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

September 16, 2013


What More Time Needs To Be Wasted On This Man?

by Thomas A. Droleskey

There are still a few self-deluded observers who seek to convince others that little bits of Catholicism can be found in various parts of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis egregiously heretical and blasphemous writings and allocutions. No matter the fact that there are times when the false "pontiff" appears to use a familiar Catholic term or two, it must be remembered that Modernism is an admixture of truth and error. The fact that a Modernist might hold to some truths of the Holy Faith while rejecting others, either outrightly or by means of the use of a thousand noxious devices of rationalism, does not mean that he is a member of the Catholic Church. Quite the contrary is true.

No, Virginia, there is no "irreducible minima" standard by which a person can remain a member of the Catholic Church and thus hold ecclesiastical office within her. This "irreducible minima" standard was invented by those seeking to find some "legal' loophole by which to exculpate men they know to defect from one or more points of the Catholic Faith. The "irreducible minima" standard is a human invention that has no support in the writing of the Church Fathers and flies in the face of Catholic doctrine.

Pope Leo XIII made this about as clear as it could be made in Paragraph Nine of Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

There is no wiggle room here at all.

If one even "privately" dissents from one article contained in the Catholic Faith while holding, however tenuously, to others, he has expelled himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law.

Saint Francis de Sales had noted this same point over two hundred eighty years before:

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this, because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

A Catholic must hold to everything that is taught by Holy Mother Church as she has taught it without a shadow of change from time immemorial. To try to rationalize a supposed "pope's" defections from the Catholic Faith is to engage in the same kind of reinvention of Catholic doctrine that the conciliar "popes" have used to justify one condemned proposition after another. To contend that one can "sift" through the words and actions of a true pope is to make a mockery of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility by have recourse, even if by inadvertence, to the false principles of Gallicanism that were condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794, and mocked by Bishop Emil Bougaud, the Bishop of Laval, France, from 1887 to 1888:

6. The doctrine of the synod by which it professes that "it is convinced that a bishop has received from Christ all necessary rights for the good government of his diocese," just as if for the good government of each diocese higher ordinances dealing either with faith and morals, or with general discipline, are not necessary, the right of which belongs to the supreme Pontiffs and the General Councils for the universal Church,schismatic, at least erroneous.

7. Likewise, in this, that it encourages a bishop "to pursue zealously a more perfect constitution of ecclesiastical discipline," and this "against all contrary customs, exemptions, reservations which are opposed to the good order of the diocese, for the greater glory of God and for the greater edification of the faithful"; in that it supposes that a bishop has the right by his own judgment and will to decree and decide contrary to customs, exemptions, reservations, whether they prevail in the universal Church or even in each province, without the consent or the intervention of a higher hierarchic power, by which these customs, etc., have been introduced or approved and have the force of law,—leading to schism and subversion of hierarchic rule, erroneous.

8. Likewise, in that it says it is convinced that "the rights of a bishop received from Jesus Christ for the government of the Church cannot be altered nor hindered, and, when it has happened that the exercise of these rights has been interrupted for any reason whatsoever, a bishop can always and should return to his original rights, as often as the greater good of his church demands it"; in the fact that it intimates that the exercise of episcopal rights can be hindered and coerced by no higher power, whenever a bishop shall judge that it does not further the greater good of his church,—leading to schism, and to subversion of hierarchic government, erroneous. (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

The violent attacks of Protestantism against the Papacy, its calumnies and so manifest, the odious caricatures it scattered abroad, had undoubtedly inspired France with horror; nevertheless the sad impressions remained. In such accusations all, perhaps, was not false. Mistrust was excited., and instead of drawing closer to the insulted and outraged Papacy, France stood on her guard against it. In vain did Fenelon, who felt the danger, write in his treatise on the "Power of the Pope," and, to remind France of her sublime mission and true role in the world, compose his "History of Charlemagne." In vain did Bossuet majestically rise in the midst of that agitated assembly of 1682, convened to dictate laws to the Holy See, and there, in most touching accents, give vent to professions of fidelity and devotedness toward the Chair of St. Peter. We already notice in his discourse mention no longer made of the "Sovereign Pontiff." The "Holy See," the "Chair of St. Peter," the "Roman Church," were alone alluded to. First and alas! too manifest signs of coldness in the eyes of him who knew the nature and character of France! Others might obey through duty, might allow themselves to be governed by principle--France, never! She must be ruled by an individual, she must love him that governs her, else she can never obey.

These weaknesses should at least have been hidden in the shadow of the sanctuary, to await the time in which some sincere and honest solution of the misunderstanding could be given. But no! parliaments took hold of it, national vanity was identified with it. A strange spectacle was now seen. A people the most Catholic in the world; kings who called themselves the Eldest Sons of the Church and who were really such at heart; grave and profoundly Christian magistrates, bishops, and priests, though in the depths of their heart attached to Catholic unity,--all barricading themselves against the head of the Church; all digging trenches and building ramparts, that his words might not reach the Faithful before being handled and examined, and the laics convinced that they contained nothing false, hostile or dangerous. (Right Reverend Emile Bougaud, The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque. Published in 1890 by Benziger Brothers. Re-printed by TAN Books and Publishers, 1990, pp. 24-29.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and his fellow conciliar "revolutionaries" have given us plenty of proof by means of their words and deeds and "official" and "unofficial" statements that they belong to a false church, a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church. Their word and actions were condemned prospectively by pope after true pope, including by Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Saint Pius X, among so many others:

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church. (Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

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.)

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.)

Only someone who is willfully blind and/or intellectually dishonest can contend that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has not said and done things that are in direct violation of these solemn words.

Thus it is, you see, that one errs grievously by focusing on narrow aspects of conciliarism in the belief that "all" that has to be done is to "get rid" of this or that particular component part of it in order for things to improve in the Church Militant on earth. The church to which the conciliar officials belong is not the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, virginal Mystical Bride of Christ the King, her Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom. The Catholic Church cannot give us defective liturgies or erroneous doctrines. Her true popes do not enter into temples of false worship and praise such dens of the devil as "sacred," no less give "joint blessings" with the false clergy of false religions. Her true popes do not seek to made complex that which is simple, the truths of the Catholic Faith, and they do not seek to "demythologize" that which is part of the Deposit of Faith, and they do not blaspheme Christ the King, the Divine Founder and Invisible Head of the Catholic Church, by teaching that the Holy Mother Church has "flaws" or defects."

Go tell that to the blaspheming, heretical Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, who displays his training as a complete and very proud lay Jesuit revolutionary almost with ever single breath that he takes and in almost every single sentence that he utters. This proud, arrogant little man, who is so puffed up with the supposed righteousness of his Jansenist cause to "purify" and "simplify" the Catholic Church, has been making it perfectly clear even to the blindest of Catholics, that is, those who do not make a very handsome living from snookering other Catholics into thinking that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church or that the conciliar "popes" have remained as members therein despite their manifest heresies, that he holdeth not the Catholic Faith as It has been transmitted down to us by Holy Mother Church from Apostolic times under the infallible protection of the very Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Although Bergoglio/Francis's letter to atheist Eugenio Scalfari took up several days' worth of my time, I did manage to find the full English text of the false "pontiff's" "general audience" address of last Wednesday, September 11, 2013. There is, as per usual, a particularly deadly drop of poison contained in last week's "general audience" address. This one is so horrific as make it an extended commentary completely unnecessary. Indeed, one can ask whether the time has come to ask is any further commentary about this heretic is necessary at all.

Here is the deadly poisonous bilge found in Bergoglio/Francis's address of five days ago:

1. Above all a mother bears life, she carries her child in her womb for 9 months and then delivers him to life, giving birth to him. The Church is like this: she bears us in the faith, through the work of the Holy Spirit who makes her fertile, like the Virgin Mary. The Church and the Virgin Mary are mothers, both of them; what is said of the Church can be said also of Our Lady and what is said of Our Lady can also be said of the Church! Certainly faith is a personal act: “I believe”, I personally respond to God who makes himself known and wants to enter into friendship with me (cf. Lumen Fidei, n. 39). But the faith I receive from others, within a family, within a community that teaches me to say “I believe”, “we believe”. A Christian is not an island! We do not become Christians in a laboratory, we do not become Christians alone and by our own effort, since the faith is a gift, it is a gift from God who is given to us in the Church and through the Church. And the Church gives us the life of faith in Baptism: that is the moment in which she bears us as children of God, the moment she gives us the life of God, she engenders us as a mother would. If you go to the Baptistery of St John Lateran, beside the Pope's Cathedral, inside it there is an inscription in Latin which reads more or less: “Here is born a people of divine lineage, generated by the Holy Spirit who makes these waters life-giving; Mother Church gives birth to her children within these waves”. This makes us understand something important: our taking part in the Church is not an exterior or formal fact, it is not filling out a form they give us; it is an interior and vital act; one does not belong to the Church as one belongs to a society, to a party or to any other organization. The bond is vital, like the bond you have with your mother, because, as St Augustine says, “The Church is truly the mother of Christians” (De moribus Ecclesiae, I, 30, 62-63: PL 32, 1336). Let us ask ourselves: how do I see the Church? As I am grateful to my parents for giving me life, am I grateful to the Church for generating me in the faith through Baptism? How many Christians remember the date of their Baptism? I would like to ask you here, but each of you respond in you heart: how many of you remember the date of your Baptism? A few people raise their hands, but many others do not remember! But the date of your Baptism is the day of our birth in the Church, the date on which our mother Church gave us life! And now I leave you with some homework. When you go home today, go and find out what the date of your Baptism is, and then celebrate it, thank the Lord for this gift. Are you going to do it? Do we love the Church as we love our mothers, also taking into account her defects? All mothers have defects, we all have defects, but when we speak of our mother's defects we gloss over them, we love her as she is. And the Church also has her defects: but we love her just as a mother. Do we help her to be more beautiful, more authentic, more in harmony with the Lord? I leave you with these questions, but don't forget your homework: go find the date of your Baptism, carry it in your heart and celebrate it. (The Church Is A Mother.)

For those of you keeping score at home, here is the syllogism:

If (a) what is said of the Church be said also of Our Lady and (b) all mothers have defects, including Holy Mother Church, then (c) Our Lady must have defects.

No, this is not a "stretch." This does not do the false "pontiff" any kind of injustice. Words have meaning, including the words spoken by a false "pontiff."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is a despicable, blaspheming heretic. He is as proud as such heretics as Arius or Martin Luther or John Calvin. He thinks he knows it all even though he is only mouthing the same old blasphemous heresies that he learned during the days of formation as a lay Jesuit prior to his installation as a conciliar presbyter on December 13, 1969, the Feast of Saint Lucy.

First, yes, what can be said of Holy Mother Church can be said also of Our Lady.

Second, Our Lady is without any defects whatsoever as she enjoyed the gift of Perfect Integrity of body and soul as one of the doctrinal effects of her Immaculate Conception.

Consider the doctrinal testimony in this regard:

Accordingly, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the lily among thorns, the land entirely intact, the Virgin undefiled, immaculate, ever blessed, and free from all contagion of sin, she from whom was formed the new Adam, the flawless, brightest, and most beautiful paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God himself and protected against all the snares of the poisonous serpent, the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted, the fountain ever clear and sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit, the most holy temple, the treasure of immortality, the one and only daughter of life -- not of death -- the plant not of anger but of grace, through the singular providence of God growing ever green contrary to the common law, coming as it does from a corrupted and tainted root.

Explicit Affirmation . . .

As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely.[24] They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."[25]-unmistakable evidence that she was crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.

. . . Of a Super Eminent Sanctity

To these praises they have added very noble words. Speaking of the conception of the Virgin, they testified that nature yielded to grace and, unable to go on, stood trembling. The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

This doctrine so filled the minds and souls of our ancestors in the faith that a singular and truly marvelous style of speech came into vogue among them. They have frequently addressed the Mother of God as immaculate, as immaculate in every respect; innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness; more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit. God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.

Everyone is cognizant that this style of speech has passed almost spontaneously into the books of the most holy liturgy and the Offices of the Church, in which they occur so often and abundantly. In them, the Mother of God is invoked and praised as the one spotless and most beautiful dove, as a rose ever blooming, as perfectly pure, ever immaculate, and ever blessed. She is celebrated as innocence never sullied and as the second Eve who brought forth the Emmanuel. (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.)

1. The Blessed Virgin experienced no stirring of concupiscence since concupiscence is the result of original sin: wherefore the fomes of sin was fettered in the Virgin from the beginning, rather let us say it was entirely extinct.

2. The Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin, mortal or venial, as is plainly evident from the statement of the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more... or on the contrary that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema." (A. Tanquerey, A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Desclee, 1959, p. 102.)


There are no defects whatsoever in the Blessed Virgin Mary, she who is the Theotokos, the very Mother of God Himself. She was without any unruly or disorderly inclinations. She is the New Eve, the Ark of the New Covenant, the Mystical Rose, the Singular Vessel of Devotion. To even imply otherwise is to bring down the very wrath of God upon one's hand. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has clearly done this. Clearly.

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's predecessor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, gave personal approval to the using the Paul VI Audience Hall, which is just as hideous as was Paul The Sick, for the world premiere of a Protestant-produced motion picture, The Nativity Story, on Sunday, November 26, 2006, the First Sunday of Advent, after he had been given a personal screening of the film, which just happened to portray Our Lady as a sulk, moody and at time rebellious teenager.

Here is a contemporaneous review provided by Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Heckenkamp of the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success:

On December 2, 2006,  on the First Saturday of December, we went to the local movie theater to watch the movie “The Nativity.  Based on previous reviews of this movie that we had heard, and the fact that the Vatican2 held a premier showing of this movie, we were expecting a movie that at the very least held to Catholic beliefs.  However, from the very beginning of the movie we soon realized our high expectations had to be thrown into the trash, for as the movie progressed, we became more and more disappointed.  The overall conclusion of this movie is that it is not a catholic movie at all, but at best, a Protestant movie directed by men who did not even follow the Biblical account of the birth of Christ. At worst, it is a vile anti-Christian movie created by people who hate Christ and His Church and whose main motive was to defame the name of the Blessed Mother and warp the story of the Birth of Jesus.

As mentioned before this movie discredits our Catholic beliefs, beliefs that are so essential to our Faith that if we do not believe in them, the Church no longer considers us Catholic. What beliefs are these that have been maligned? It is those beliefs which we hold sacred: the Immaculate Conception and the Virgin Birth.

In one of the very first scenes of the movie, Mary is shown with her friends, sowing a field of what looks to be corn.  These friends of Mary give sideways glances and smiles to each other after looking at a group of boys that are nearby.  Then one of these girls runs to tackle one of the boys and what ensues appears to be a pile up of youths in the cornfield with Mary sort of participating in on the outer edges of this entanglement.  Then from the house emerges Mary’s mother looking stern and upset.  She calls to Mary and shakes her head “No.”   The fact that Mary looks to have been participating in some kind of impropriety and had to be corrected by her mother is beyond belief but this is only one occurrence of “sinning” on the part of Mary.  For throughout the first part of the movie, Mary is depicted as any normal 14 year old given to sullen, sulky moods.  This movie shows her to be unhappy with the future marriage that is being arranged for her by her parents (which we know to be historically incorrect).  She walks out of her house in defiance when her father tells her that she is now betrothed to Joseph. These scenes call into question the dogma of the Immaculate Conception issued by Pope Pius IX in 1854. 

It also was implied in the betrothal scene that Mary and Joseph planned on a large family as Mary’s parents indicated that they were to live as husband and wife in every way for one year except for that one act that would produce a family.  Joseph began building the home for Mary and their future children indicating Joseph was planning on having many children.    This is in line with the Protestant viewpoint that Mary and Joseph had many children after Jesus and counters the Catholic Church as it has always taught that both Mary and Joseph took vows of virginity and mutually consented to live as virgins in the married state.

The scene of Annunciation was not anything that a catholic would contemplate while saying the rosary.  They depicted Mary reclining under a tree in the middle of the day while others were around her working.  What is supposed to be the “Archangel Gabriel” is first shown as a hawk and then as a man with an Afro-like hairstyle and white robe looking as if he could be a son of Cheech or Chong. The “angel” had no mystical or holy appearance and he is shown at quite a distance from Mary.  The portrayal makes you wonder if he’s truly Heaven sent.

The Visitation was portrayed as an excuse to run away from her “intended”, Joseph. A way out all of it- as if the whole idea of the coming of Our Lord and the idea of marriage was too much for her. The Magnificat was left out of this scene; however it was partially narrated at the end of the movie omitting the first half of this beautiful prayer:

“ My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my savior; Because he has regarded the lowliness of his handmaid; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because he who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is his name; And his mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear him...”

You can be certain, upon looking at these omitted words, just why they were omitted and the intentions of the creators of this vile cinematography!

The birth of Saint John was very degrading.   This scene is about two minutes long, depicting Elizabeth holding her upper body up off a chair by holding onto ropes, screaming from pain while two women are ready to receive the child. She delivers, while Mary, with a horrified look on her face, stands by watching.   This scene is not suitable for children to watch.

During Mary’s absence at Elizabeth’s, Saint Joseph was portrayed as being upset that Mary left.  Also were included, implications that Joseph did not expect Mary to come back, as in one scene where he was deep in thought pondering his future with Mary holding his carpenter tools – then suddenly with a look of frustration and anger, he throws his tools to the ground.  Saintly behavior for sure!

When Mary had returned to Nazareth, Joseph was excited to see her. However, on lifting her from the wagon he discovered that she was heavy with child and walked away upset.  Mary tried to convince her parents and Joseph that she was not pregnant due to another man but that “an angel” appeared to her and told her she was going to have a baby.  There was no evidence of any of the three believing Mary.  It was implied that Joseph was ready to stone Mary until he had a vision through a dream (with that “angel” again) that Mary was telling the truth.

The traveling of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem was the best of all scenes in the movie.  But even during this trip there was an occurrence that was disturbing.  While Mary and Joseph were walking through a market of a town, a palm reading woman offered Mary a small piece of cheese or bread which Mary accepted but then this sorceress read Mary’s palm and claimed she was going to have a son. Mary accepted this prophecy with a smile and Joseph shook the woman’s hand, thanked her and then they continued their journey.  The implication was that Joseph and Mary had no objection to fortunetellers.

The scene of the Nativity was extremely heretical. Besides this grave evil, again we find it necessary to say that this movie should not be viewed by children.  Mary was shown to be in labor while she was in the town of Bethlehem.  Joseph rushed around carrying Mary in a frantic state trying to find a room for her as she groaned and breathed heavily as if she had taken Lamaze lessons.  The worst of the worst occurs once they arrive at the stable with Joseph kneeling ready to deliver the baby.  He partially lifts Mary’s dress putting his hands between her legs ready to receive the child.   Mary is laboring, her face sweating and in extreme pain with all of the normal actions of a woman in a delivery room and then she gives birth.  Joseph raises Jesus in the air showing the baby covered with blood and Joseph laughs for joy totally discrediting belief in the Virgin Birth. There is no sign of worship or adoration by either Mary or Joseph. 

Therefore this was not only a Protestant view of the Nativity but also indirectly an act of disbelief in the Divinity of Jesus. There was no indication that Mary and Joseph believed Jesus to be God. 

Meanwhile, the Archangel Gabriel (yes, that same “angel”) appears to one shepherd to inform him of the birth.  There are no other angels that appear as stated in St. Luke’s Gospel “And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying glory to god and the highest on earth peace among men of good will.”


One by one, the shepherds seem to be leaving their sheep in a “zombie-like trance” and seen walking NOT RUNNING toward the star as it would seem natural to do considering they received this great news from a heavenly vision of great beauty!  There was no joy exhibited in this scene by these shepherds.  It only looked as if these guys were told to walk to this cave and stare at something…  When the shepherds arrive at the stable Mary is seen reclining and holding the child; he is not lying in the manger.  None of the shepherds worship or adore the child and they arrived simultaneously with the three Kings. Who neither appear to be worshipping him.  Then there is this GREAT pause in the movie as we look on at this living Nativity Scene. Some kind of cold, blue lighting is glaring on Baby Jesus that causes him to keep his eyes closed.  Surely they could have done better than this!

This was to be the culmination of the greatest act of love – God becoming Man to die for us!  And yet this movie could not convey even a hint of this profound act of God. 

 And so it is, with all of these facts exposed for your examination, we refute and condemn this movie, “The Nativity.”

Since these cinematographers (who incidentally were the same ones that produced “The Lord of the Rings Trilogy” and had well within their grasp the ability and capability to make a work that would honor Our Lady and Our Lord instead of dishonor them) offended and blasphemed in a seemingly intentional way the Immaculate Heart of Mary in not just one way but ALL FIVE ways that Our Lady had mentioned in her apparitions to Sr Lucia of Fatima, we sincerely hope and pray that our small effort to undo this travesty will help those of you who read this to know the truth and join us in making reparation for this movie by  following the directives of the Queen of Heaven:

Look, my daughter, at my Heart, surrounded with thorns with which ungrateful men pierce at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console me and say that I promise to assist, at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, shall confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the intention of making reparation to me.’”


What is, of course, interesting to note is that it is evidently the case that none of the conciliarist officials, including the now-deceased John "Cardinal" Foley, the "president" of the "Pontifical" Council for Social Communications from April 5, 1984, to the time of his death on December 11, 2011, who viewed The Nativity Story (either when it was presented to them via a DVD or in the "premiere" at the Paul VI Audience Hall on November 26) had any objections to the film's doctrinal problems.

It is evidently the case that none believed that Our Lady or Saint Joseph or Saint Elizabeth, who scream at Our Lady at one point in the film (according to a report sent to me by another reader), were blasphemed in the motion picture, although it is probably the case that some low-ranking curial officials, one of whom was in seminary with me a quarter of a century ago and is now a conciliar "bishop" of a Midwestern diocese, recognized the blasphemies but were afraid to speak out publicly for fear of blowing their chances to become "bishops" in the conciliar structures. Most of the conciliar officials who congratulate themselves endlessly on the "new springtime of the church" they have helped to create and sustain walked out of the Paul VI Audience Hall on November 26, 2006, after the completion of The Nativity Story without thinking for a single moment that anything in it that was opposed to Faith and Morals.

The gift of Our Lady's Perfect Integrity was also put into question by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in his "unofficial" book, released under the name of Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives.

Ratzinger/Benedict was able to describe Our Lady in terms that do not correspond to the doctrinal effects of her Immaculate Conception as he did not have any conception of the horror of Original Sin (as it is taught dogmatically by Holy Mother Church), which rent asunder man's relationship with God and with his fellow men as it overthrew the delicate balance between our higher, rational faculties and our lower, sensual passions, and the privileges according to the fairest flower of our race precisely because she was preserved from all stain of Original Sin. This explained not only Ratzinger/Benedict's endorsement of The Nativity Story. It also explains the following passage he wrote in Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives:


Mary's response, which we will consider now, unfolds in three steps. To begin with, in reaction to an angel's greeting she is troubled and pensive. Her reaction is different from Zechariah's. Of him it is said that he was troubled an "fear fell upon him" (Lk. 1:12). In Mary's case the first word is the same (she was troubled), but what follows is not fear but an interior reflection on the angel's greeting. She ponders (dialogues within herself) over what the greeting of God's messenger could mean. So one salient feature of the image of the mother of Jesus is already present here, and we will encounter it again in two similar situations in the Gospel: her inner engagement with the word (cf. Lk. 2:19, 51).

She does not remain locked in her initial troubled state at the proximity of God in his angel, but she seeks to understand. So Mary appears as a fearless woman, one who remains composed even in the presence of something utterly unprecedented. At the same time she stands before us as a woman of great interiority, who holds heart and mind in harmony and seeks to understand the context, the overall significance of God's message. In this way, she becomes an image of the Church as she considers the word of God, tries to understand in its entirety and guards in her memory the things that have been given to her. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives. Translated by Philip J. Whitmore and published by Image, an imprint of Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, 2012, pp. 33-34.)


This is an example of what I termed as Ratzinger/Benedict's Practical Paganism nine months ago.

That is, the passage from Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives is a projection onto Our Lady of what the now-retired false "pontiff" believes to have been the case. He thus attempted, quite blasphemously, I hasten to add, to make Our Lady a perjured witness in behalf conciliarism by using such phrases as "dialogues within herself" and by referring to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, which Holy Mother Church has always had the infallible protection of God the Holy Ghost to interpret and teach, as but a "memory." This is nothing other than pure rationalism as there is no discussion whatsoever of the illumination that Our Lady had received prior to the Annunciation, an illumination of which countless saints have written in the most eloquent and inspirational of terms imaginable.

As bad was Ratzinger/Benedict's attempt to transform Our Lady into a caricature of the Modernist mind, the section that followed in his book was a direct denial of Perfect Integrity of body and soul as well as an assault upon the whole doctrine of Our Lady's Perpetual Virginity as defined and taught by Holy Mother Church, thereby placing the false "pontiff" in the same blasphemous, heretical camp as his countryman Gerhard Ludwig Miller, the man he picked to serve as the prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (see Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part two, Daft? Deft Is More Like It, part three, Does The Defense of Catholic Truth Matter To You?, When Will The Madness End?, part one and Memo To Bishop Fellay: Ratzinger/Benedict Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Loves Gerhard Ludwig Muller).

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has no regard for doctrine as he is just as much as a rationalist as Ratzinger/Benedict himself, projecting onto the Catholic Faith and thus onto Christ the King Himself whatever his revolutionary mind conjures up as being in accord with his personal inclinations at the moment.

The conciliar "popes" have been and continue to be blasphemers and heretics, yes, each and every single one of them.

Third, The Catholic Church teaches us infallibly that she is the spotless, virginal Mystical Spouse of her Divine Founder, Bridegroom and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Consider the doctrinal testimony in this regard:

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

39. But our Divine Savior governs and guides the Society which He founded directly and personally also. For it is He who reigns within the minds and hearts of men, and bends and subjects their wills to His good pleasure, even when rebellious. "The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever he will, he shall turn it."By this interior guidance He, the "Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,"not only watches over individuals but exercises His providence over the universal Church, whether by enlightening and giving courage to the Church's rulers for the loyal and effective performance of their respective duties, or by singling out from the body of the Church -- especially when times are grave -- men and women of conspicuous holiness, who may point the way for the rest of Christendom to the perfecting of His Mystical Body. Moreover from heaven Christ never ceases to look down with especial love on His spotless Spouse so sorely tried in her earthly exile; and when He sees her in anger, saves her from the tempestuous sea either Himself or through the ministry of His angels, or through her whom we invoke as the Help of Christians, or through other heavenly advocates, and in calm and tranquil waters comforts her with the peace "which surpasseth all understanding." (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)


Defects in the Catholic Church?


Flaws in the Catholic Church?


The sins of Holy Mother Church's children are not imputable to she who is the spotless, mystical Divine Spouse of her Divine Founder, Bridegroom and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:


65.For this reason We deplore and condemn the pernicious error of those who dream of an imaginary Church, a kind of society that finds its origin and growth in charity, to which, somewhat contemptuously, they oppose another, which they call juridical. But this distinction which they introduce is false: for they fail to understand that the reason which led our Divine Redeemer to give to the community of man He founded the constitution of a Society, perfect of its kind and containing all the juridical and social elements -namely, that He might perpetuate on earth the saving work of Redemption-- was also the reason why He willed it to be enriched with the heavenly gifts of the Paraclete. The Eternal Father indeed willed it to be the "kingdom of the Son of his predilection;" but it was to be a real kingdom, in which all believers should make Him the entire offering of their intellect and will,and humbly and obediently model themselves on Him, Who for our sake "was made obedient unto death."There can, then, be no real opposition or conflict between the invisible mission of the Holy Spirit and the juridical commission of Ruler and Teacher received from Christ, since they mutually complement and perfect each other -- as do the body and soul in man -- and proceed from our one Redeemer who not only said as He breathed on the Apostles "Receive ye the Holy Spirit,"but also clearly commanded: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you"; and again: "He that heareth you heareth me."

66. And if at times there appears in the Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual, which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; and with the brave heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing them back to spiritual health. When therefore we call the Body of Jesus Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo: "Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a member." (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is a thoroughly deplorable human being, and those who who are in a position to speak out in defense of the holy integrity of the Catholic Faith and of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church while at the same time refusing to come to the defense of the Blessed Virgin Mary stand condemned by the following words of Pope Saint Leo the Great:


But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

This is, of course, a chastisement for our sins, for our own infidelities, for our own lukewarmness, for our own lack of steadfastness in prayer, especially to the Mother of God. We need to pray many Rosaries of reparation now that these additional offenses have been given to God by the false "pontiff." whose "official" and "unofficial" words deceive Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

We need, therefore, to make much reparation for these sins as we seek always to make reparation for our own sins as we entrust to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary the needs of the present moment.

On the day after the Feast of the Seven Sorrows of Our Lady in September, it would be good for each of us to pray this prayer of reparation to the Mother of Sorrows in order to avert the anger of God in these times of heresy, blasphemy and sacrilege:


O Mother of Sorrows, who from thy very infancy didst most ardently wish that the time of the redemption of mankind might be hastened, and who, when become the Mother of God, didst with admirable heroism offer for death thy only Son and thyself with Him, that the reign of sin might be destroyed; look down, we entreat thee, on this miserable world; and see how prevalent iniquity is everywhere, and how many unfortunate souls are bound with the chains of sin. The flood of infidelity, blasphemy, and immorality is rising daily, and seems as if it would submerge the whole world. How dreadful are the chastisements we may fear! How terrible the divine vengeance will be ! How awful to bear the wrath with which Jesus will be moved against those who insult and reject Him! O most blessed Virgin, have compassion on us, intercede for us; do not forsake thy mission of reconciliation, but show that thou art still most anxious to save sinners. Stand in the sight of thy divine Son to speak good for them, and to turn away His indignation from them. Remind Him that for them He Himself shed His most precious Blood to the last drop, and ended His life in the most excruciating torments; remind Him of the anguish, the desolation, the agony of thine Immaculate Heart. Will He resist thy prayers, they supplications, thy sighs? No! He will be moved to mercy, and in the excess of His love will pour down the abundance of His graces to soften the hearts of hardened sinners. The, filled with sorrow, will they shed tears of compunction and return to their Lord; then iniquity will cease, faith, and religion, and purity will flourish again, and a canticle of praise to the God of mercies, and of gratitude to thee, our most loving Mother, will be raised from all parts of the earth. Amen. (To Avert the Anger of God, found in the section of Prayers to Our Lady of Sorrow in a Catholic prayer book, p. 282. Full citation to be provided later today after getting the publication information from the book, which is not near this computer at this writing at 2:18 a.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time.)

This is a very fine prayer to say now, right now, in reparation for the blasphemies and heresies of the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis as well as for our own many sins that have worsened the state of the world-at-large and of the Church Militant here on earth, she who is as virginal and spotless and without any kind of flaws or defects whatsoever as the Blessed Virgin Mary herself, Our Mother of Sorrows.

We must, of course, continue to remember that this is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us to be alive. He has work for us to do. Let us do this work with courage and valor as we never count the cost of being humiliated for the sake of defending the integrity of Faith, as we never cease our prayers for the conversion of all people, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and his fellow conciliarists, to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Mother of Sorrows, pray for us.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saints Cornelius and Cyprian, pray for us.

Saints Euphemia, Lucy and Geminia, pray for us.


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