Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
March 5, 2013


"You Have Nothing To Do But Read The Bible"

by Thomas A. Droleskey

"Father" Michael Collins, a conciliar presbyter who is a consultant to the Fox News Channel, explained why he believed the upcoming conclave to elect the next Universal Public Face of Apostasy would not not last more than one or two days:

“These guys … don’t want to be away from their mobile phones and computers that long, it’s going to be very boring,” Collins said of being stuck in the hotel during the election process. “You have nothing to do but read the bible. They will be anxious to show they are united.” (Secret politics beyond the conclave.)

“These guys … don’t want to be away from their mobile phones and computers that long, it’s going to be very boring. You have nothing to read but the bible."

As a dear friend of ours would say, "Now that's a statement for you."

Indeed, that is quite a statement.

Forgetting that most the translations of Holy Writ that will be in the rooms that the apostate "cardinals" will be using while living in the Casa Santa Marta during the upcoming conclave will be filled with errors of one sort or another, it is a pretty sad statement for a putative priest to say that the apostate "cardinals" will "have nothing to read but the bible."

Ah, how is that boring?

What about praying Rosaries, "Father" Collins?

What about spending time in a prayer in the casa's chapel, presuming that there is a chapel located within its walls, albeit one that would be without the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament?


The state of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has become so abysmal that the men who believe themselves to be, albeit falsely, Princes of the Catholic Church, have become such slaves to their mobile phones and computers that it will be a veritable torture for them to be sequestered without having access to the devices, which, quite perhaps, they check to see who is saying what about in the media and on the internet.

No, my friends, Auditioning To Be The Next Universal Face of Apostasy was not far from the truth.

Who was among the first to arrive yesterday at the Paul The Sick audience hall. You got it? None other than the "happy bishop" himself, seen below in all of his real-life largeness:




Showing that God has a wonderful sense of humor, in addition to sending a few warning signals to the "cardinals" and to "His Apostateness, Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus," the headline of the New York Post article in which this photograph of Timothy Michael Dolan appeared was "'Fake' bishop gatecrashes top secret meeting as cardinals prepare for pope vote."

It turns out that a professional imposter named Ralph Napierski attempted to crash the first meeting of the "general congregation" that will be held daily to let each "cardinal" speak for seven minutes about his "vision" for the One World Ecumenical Church of Conciliarism. Well, I have got a bit of news for the New York Post headline writer: All but two of the clowns who are so attached to their electronic devices who were huddled together yesterday are just as fake "bishops" as Ralph Napierski.

While it is certainly true that a number of factors have influenced true cardinal-electors over the centuries, it is also true that the conciliar "cardinal"-electors are so far removed from the sensus Catholicus that one of the considerations many of them seem to think is part of the "papal" "job description" is to be "strong enough" to travel widely around the world.

To do what?

Spread error?

Utter more blasphemies?

Commit the sort of sacrileges that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did for over a quarter of a century and that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did right here in the United States of America on Thursday, April 17, 2008, when he personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions with his own priestly hands that almost no one in the "resist but recognize" movement, save for a few scattered exceptions, dared even to acknowledge took place or that it was offensive to God and harmful to souls and thus prima facie proof that their "dear 'pope'" who "suffered" so much to "restore Tradition" was nothing other than an apostate of the first order?

To do what?

To continue institutionalizing the conciliar revolution, including the nature of what most people in the world think is the papacy, which is as I explained in Whittling Away At The Last Catholic Bastion thirteen days precisely what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, ever the revolutionary, desired to do by resigning. The subject of "papal" "term limits" is now "on the table" (see Benedict's Decision May Affect Future Antipopes), that's what.

By contrast--and it is quite a contrast, good Catholic friends, consider the election of a true pope nearly one hundred ten years ago, consider the process, certainly filled with a mixture of considerations, that resulted in Heaven's favor being bestowed upon a man, Pope Saint Pius X, who knew how to govern Holy Mother Church and to denounce the very errors that the clownish apostates who are impersonating "cardinals" and "bishops" and "priests" believe are at the essence of the Catholic Faith:

The electors entered into the Conclave on Friday, July 31 [1903], at 5 p.m. in the afternoon. The cardinals could be accompanied only by two persons, before whom they were to maintain the most absolute secrecy: a “conclavist” and a “noble guard.” Cardinal Sarto chose his secretary Msgr. Bressan, as his conclavist and Count Stanislao Muccioli as his noble guard.

In charge of the conclave was the Dean of the Sacred College and Camerlengo, Cardinal Oreglia di San Stefano, the only living cardinal created by Pius IX. Msgr. Merry del Val, president of the Academy of Noble Ecclesiastics, was secretary to the Conclave. Msgr. Cagiador De Azevedo and Prince Mario Chigi were respectively governor and marshal of the Conclave.

Sixty-two Cardinals assembled in the Sistine Chapel to take the oath. The Sistine Chapel served both as a place of prayer and as a room for counting the ballot-papers. As 8 p.m. approached, the ceremonial officers went through the corridors giving the traditional cry extra omnes (“everyone out!”) while Cardinal Oreglia and his assistants made sure that all the doors were closed and all openings were walled-up, so that there could be no communications between the cardinals and the outside world. [Droleskey interjection: Many of the conciliar "cardinals would have to have "extra omnes" translated for them as Latin is a completely foreign tongue to many of their number.]

The following day Cardinal Sarto told his secretary that he had not been not been able to sleep. He had passed a great part of the night in prayer. On the morning of the first day, after the Mass called “of communion” –the cardinals did not say the Mass, but assisted at the Mass celebrated by the Cardinal Dean and received Communion from his hand –the first vote took place.

The election to the Sovereign Pontificate cannot be compared to the political elections which take place in democracies. While there can be meetings between cardinals before they enter into Conclave and during it, there is no “election campaign” –or at least there should not be. There are no candidates, promises, or pacts –or at least there should not be. Before each vote, the cardinal take an oath on the Gospel to vote according to each vote, the cardinals, take an oath on the Gospel to vote according to their consciences; “I call Christ to witness, who will one day be my Judge, that I am voting for the one whom, before God, I believe to be most worthy to be elected.” There is a further difference: the election does not proceed according to a simple majority of votes. To be elected, the future pope needs to have gained at least two-thirds of the votes. The new pope must not appear to have been elected by one camp in opposition to another: there should be the greatest possible consensus.

Historically, Conclaves have been longer or shorter. Three ballots were necessary to elect Leo XIII, and seven were required to elect him who would take the name Pius X. The course of the Conclave which elected the latter is well known, from the accounts given by several of the participants, in writings published very soon after the Conclave or posthumously: the French Cardinals Mathieu and Perraud, the conclavist Maurice Landrieux, the Conclave secretary Merry del Val. To these sources we can add the reconstruction made by the “authorized” biographer, Machesan.

The results obtained by the three principals “candidates” over seven ballots can be shown thus:





Aug 1                 Aug. 2                      Aug 3                 Aug 4
a.m.    p.m.         a.m.      p.m.            a.m.   p.m.            a.m.


Rampolla                                               24       29            29       30            24        16                    10
Gotti                                                      17        16             9          3              6          7                     2
Sarto                                                        5        10            21        24           27         35                 50

For the sake of completeness it should be noted that Cardinals Serafino Vannutelli, Oreglia di San Stefano, Capecelatro, Di Pietro, Agliardi, Ferrata, Cassetta, Portanova, Segna, Tripepi and Richelmy each received one or more votes in the first or succeeding ballots. But they never figured among the favourites and in the seventh and last ballots only Cardinals Sarto, Rampolla, and Gotti entered the lists. Sarto had obtained 5 votes in the first ballot, then 10 in the second, which prompted him to say, in Latin, to his neighbor, Cardinal Lecot: “Volunt jocare super nomen meum” (they are having a joke at my expense).

Until the fifth ballot Rampolla had been the best placed “candidate,” at least the one with the most votes. For many non-ecclesiastical observers, and for a certain number of cardinals, as we have said, he was the obvious candidate to succeed Leo XIII since people were sure that he would pursue the policies of the Pope whom he had served as Secretary of State. This explains the high number of votes cast in his favor in the first ballots. Relatively little attention, however, has been paid to the fact that the increase in his vote, from one ballot to another, was not impressive. From the second to the third ballot he stagnated at 29, a sign that his name was encountering strong opposition at the heart of the Sacred College and that he had perhaps reached his maximum possible. At this point, before the fourth ballot, there took place what has come to be known as Cardinal Puzyna’s “veto.”

Cardinal Puzyna, Prince Kozielsko, Bishop of Cracow (at that time within the Austrian Empire), rose to read a declaration in Latin. He declared “. . . officially and in the name and by the authority of Franz-Josef, Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, that His Majesty, in virtue of an ancient right and privilege, pronounces the veto of exclusion against my Most Eminent Lord, Cardinal Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro.”

Cardinal Puzyna has spoken very quickly, with much emotion. Many cardinals has not understood what his declaration meant, and some has not even heard it completely. An Italian cardinal therefore read the declaration again in a clear voice. Everyone grasped that a veto has been entered against Cardinal Rampolla.

None of the participants at the Conclave, in the written accounts we have cited, have given the reasons which caused Austria to utter this veto. Nor did the first biographers of Pius X risk speculating on the reason for this exclusion of the former Secretary of State to Leo XIII. Since that time, historians have advanced reasons of a political nature. Austria was dissatisfied with the support given by the former Secretary of State to the aspirations of Slavs in the Balkans, and Cardinal Puzyna himself has accursed Rampolla of having sacrificed the interests of Poles to his pro-Russian policies.

Some of his criticism is echoed in the reports of French diplomats at the time of the election. Just as the Conclave was about to begin. Bihourd, French ambassador to Berlin, wrote to his governments: “What the Austro-Hungarian government is most afraid of it the possible success of Cardinal Rampolla. In Vienna it is feared that his election would only encourage Slavs in Croatia, Carniola, Bohemia and other parts of the Monarchy. . . After the election, however, France’s consul-general in Hungary would give a further reason: “It is not so much the hostility of the former Secretary of State vis-a-vis the Triple Alliance which brought about this direct intervention from Austria, as his obstinate thwarting on several occasions, of the wishes of Hungary,” and he gave as examples the difficulties encountered with regard to episcopal appointments in Hungary and its rejection–opposed by the Holy See–of the Empire’s desire to see the cardinalate given to Msgr. Samossa.

Certain other writers have advance another reason for the Austrian veto, a strictly religious reason: “Cardinal Rampolla is supposed to have been a Freemason. At the time there was never any mention of this, neither in ‘diplomatic’ reports nor in the writings of the Conclave participants, nor even by the “integrists” of La Sapiniere. Only after the pontificate of Pius X did this rumor begin to spread. We can imagine that if there has been the least suspicion on this subject in 1903, Cardinal Sarto, once he had become Pope, would have removed Cardinal Rampolla. However while he lost the post of Secretary of State, [Rampolla] kept most of his other offices under the pontificate of Pius X, and even acquired new ones. Furthermore we shall see that, if he only exercised a second order role, it was because he voluntarily went into semi-retirement.

At this moment, however, faced with the veto entered against him, Cardinal Rampolla rose and replied, calmly, in Latin: “In the name of the principles I protest against this attack on the liberty and dignity of the Sacred College. As far as my own person is concerned, I declare that nothing more agreeable and honorable (nihil jucundius, nihil honorabilius) could happen to me.” Oreglia, the Cardinal Dean made a declaration protesting against this alien intervention and asserted that the Conclave would maintain its complete liberty. Later Cardinal Perraud, on behalf of the French Cardinals, made his protest too.

Initially this Austrian veto had no effect since, in the fourth ballot, Cardinal Rampolla continued to have the most votes, even if he had only gained one vote more that in the previous ballot and was far from obtaining the required two-thirds of all votes. In contrast Cardinal Sarto continued to advance smoothly. He received 24 votes in this fourth ballot and 27 in the next –the highest number of votes for any cardinal in this fifth ballot. It became more and more certain that he would be elected to the Sovereign Pontificate.

The election of a cardinal to the Sovereign Pontificate is always the result of many considerations, political and spiritual. If Sarto was elected, it was because there was broad agreement on his name. Not that a great majority of cardinals shared the same view of him but, rather, there was an accumulation of the various reasons they individually had for wanting him Pope. Gianpaolo Romanato summarized these reasons thus:





The Patriarch of Venice seemed to be the most satisfactory person. His biographical traits represented a kind of guarantee. He was a man of the people, very humble and not of the nobility; he had been born, not in the Papal States but in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venice; he had never served as a pontifical diplomat; he was a discreetly cultured man, but not an intellectual; he had spent his entire career in the cure of souls; it was known that, if necessary, he knew how to command and make himself obeyed. Furthermore he was known for his deep piety ; he was totally aloof from the Roman lobbies and devoid of personal interest. And last but not least, he was exactly the right age (68) to give everyone the necessary guarantees of discernment and prudence.

In short, in many ways he was the anti-Rampolla. Up until the veto, the Conclave had been largely a reflection of the struggles for influence between the great power-blocks. The Austrian veto had scandalized many cardinals and had made them see that the criteria for choosing a successor to St. Peter should be essentially religious ones. It is also possible that, even if the Conclave participants did not yet have sufficient information to assess all the results of Leo XIII’s pontificate, they did have some of his weaknesses in mind. While the social encyclicals of Leo XIII, his prestige with certain governments and his encouragement of a Christian intellectual renewal [notably through a return to Thomist philosophy and the renewal of biblical studies ] were to his credit, the most attentive observers could not fail to see the problems that had remained unsolved: the inadequate formation of the Italian clergy and its laxity, the growing laicization of consciences and states, the first sign of Modernism, etc. By giving their votes increasingly to Cardinal Sarto, the cardinals of the 1903 Conclave, evidently, wanted to break with a certain kind of pontificate and a certain mode in which the Church presented herself to the world. Without crudely exaggerating the differences-for there was continuity too-we can say that the cardinals wanted to see a pre-eminently political pope succeeded by a religious pope who would bring the Church ‘back to the centre’-the centre being Christ-by uniting the Christian people on the basis of discipline and the defence of the faith.

Cardinal Sarto, however, did not aspire to the Sovereign Pontificate. There is a wealth of detailed evidence to the effect that he was not acting out of a feigned humility; nor is this picture the result of hagiographical rewriting after the event. As the votes rose for the Patriarch of Venice, so did his apprehension. After the fourth ballot he declared ‘that he was not made for the Papacy, and that people had been using his name without consulting him." Several cardinals came to his cell to encourage not to reject the pontifical office if it fell to him. Cardinal Sartolli repeated to him Christ's words to Saint Peter, walking on the water: "Ego sum, nolite timere!" and, smile, told him: "God who helped you to steer St. Mark's gondola will help you to steer St. Peter's barque." After the fifth ballot it seemed that the movement in favor of the Patriarch of Venice could go on from strength to strength. But, as the conclavist Landrieux reports, "after the ballot," Sarto got up and declared that he was unworthy of the choice which so making were making of him, and begged them to vote for others."

Cardinal Sarto's scruples and refusals were so insistent that the Cardinal Dean, Oreglia di San Stefano, asked Msgr. Merry del Val to go and see him. Msgr. Merry del Val has given an account of this first meeting with the man whose principal collaborator he was to be:


His Eminence (Cardinal Oreglia di San Stefano) felt bound in conscience to ensure that things should not drag on, and he sent me to Cardinal Sarto to ask whether he was insisting on his refusal and, if so, did he wish and authorize the Cardinal Dean to make a public and definitive declaration of this fact to the Conclave during the afternoon session. In this case the Cardinal Dean would invite his colleagues to reflect and at least consider the possibility of applying their choice to another candidate.

I left immediately to look for Cardinal Sarto. I had been told that he was not in his room and that I would probably find him in the Paolina chapel.

It was close to midnight when I entered the silent, shadowy chapel...

I noticed a cardinal kneeling on the marble floor near the altar, lost in prayer, his head in his hands, and his elbows resting on a little bench.

It was Cardinal Sarto.

I knelt beside him and , in a low voice, gave him the message with which I had been entrusted.

His Eminence, as soon as he had understood me, raised his eyes and slowly turned his head towards me, with tears pouring from his eyes....

"Yes, yes, Monsignore," he said gently, "as the Cardinal Dean to do me this charity...."

The only words I had the strength to utter, which came to my lips spontaneously, were:

"Eminence, have courage, the Lord will help you!"

When Pius X wrote, in the first lines of his first encyclical, "It is unnecessary to tell you with what tears and ardent prayers We tried to avert from Us the heavy responsibility of the Supreme Pontificate," it was no ere customary form words.

Meanwhile, Cardinal Sarto had recovered from his apprehensions. Other cardinals, notably Cardinals Ferrari and Satolli, came to make "a pressing appeal to his conscience, to persuade him to accept the sacrifice." Cardinal Rampolla, despite the fact that his votes were crumbling, maintained his candidature. He did so, he said, "as a matter of principle" and was acting "on the formal advice of his confessor." This attitude ultimately delayed the election of Cardinal Sarto. It seemed, after various approaches reported by Cardinal Perraud, that Rampolla's obstinacy was a deliberate tactic of obstruction against Sarto.

Finally, in the ballot--the seventh--on the morning of August 4, Cardinal Sarto received 50 votes, against only 10 for Cardinal Rampolla and 2 for Cardinal Gotti. "Cardinal Sarto was crushed," Cardinal Mathieu records: "his eyes were full of tears, drops of sweat were like pearls on his cheeks, and he seemed close to fainting." According to the ritual, Cardinal Oreglia, the Dean of the Sacred College, went up to him with two other cardinals, to ask the newly-elected:



"Do you accept the election which canonically makes you Sovereign Pontiff?"

Cardinal Sarto replied, humbly:

"Quoniam calix non ptest transire, fait voluntas Dei!" (Since I cannot be spared this chalice, may God's will be done)."

This was not the canonically correct reply, Cardinal Oreglia asked again:

"Do you accept or not?"

Then Cardinal Sarto replied with the required formula:


And when he was asked what name he wished henceforth to bear, he declared: 

Pius Deicimus (Pius X)."

He then explained that he was choosing this name in memory of the "holy pontiffs who have borne this name, and of those who, in recent times, have been persecuted for the Church...."

For a moment the new Pope had considered taking the name Benedict XV in memory of Blessed Benedict XI,a pope of the 14th century, who was also from the diocese of Treviso. But the series of popes named "Pius" commended itself to him by the great courage and determination shown by the more recent bearers of that name. Pius VI was hounded out of Rome by French troops, and died in exile in 1799; Pius VII, elected under difficult conditions in Venice in 1800, was also carried off by force into France; Pius IX, forced by revolutionaries to leave Rome in 1848 and then robbed of the Papal States in 1870, the people who considered himself "the prisoner of the Vatican" until his death. (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, pp. 124-127.)


There are no budding Saint Pius X's amongst the conciliar "cardinals" who are immersed in the new ecclesiology, the "new theology," the "new liturgy," false ecumenism, episcopal collegiality, feminism, collectivism, redistributionism, evolutionism, environmentalism, separation of Church and State, religious liberty, the "hermeneutic of continuity," and the "historical-critical" method of Scriptural deconstructionism. Got all that? Good. In other words, they hath not the Catholic Faith.

Who says so?

Let's try Pope Leo XIII once again:




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.)

So much for the utterly absurd claim that there are a "irreducible minima" of truths by which anyone, no less one of the conciliar "popes," can hold and thus remain a member of the Catholic Church even though he denies or puts into question many others. It does not get much clearer, does it?

That is why the events in Rome at the present time, although it makes for interesting discussion, is irrelevant to the Catholic Faith as the conciliar officials are engaging in nothing other than a gigantic masquerade party. Nothing else. They are, whether witting or unwitting, useful idiots for Antichrist.

May the Rosaries that we pray every day help to effect the conversion of those who adhere to all false religions, including concilairism, as we offer up our prayers and sacrifices and penances and humiliations and mortifications and almsgiving to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

May Our Lady help us to pray for the day when no one on the face of the earth will dare to even think of uttering the blasphemous falsehoods that have come forth from the mouths and issued from the printed words of the likes of the "cardinals" who have gathered to elect the next universal public face of apostasy, the day when all men and women will be humble sons and daughters of the one, true Church, the Catholic Church, that her Divine Son founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, exclaiming with one voice and with one heart the words that were uttered by Father Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., on November 23, 1927, when he was shot and killed by the Masonic revolutionaries in Mexico, the very same words that were uttered by the brave Catholic martyrs during the Spanish Revolution a decade later:

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

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.

See also: A Litany of Saints


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