He asked that the document speak with unmistakable clarity against the misuse by the state, in dealing with minorities, of the argument from "public interest." He also spoke as a modern man against conceiving truth and error as static and independent rather than as dynamic and developing entities in dialectic with each other. I thought of the Latin saying Virescit vulnere virtus and the schoolboy howler which translated it "Virtue is vulnerable but when vulned, she is always invigorated." Truth is indeed vulnerable to error, but its tension with error keeps it strong and alive. Father Murray agreed with Dr. van Holk and Bishop Willebrands observed that many bishops are not really in touch with the thought that enriches the life of today, makes it different from yesterday, and gives it great promise. ((Douglas Horton, Vatican Diary 1965: A Protestant Observes the Fourth Session of Vatican Council II. Philadelphia and Boston, United Church Press, pp. 29-30.)
Anyone who does not believe that the "Second" Vatican Council represented a revolution against the nature of truth and thus the very nature of God, aided and abetted by the revolutionary "periti" such as Fathers Karl Rahner, S.J., and Joseph Ratzinger, among so many others, and the Protestant "observers" is not seeing things very clearly. And the revolutionaries from the Rhine who gathered near the Tiber between 1962 and 1965 had great assistance from the revolutionaries from the Potomac, men who believed in the false, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of the modern civil state, men who rejected the Social Reign of Christ the King and who refused to teach about his sacred rights over men and their nations. These revolutionaries had to make use of various Hegelian devices in order to obviate the statements contained in this compendium proving the perpetually binding nature of Catholic Social Teaching, The Binding Nature of Catholic Social Teaching.
It is no wonder, therefore, that the cataclysms of the present moment are taking place. We must remember what Pope Pius XI, that great apostle of the Social Reign of Christ the King, wrote in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:
Nations will be reminded by the annual celebration of this feast that not only private individuals but also rulers and princes are bound to give public honor and obedience to Christ. It will call to their minds the thought of the last judgment, wherein Christ, who has been cast out of public life, despised, neglected and ignored, will most severely avenge these insults; for his kingly dignity demands that the State should take account of the commandments of God and of Christian principles, both in making laws and in administering justice, and also in providing for the young a sound moral education.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is trying to get our attention, attempting to chastise us in the midst of our naturalistic sideshows and bread and circuses and materialism to turn away from Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism so that we can become apostles of His Social Kingship as we exalt the Queenship of His Most Blessed Mother, Mary our Immaculate Queen. Every Rosary we pray, every blessed Green Scapular we distribute, every bit of suffering we endure with gratitude and with love as we make attempt to make reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary will help to plant a few seeds for the restoration of the Church and hence for the restoration of Christendom in the world.
The crimes of Modernity have been abetted and enabled by Modernism's reconciliation with its false principles. Although there will indeed never be a time of perfection in the world as human nature is wounded by the vestigial after-effects of Original Sin and Actual Sins, there will come a time following the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary when men will at least attempt to live more fully in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ exclusively to the Catholic Church and when civil states will endeavor, albeit imperfectly, to foster those social conditions conducive to the sanctification and salvation of the souls of its citizens, recognizing that Catholicism is indeed the one and only foundation of personal and social order. It is then that God will bless our land, not before.
In the meantime, we fly unto the patronage of Our Lady as we attempt to live more and more detached from the things of this passing world, as we seek to store for ourselves treasure in Heaven by being know as the apostles of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of herself, Our Immaculate Queen.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Guadalupe, 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 Joseph Cupertino, pray for us.
Saint Januarius and Companions, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?