Thomas A. Droleskey; Francis The Logician

Francis The Logician

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Efforts to transform Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, the daily host of the conciliar Ding Dong School Of Apostasy (BAM! POW! KABOOM!–did any of you watch Batman with Adam West and Burt Ward?), into a veritable “Defender of the Faith” and “Guardian of the Eucharist” require incredible feats of intellectual gymnastics that defy every rule of logic imaginable.

As has been noted on my site in the past, I am a retired past master in this fine art of intellectual gymnastics, having sung the old songs for around sixteen years before realizing that efforts to defend Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II required me to suspend rationality and logic, although, slacker that I am, it took me an additional eleven years to admit publicly that those who defect from the Holy Faith in one thing have expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church and that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to give us documents that are unclear and ambiguous at best or, at worst, outright denials of revealed truth or to give us liturgies that are incentives to impiety in any way.

It is nevertheless phenomenal, though, to watch others continue these intellectual feats of irrationality and illogic at this late date.

To wit, the new theology-trained Vaticanologist named Sandro Magister, who is still fawning all over His Apostateness, Antipope Emeritus Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, is attempting to make the recently installed Petrine Minister of the counterfeit church of conciliarism into a veritable pillar of orthodoxy, a man who is so concerned about the integrity of what purports to be the Most Blessed Sacrament that he even refuses to distribute “Holy Communion” in order not to cause scandal by giving what he thinks are consecrated hosts to those who are known to be public sinners. Mind you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has not said this as “Pope” Francis. However, Sandro Magister, looking for “keys” to understand Bergoglio/Francis’s methods, has turned to that book that the “Petrine Minister” wrote three years ago with Abraham Skorka, a pro-abortion, pro-perversity Talmudic rabbi, to find an “answer” to why the newest public universal face of apostasy does not distribute what is purported to be Holy Communion at his liturgical travesties.

Here are Sandro Magister’s findings, which are based solely on his own inferences, itself a tremendous feat of irrationality:

 

There is one particular in the Masses celebrated by Pope Francis that raises questions that have so far gone unanswered.

At the moment of communion, pope Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not administer it himself, but allows others to give the consecrated host to the faithful. He sits down and waits for the distribution of the sacrament to be completed.

The exceptions are very few. At solemn Masses the pope, before sitting down, gives communion to those assisting him at the altar. And at the Mass last Holy Thursday, at the juvenile detention facility of Casal del Marmo, he wanted to give communion himself to the young detainees who approached to receive it.

Bergoglio has given no explicit explanation of this behavior since becoming pope.

But there is one page in a book he published in 2010 that allows one to infer the motives at the origin of this practice.

The book is a collection of conversations with the rabbi of Buenos Aires, Abraham Skorka.

At the end of the chapter dedicated prayer, the then-archbishop Bergoglio says:

“David had been an adulterer and had ordered a murder, and nonetheless we venerate him as a saint because he had the courage to say: ‘I have sinned.’ He humbled himself before God. One can commit enormous mistakes, but one can also acknowledge them, change one’s life and make reparation for what one has done. It is true that among parishioners there are persons who have killed not only intellectually or physically but indirectly, with improper management of capital, paying unjust wages. There are members of charitable organizations who do not pay their employees what they deserve, or make them work off the books. [. . .] With some of them we know their whole résumé, we know that they pass themselves off as Catholics but practice indecent behaviors of which they do not repent. For this reason, on some occasions I do not give communion, I stay back and let the assistants do it, because I do not want these persons to approach me for a photo. One may also deny communion to a known sinner who has not repented, but it is very difficult to prove these things. Receiving communion means receiving the body of the Lord, with the awareness of forming a community. But if a man, rather than uniting the people of God, has devastated the lives of many persons, he cannot receive communion, it would be a total contradiction. Such cases of spiritual hypocrisy present themselves in many who take refuge in the Church and do not live according to the justice that God preaches. And they do not demonstrate repentance. This is what we commonly call leading a double life.”

As can be noted, Bergoglio explained in 2010 his abstaining from giving communion personally with a very practical reason: “I do not want these persons to approach me for a photo.”

As an experienced pastor and a good Jesuit, he knew that among those who receive communion there could be unrepentant public sinners who nonetheless professed themselves to be Catholics. He knew that at that point it would be difficult to deny them the sacrament. And he knew the public effects that that communion could have, if received from the hands of the archbishop of the Argentine capital.

One could infer that Bergoglio may sense the same danger as pope, indeed even more so. And for this reason he would be adopting the same prudential conduct: “I do not give communion, I stay back and let the assistants do it.

The public sins that Bergoglio gave as examples in his conversation with the rabbi are the oppression of the poor and the withholding of just wages from the worker. Two sins traditionally listed among the four that “cry out to heaven for vengeance.”

But the reasoning is the same that in recent years has been applied by other bishops to another sin: public support for pro-abortion laws on the part of politicians who profess themselves to be Catholic.

This latter controversy has had its epicenter in the United States.

In 2004, then-cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, sent to the episcopal conference of the United States a note with the “general principles” on the question.

The episcopal conference decided to “apply” on a case-by-case basis the principles recalled by Ratzinger, leaving it up to the “individual bishops to make prudent pastoral judgments in [their] own circumstance.”

From Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger accepted this solution and called it “in harmony” with the general principles of his note.

In reality, the bishops of the United States are not unanimous. Some of them, including among the conservatives, like cardinals Francis George and Patrick O’Malley, are reluctant to “make the Eucharist a political battleground.” Others are more intransigent. When the Catholic Joe Biden was chosen as vice-presidential running mate by Barack Obama, the archbishop of Denver at the time, Charles J. Chaput, now in Philadelphia, said that Biden’s support for the so-called “right” to abortion was a grave public fault and “I presume that his integrity will lead him to refrain from presenting himself for communion.”

The fact remains that last March 19, at the Mass for the inauguration of the pontificate of Francis, vice-president Biden and the leader of the House Democrats, Nancy Pelosi, she too a pro-abortion Catholic, were part of the official delegation of the United States.

And both received communion. But not from the hands of pope Bergoglio, who was seated behind the altar. (Why Ding Dong School Host Doesn’t Give Communion.)

As it is another late hour and I do not want to have you spend too much of your valuable Catholic time sorting through all of this utter refuse, I will try to summarize a few major points before letting you get about you business on this Feast of Saint Antoninus, O.P., within the Octave of the Ascension.

First, the biggest public sinner on the face of this earth currently is none other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis. He was a scandal as the conciliar “cardinal archbishop” of Buenos Aires, Argentina, for doing the following (repetition is the mother of learning, my friends):

 

bergoglio

 

rabbi-bergoglio.jpg

 

 

Second, how can Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis prevent scandal from refraining from distributing what he thinks is Holy Communion to public sinners yet he permits others to do so? It is a feat of extraordinary illogic and irrationality to claim that it is less of a scandal for a conciliar presbyter or deacon or “Extraordinary Minister of the Eucharist” to give what purports to be Holy Communion to a known public sinner than it is for a”cardinal archbishop” or a conciliar “pope” to do so.

Does Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believe that it was a scandal for the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger to give what purported to be Holy Communion to the Protestant syncretist Roger Schutz at the so-called “Mass of Christian Burial” of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on Friday. April 8, 2005?

118_Schutz01

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis might argue that there was no scandal caused by what “Cardinal” Ratzinger did as Roger Schutz is not a public sinner who, according to his, Bergoglio/Francis’s own criteria, has withheld just wages from the day laborer or oppressed the poor. No, Roger Schutz was simply a Protestant, a man who was outside of the Catholic Church, a man who lived and died as a Protestant no matter the efforts of some in the conciliar Vatican to claim that he had converted to the Catholic Faith but kept the matter secret (see Brother Roger Schutz Died a Protestant).

Third, “Cardinal” Bergoglio’s concern about having a public sinner approach him for a “photo op” is really laughable when one considers the fact that he went out of the way to provide precisely that with the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Vice President of the United States of America, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and his wife, Jill Biden, who is just as fervent in support of baby-killing and perversity as he is, after his, Bergoglio/Francis’s “installation” as the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “Petrine Minister” on March 19, 2013, the Feast of Saint Joseph:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis did not have to meet with Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. He chose to provide a photo-opportunity to the first Catholic to serve as the Vice President of the United States of America.

Must it also be pointed out that Bergoglio/Francis is a complete hypocrite and without a shred of personal integrity as he has no problem with violating the Canon Law of the Catholic Church by entering into a Talmudic synagogue, thereby lending credibility to this false religion, no less one whose rabbi, with him he co-authored a  book, supports the destruction of the innocent preborn under cover of the civil law and the legal protection of “marriage” for those who are engaged in perverse sins against nature.

Amazing feats of illogic and hypocrisy.

Yes, yes. Francis the Logician.

Fourth, the liturgical norms spelled out in Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service’s General Instruction to the Roman Missal make it clear that the celebrant of this travesty must distribute what purports to be Holy Communion to the faithful:

9. Eucharistic Communion. Communion is a gift of the Lord, given to the faithful through the minister appointed for this purpose. It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another.

10. The faithful, whether religious or lay, who are authorized as extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist can distribute Communion only when there is no priest, deacon or acolyte, when the priest is impeded by illness or advanced age, or when the number of the faithful going to Communion is so large as to make the celebration of Mass excessively long.(20) Accordingly, a reprehensible attitude is shown by those priests who, though present at the celebration, refrain from distributing Communion and leave the task to the laity. (Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980.)

Fifth, the whole business of deciding whether to distribute what purports to be Holy Communion to pro-death and/or pro-perversity public officials is fraught with casuistry and sophism.

A Catholic is either in the Church or he is not. Those who have excommunicate themselves by virtue of supporting grave evils must be warned about their behavior. If such medicinal warnings fail to effect conversion and repentance, the penalty of a formal excommunication known to all must be imposed for the good of the souls of the public sinners and for the good of the faithful, to say nothing of the protection of the integrity of the Holy Eucharist.

Some might suggest that even an excommunicated sinner might approach to receive Holy Communion and that it would be a disruption of the good order of the distribution of the Sacred Species to cause a “scene” by refusing such a person.

The answers to this objection are simple: (1) It is a far easier thing for an excommunicated person to be passed over while kneeling at the communion rail than it is for one who is standing in line with people behind him; (2) There is nothing more charitable one can do for an unrepentant sinner than to remonstrate with him, yes, even in public after he has been warned and then solemnly excommunicated. This might create a “scene.”

Truth be told, however, the fact that this is even an issue is the result of the loss of the integrity of the Holy Faith by the conciliar officials and thus by most, although not all, of the laity. A blithe acceptance of sins against God by means of open, public and thus very scandalous violations of the First, Second and Third Commandments will result in a blithe acceptance of almost every sinful situation as something that is “understood” and “accepted” by a “merciful” and “charitable” God. Apostasy does have consequences.

Furthermore, the conciliar “bishops” are paralyzed by cowardice, fearful of what the “people” and the “press” would think of them if the act as “meanies” and discipline pro-aborts and pro-perverts although the huff and puff against economic policies they believe to be unjust and against the death penalty and in favor of legal rights for those who have entered this country illegally, and conciliar officials in the Occupy Vatican Movement are absolutely paralyzed by the heresy of episcopal collegiality, which makes efforts such as Bergoglio/Francis’s recent letter to the Argentine “bishops” urging them to refrain from distributing what purports to be Holy Communion to those who support baby-killing and “gay marriage” are completely unenforceable.

Just look at the confusion caused in 2004 by the efforts of some conciliar “bishops” in the United States of America to warn pro-abortion Catholics such as then United States Senator John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts) not to approach to receive what is purported to be Holy Communion in the Novus Ordo liturgical service and the confusing, contradictory role played by the de facto “pope” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism at the time, Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, then the prefect of the misnamed Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to resolve the matter:

After a fair deal of typical confusion with what passes for decision-making in the conciliar Vatican, including the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s seeming to support Burke before issuing a statement that McCarrick brandished at a meeting of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June of 2004 that seemed to support his position. Confused? So was I at the time! Here is a time line of these confusing events, written when I subscribed to the “resist but recognize” view that saw me write an article in Catholic Family News criticizing “Cardinal” Ratzinger before thinking that I had been wrong, concluding ultimately as I had wrote at the time, “never mind, I was the right the first time:”

June 4, 2004: The Most Reverend Donald Pellotte, the Bishop of Gallup, New Mexico, reported that Cardinal Ratzinger had told a group of American bishops during their ad limina apostolorum they should “proceed cautiously” in the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

June 17, 2004: A Catholic World News report indicated that Cardinal Ratzinger had sent a private letter to Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, D.C., and Bishop Wilton Gregory, the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, that provided guidelines for the American bishops on the matter as they deliberated on it during their semi-annual meeting, held in Englewood, Colorado. The initial report was sketchy, but it indicated that Ratzinger had seemed to side with the stands that had been taken by St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Leo Burke and Colorado Springs, Colorado, Bishop Michael Sheridan. The details were shrouded in mystery. It appeared that Ratzinger’s remarks could have served either side of the issue, typical of the conciliarist penchant for ambiguity and uncertainty.

June 17, 2004: The American bishops voted overwhelmingly to adopt a statement of “Catholics in Political Life” that was essentially an agreement for the bishops to disagree with each other, stating that each bishop had to approach the matter of denying Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholics in public life on his own.

July 3, 2004: The text of what was purported to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to the American hierarchy is published by a well-respected Italian reporter of Vatican affairs, Sandro Magister. The statement, though raising a lot of questions, seemed to indicate that Catholic pro-abortion politicians must be denied Holy Communion after an undefined period of “instruction” on the part of their pastors (although who specifically is defined as “pastor,” whether a parish priest or a diocesan bishop). Apart from a very important and much needed clarification between the issues of abortion and the imposition of the death penalty, the statement contained a horrific Note Bene which basically undermined the likes of Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan, who had said that Catholics could never for a pro-abortion candidate, stating that Catholics could vote for a pro-abortion candidate for public office if they did for “proportionate reasons” despite that candidate’s “permissive” pro-abortion stance and not meaning to endorse such a stance. In other words, it was the status quo ante.

July 4, 2004: Thinking I had gotten the story wrong, I did a mea culpa and wiped the egg off of my face to apologize to His Eminence for suggesting in Catholic Family News that he had sided with the likes of Cardinal McCarrick and Roger Cardinal Mahony, the Archbishop of Los Angeles, both of whom had said that they would not deny Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians. I did raise a number of questions about the ambiguities contained in the statement. However, I thought that the Ratzinger statement was released to make the American bishops look bad and to give a sort of back-handed endorsement to the approach taken by Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan. Sandro Magister’s article was entitled, “What Ratzinger Wanted, but Didn’t Get.”

July 6, 2004: Cardinal McCarrick says that the Ratzinger statement, which he said at the time that he had not seen, was not the whole story, that the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith had sent a cover letter to the statement (never mind the apparent contradiction between McCarrick saying that he had not seen the Ratzinger statement and that a cover letter had been sent with it) that gave the American bishops great leeway to decide the matter for themselves. McCarrick implies that a series of phone conversations with Cardinal Ratzinger had given the American bishops the same impression.

After July 6, 2004: A series of articles were published by prominent Catholics to praise Cardinal Ratzinger’s firmness and to criticize most of the American bishops for failing to follow the Ratzinger statement. Several of these Catholics strained at gnats, trying to convince themselves that the Ratzinger statement was more or less binding on the American bishops, that His Eminence’s statement that Catholic pro-abort politicians “must” be denied Holy Communion was an absolute mandate. Others overlooked the problematic Note Bene, wherein Ratzinger basically gave Catholics carte blanche to vote for pro-abortion politicians, something that I pointed out in an article posted on the Daily Catholic website on July 9, 2004. The matter had become a typical postconciliar mess. Bishops arguing with each other. Well-meaning Catholics attempting to grasp at straws to prove that their hero, Cardinal Ratzinger, was defending the integrity of the Eucharist.

July 13, 2004: After more days of confusion and contradictory statements, Cardinal McCarrick released a letter, dated July 9, 2004, by Cardinal Ratzinger which stated the following:

 

Your Eminence:

With your letter of June 21, 2004, transmitted via fax, you kindly sent a copy of the Statement “Catholics in Political Life,” approved by the members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops at their June meeting.

The Congregation is grateful for this courtesy. The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.

It is hoped that this dialogue can continue as the Task Force carries on its important work.

With fraternal regards and prayerful best wishes, I am,

Sincerely yours in Christ
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (The letter can be found archived at the Office of Communications of the so-called United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.)

Thus, the June 17, 2004, statement of Cardinal Ratzinger, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” was merely sent “as a fraternal service to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue–in order to assist the American bishops in their related discussion and determinations.” It was not binding on the bishops. It does not have the force of law. It was  simply another empty “white paper” from the Vatican that has been trumped by the machinations of those bishops in the United States of America who do not support the position taken by Archbishop Burke and Bishop Sheridan. Once again, a threat to the novelty of “collegiality,” which has done much to undermine the good of the Church and thus of souls, had to be resolved by the papering over of differences between the Holy See and many of the American bishops, including Cardinal McCarrick and his allies.

In other words, I was right in my July article in Catholic Family News. Cardinal Ratzinger is neither a defender of the Faith or of the Eucharist. He is a propagator of many doctrinal (Jews look “expectantly” for the Messiah) and pastoral errors that are symbolic of the entire state of confusion ushered in as a result of the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath. If apologies are owed to anybody, they are to be given to Cardinal McCarrick, of all people, who turns out to have been telling the truth, evidently, when he said last week that Cardinal Ratzinger had affirmed privately what the American bishops had decided in Englewood, Colorado. McCarrick is wrong on the stand he has taken with respect to this issue. Then again, so was Cardinal Ratzinger’s June 17 statement. The only fitting way to deal with pro-abortion Catholic politicians is to excommunicate them all, not to engage them in more “dialog” as babies are killed both chemically and surgically. (See that “resist while recognize” article: Never Mind! I Was Right the First Time.)

Yes, yes, yes. Sure, sure, sure. I had a lot to learn. I permitted myself to played like a fool by this charade, thinking that the conciliar officials were legitimate “bishops” and that they held actual positions of authority within the Catholic Church, which they do not.

Sixth, the whole discussion on this matter–and all of Sandro Magister’s inferences–are just so much sophistry as the simple fact is this: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostate, heading a false church that is the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church that gives great offense to God while depriving the people of the true teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ deposited exclusively in His Catholic Church and presenting a false, sacramentally-barren liturgy as that of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church. In other words, Holy Communion is not being distributed at Protestant and Novus Ordo liturgical services. Period.

The conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have violated the First Commandment by placing strange gods before them whenever they have gone into places of false worship and treated the ministers of false religions as having a mission from from the true God of Divine Revelation to sanctify and save souls while appearing as an equal, if not an inferior, to those ministers, thereby conveying in a de facto manner the impression that the “pope” is simply one true religious leader among so many others in the world.

The conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have violated the Second Commandment by daring to use the Holy Name of God and the Holy Name of Jesus in connection with the “mission” and “traditions” of Protestant sects and by praising non-Christian religions as possessing “teachings” that can be of benefit to the building of the “better world.” Not to be overlooked, of course, are the many times that the Holy Name of the Divine Redeemer and His Sign of the Cross have been omitted from meetings with the leaders of non-Christian sects. This is especially the case with adherents of the blasphemous Talmud. The obsequiousness of the conciliar “popes” and “bishops” in this regard has been such as to remove crucifixes so as to avoid “offending” their guests whenever they have appeared in ecumenical events in once Catholic churches and facilities.

It is beyond the power of any human being on the face of this earth to make it “pleasing” to God to esteem the symbols of false religions, each of which is from the devil, or to term places of false worship as “sacred” or to place false religions on a level of equality with Catholic Church.

The false “popes” and their “bishops” have violated the Third Commandment by permitting Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to satisfy their Sunday obligation by attending a staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service on Saturday afternoon or evening and to attend such a staging on the afternoon or evening before one of the few Holy Days of Obligation that have not been moved or whose obligation has not been eliminated as a result of a certain feast falling on a Monday or a Saturday. This has contributed mightily to the descralization of Sundays as Catholics of all ages get their “obligation” out of the way on Saturday afternoons or evenings in order to have Sundays “free” for the “really important” things in life (football, baseball, golf, boating, sleeping in, watching the Sunday morning and afternoon interview programs, etc.).

The Third Commandment has been violated, of course, by the very insidious, sacrilegious nature of the sacramentally barren Novus Ordo service in se, a subject that has been explored on this site hundreds of times. It has been through that abominable liturgical service that the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism have robbed the lion’s share of Catholics in the conciliar structures of their sensus Catholicus, accustoming them to ceaseless liturgical change in order for them to accept changes in doctrine and pastoral praxis from which they would have otherwise recoiled and rejected entirely out-of-hand.

Even the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist, admitted in his The Reform of the Roman Liturgy that the Novus Ordo service as a change of the liturgical rite because it enshrined and meant to teach a different faith that the Faith of our Fathers:

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the “Tridentine Mass” impossible–because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology–for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

At the same time, the priests and the faithful are told that the new liturgy created after the Second Vatican Council is identical in essence with the liturgy that has been in use in the Catholic Church up to this point, and that the only changes introduced involved reviving some earlier liturgical forms and removing a few duplications, but above all getting rid of elements of no particular interest.

Most priests accepted these assurances about the continuity of liturgical forms of worship and accepted the new rite with the same unquestioning obedience with which they had accepted the minor ritual changes introduced by Rome from time to time in the past, changes beginning with the reform of the Divine Office and of the liturgical chant introduced by Pope St. Pius X.

Following this strategy, the groups pushing for reform were able to take advantage of and at the same time abuse the sense of obedience among the older priests, and the common good will of the majority of the faithful, while, in many cases, they themselves refused to obey. . . .

The real destruction of the traditional Mass, of the traditional Roman rite with a history of more than one thousand years, is the wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was based, a faith that had been the source of our piety and of our courage to bear witness to Christ and His Church, the inspiration of countless Catholics over many centuries. Will someone, some day, be able to say the same thing about the new Mass? (Monsignor Klaus Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy, p. 39, p. 99, pp. 100-102.)

 

The conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have been steadfast in their support of and adherence to the hideous Novus Ordo service that was designed from its very beginning and continues to be a means to evangelize in behalf of the false religion of conciliarism especially as it relates to false ecumenism and to a de facto acceptance of the falsehood known as “universal salvation” that was near and dear to the heart of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s beloved mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar. The Novus Ordo liturgical service is itself responsible for the loss of the Faith on the part of countless millions upon millions of Catholics worldwide, a point that has been made on this site repeatedly (for a sampling of a few of the articles on this subject in the past two years or so, please see With Perfection Staring Directly At Them, Turning Perfection Aside For A More Perfect Banality, Taking The Obvious For Granted, Enough Spin To Make Our Heads Spin, Calling Cesar Romero, Calling Cesar Romero, part two, Transforming the Extraordinary Into the Ordinary and The Better Mousetrap.

The false “popes” and their “bishops” have violated the Fourth Commandment in a variety of ways, including endorsing the separation of Church and State, a thesis termed absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, thereby eviscerating the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, and they have undermined the authority of parents to be the principal educators of their children by mandating classroom instruction, much of which is graphic and seeks to mainstream immorality in the name of “compassion” and “dignity,” in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in full violation of the following prohibition placed upon such instruction by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.

How do children learn to grow in purity? By being taught to love God with their whole hearts, minds, bodies, souls, and strength. By eliminating, as far as is humanly possible, the incentives to sin as found in popular culture (eliminating the television as a starting point, of course), refusing to expose children to the near occasions of sin represented by immodestly dressed relatives or friends, refusing to permit them to associate with playmates whose innocence and purity have been undermined by the culture and by “education” programs that serve in public schools to be instruments of promoting sin and that serve in conciliar schools as the means of justifying it. By keeping our children close to the Sacraments, which means, of course, getting them out of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and making sure that the family Rosary is prayed every day with fervor and devotion.

Do we need “theft instruction” in order to keep our children from stealing. Do children, who are naturally curious, have to learn about the various forms of thievery available to them in order to know that it is wrong to violate the Seventh Commandment? Might such “theft instruction” actually serve as an incentive to the mischievous to steal?

The conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” have indeed undermined the Natural Law right of parents to educate their children as they have countenance the undermining of the innocence and purity of the young.

The conciliar “popes” have dared to undermine the Fifth Commandment in a number of ways, principally by making it appear as though the imposition of the death penalty by the civil state upon malefactors found guilty after due process of law of heinous crimes is an offense against both justice and the “dignity of the human person.” A true pope can no more make it appear as though the death penalty is opposed to the Fifth Commandment than he could proclaim that there there are four natures and six souls in the Person of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He hath not the power to do such a thing.

Yes, for the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” to be correct about the death penalty, then a true pope, Pope Saint Pius V would have had to have been wrong when he wrote that it should be imposed by the civil state equally upon clerics caught in perverse sins against nature as upon laymen caught in such sins:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: “Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery” (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568.

Heresy is always based on illogic and irrationality, and the mind of “Francis the Logician” is shaped by each of the heresies of Modernism, which he is advancing with great enthusiasm and zeal.

We need to pray for the conversion of the conciliarists as we pray for our own conversion as we seek with  a pure motive to serve God as by surrendering ourselves to Him through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. That is is all that matters. The Immaculate Heart of Mary will indeed triumph in the end.

Continue to pray as many Rosaries as your state in life permits. Remember that it is a privilege to live in these challenging times as this is the time from all eternity that God has appointed for us to live and thus to know, love and serve Him through His Catholic Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, 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.

Saint Antoninus, O.P., pray for us.

Saints Gordian and Epimachus, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Intronizacja
Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE