Experts in Dismissing Papal Primacy

With all of the commotion over Gerhard "Cardinal" Muller's recent commnts that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is pushing faithful Catholics out of what he thinks is the Catholic Church (see httpsFaithful Catholics Being Pushed Out of the Conciliar Sect),  it is easy to lose sight of the fact that Muller, who is called "orthodox" or "conservative" even by many "conservative" and traditionally-minded Catholics within the counterfeit church of conciliarism, is a heretic all in its own, very well-dcumented right (see Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part two, Memo To Bishop Fellay: Ratzinger/Benedict Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Loves Gerhard Ludwig Muller, and All Together Now: Go Right Ahead, Gerhard, Make Our Day). It is also easy to lose sight of the fact that each of false opposites within the counterfeit church of conciliarism--the Girondists/Mensheviks and the Jacobins/Bolsheviks--have been commited fully to the pusuit of the conciliar revolution, disagreeing only at the margins about its implementation and what degree, if any, of recognizable Catholicism should be retained, not that one gets "partial credit" for being a Catholic. Please re-read the following excerpt from Pope Benedict XV's first encyclical letter, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914: 

Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way."  (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)

Each of the two competing sets of conciliar revolutionaries share a commitment to conciiarism's attack on the nature of dogmatic truth, whether under the aegis of what is called now the "hermeneutic of continuity" or by means of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's outright dismissal of the importance of dogma, episcopal collegiality, the new ecclesiolgy, false ecumenism, religious liberty and, of course, the validity and efficacy of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, whose path was prepared by the Ordo Missae of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick.

It is thus important, I believe, to review some of the facts associated with these two revolutionary events as it was by means of the ceaseless changes in the 1950s and 1960s that Catholics became conditioned to accept change as a normal part of Catholic life. This gradual acceptance of change led Catholics to look each successive "innovation" or "novelty" as a legitimate "development" stemming from "traditions" invented by the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutionaries of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is why Bergoglio's serial acts of apostasy during the past nearly fifty-two months are accepted by most Catholics who are attached to the conciliar structures. Indeed, many of those Catholics have been born after the dawning of the age of conciliarism and the eclipse of the Catholic Church, meaning that they associate Catholicism as synonymous with the doctrines, the liturgies and the pastoral practices of the conciliar church.

The conciliar revolutionaries of the 1960s were very clever. They knew that the liturgy could serve as the most effective means to overwhelem the sensus Catholicus of most Catholics as they, revolutionaries deconstructed the true history of the past in order to create an "artificial memory" of a "bad" "preconciliar" era that had stifled legitimate doctrinal development and genuine liturgical growth.

Indeed, the conciliar revolutionaries were well aware of the fact that the only contact that most Catholics had with the Faith was by means of the liturgy. The revolutionaries knew that most Catholics would not read the conciliar documents or the allocutions of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul The Sick, making it imperative for them to break down a Catholic's supernatural defenses against novelty and to come the very traditions that they had known throughout their lives, traditions that their parents and grandparents and greatparents had known as well. As a "Father X" put it in Latin Mass magazine twenty years ago now, "They have burned what they once adored," and it is the case today, twenty years later, that most Catholics hate and view as schismatics what their grandparents once adored.

Using the liturgy to effect a revolutionary change in the believing and acting of ordinary Catholics was a perversion of how Pope Pius XI had explained the Sacred Liturgy to speak to the hearts of the faithful to maintain the integrity of the Holy Faith:

For people are instructed in the truths of faith, and brought to appreciate the inner joys of religion far more effectually by the annual celebration of our sacred mysteries than by any official pronouncement of the teaching of the Church. Such pronouncements usually reach only a few and the more learned among the faithful; feasts reach them all; the former speak but once, the latter speak every year -- in fact, forever. The church's teaching affects the mind primarily; her feasts affect both mind and heart, and have a salutary effect upon the whole of man's nature. Man is composed of body and soul, and he needs these external festivities so that the sacred rites, in all their beauty and variety, may stimulate him to drink more deeply of the fountain of God's teaching, that he may make it a part of himself, and use it with profit for his spiritual life. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

Catholics, for example, got accustomed to all manner of revolutionary changes in the Sacred Liturgy in the 1950s that were designed by the likes of Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M., to lead to the full-scale liturgy of ecumenism that the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service that the revolutionaries who had hijacked the Liturgical Movement in the 1920s and thereafter were hoping would see the light of day under an "enlightened 'pope.'" (For a very early look at what the revolutionaries wanted, one can take a look at the text of The Mass of the Future, which was written by Father Gerald Ellard, S.J., and published in 1948, a full year after Pope Pius XII used Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, to warn against the very sort of developments favored by Father Ellard. Father Ellard wanted "Youth Masses," "Labor Masses," Mass facing the people, a simpler liturgy, etc.)

Liturgical changes in the 1960s increased at a more rapid pace, starting with "Saint John XXIII's" suppression of feast days and his later insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Canon of the Mass, changes that consituted what is called today the Mass of the "extraordinary form," albeit with adapations with the "ordinary form" that were incorporated by the now-retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in 2012 in the futherance of his "reform of the reform," which, of course, is a completely dead issue under a true son of the spirit of Father Ralph Ellard, S.J., the lay Jesuit revolutionary named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

What is called the "1962 Missal" was in effect for precisely three years prior to its being supplanted in various parts of the world, including here in the United States of America, with the Giovanni Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul the Sick's Ordo Missae of 1965, which was implemented on Sunday, November 29, 1964, the First Sunday of Advent, This important bridge or stepping-stone to the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service permitted Holy Mass to be offered in the vernacular and facing people if the celebrant chose to do so. It also eliminated the Judica me (Psalm 42), meaning that every Mass began as do Masses in Passiontide and Masses offered for the dead even as late as in the 1962. This "simplification" meant that priest would go directly from Introibo ad altare Dei to Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini. The Last Gospel, whose reading had been mandated by Pope Saint Pius V when he issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and had been a common practice throughout Christendom for the preceding four to five centuries depending upon local custom, and the Prayers after Low Mass, which had become merely optional in the 1962 Missal.

After all, there wasn't any need for to pray for the conversion of Russia or for the freedom of the Church in Russia in the "enlightened" 1960s, was there? And the last thing that the conciliar revolutionaries believed that what they thought was the Catholic Church needed was any kind of intercessory prayer made to Saint Michael the Archangel. (For a review of the text of the Ordo Missae of 1965, please see 1965 Missal, Part 1 and 1965 Missal, Part 2.)

Moreover, the Ordo Missae of 1965, which permited local adaptations to be made by the new entities called episcopal converences, instituted what is called the "Prayer of the Faithful" after the recitation of the Credo on Sundays and as an option after the Gospel (or the "homily") on weekdays. As a battle-scarred veteran of the "let's fight from within to stop liturgical abuses" in the counterfeit church of concilarism,  I can attest as how to this supposed "restoration" of an ancient practice opened the doors wide to Pentecostalism as members of the laity, particularly at weekday liturgies where they were asked by the presider, who introduced the prayers before sitting down until their completion, to state their petitions, some of which went on interminably and were nothing other than excercises in maudlin self-pity.

A review of the following excerpt from Inter Oecumenici, which was issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Rites, will reveal that many of the revolutionary elements of the Novus Ordo were in place at least five years before the implentation of this liturgical abomination on Sunday, November 30, 1969, the First Sunday of Advent:

48. Until reform of the entire Ordo Missae, the points that follow are to be observed:

a. The celebrant is not to say privately those parts of the Proper sung or recited by the choir or the congregation.
b. The celebrant may sing or recite the parts of the Ordinary together with the congregation or choir.
c. In the prayers at the foot of the altar at the beginning of Mass Psalm 42 is omitted. All the prayers at the foot of the altar are omitted whenever there is another liturgical rite immediately preceding.
d. In solemn Mass the subdeacon does not hold the paten but leaves it on the altar.
e. In sung Masses the secret prayer or prayer over the gifts is sung and in other Masses recited aloud.
f. The doxology at the end of the canon, from Per ipsum through Per omnia saecula saeculorum. R. Amen, is to be sung or recited aloud. Throughout the whole doxology the celebrant slightly elevates the chalice with the host, omitting the signs of the cross, and genuflects at the end after the Amen response by the people.
g. In recited Masses the congregation may recite the Lord's Prayer in the vernacular along with the celebrant; in sung Masses the people may sing it in Latin along with the celebrant and, should the territorial ecclesiastical authority have so decreed, also in the vernacular, using melodies approved by the same authority.
h. The embolism after the Lord's Prayer shall be sung or recited aloud.
i. The formulary for distributing holy communion is to be, Corpus Christi. As he says these words, the celebrant holds the host slightly above the ciborium and shows it to the communicant, who responds: Amen, then receives communion from the celebrant, the sign of the cross with the host being omitted.
j. The last gospel is omitted; the Leonine Prayers are suppressed.
k. It is lawful to celebrate a sung Mass with only a deacon assisting.
l. It is lawful, when necessary, for bishops to celebrate a sung Mass following the form used by priests.

II. READINGS AND CHANTS BETWEEN READINGS (SC art. 51)

49. In Masses celebrated with a congregation, the lessons, epistle, and gospel are to be read or sung facing the people:

a. at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary in solemn Masses;
b. at the altar, lectern, or the edge of the sanctuary—whichever is more convenient—in sung or recited Masses if sung or read by the celebrant; at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary if sung or read by someone else.

50. In nonsolemn Masses celebrated with the faithful participating a qualified reader or the server reads the lessons and epistles with the intervening chants; the celebrant sits and listens. A deacon or a second priest may read the gospel and he says the Munda cor meum, asks for the blessing, and, at the end, presents the Book of the Gospels for the celebrant to kiss.

51. In sung Masses, the lessons, epistle, and gospel, if in the vernacular, may simply be read.

52. For the reading or singing of the lessons, epistle, intervening chants, and gospel, the following is the procedure.

a. In solemn Masses the celebrant sits and listens to the lessons, the epistle, and chants. After singing or reading the epistle, the subdeacon goes to the celebrant for the blessing. At this point the celebrant, remaining seated, puts incense into the thurible and blesses it. During the singing of the Alleluia and verse or toward the end of other chants after the epistle, the celebrant rises to bless the deacon. From his place he listens to the gospel, kisses the Book of the Gospels, and, after the homily, intones the Credo, when prescribed. At the end of the Credo he returns to the altar with the ministers, unless he is to lead the prayer of the faithful.
b. The celebrant follows the same procedures in sung or recited Masses in which the lessons, epistle, intervening chants, and the gospel are sung or recited by the minister mentioned in no. 50.
c. In sung or recited Masses in which the celebrant sings or recites the gospel, during the singing or saying of the Alleluia and verse or toward the end of other chants after the epistle, he goes to the foot of the altar and there, bowing profoundly, says the Munda cor meum. He then goes to the lectern or to the edge of the sanctuary to sing or recite the gospel.
d. But in a sung or recited Mass if the celebrant sings or reads all the lessons at the lectern or at the edge of the sanctuary, he also, if necessary, recites the chants after the lessons and the epistle standing in the same place; then he says the Munda cor meum, facing the altar.

III. HOMILY (SC art. 52)

53. There shall be a homily on Sundays and holydays of obligation at all Masses celebrated with a congregation, including conventual, sung, or pontifical Masses.
On days other than Sundays and holydays a homily is recommended, especially on some of the weekdays of Advent and Lent or on other occasions when the faithful come to church in large numbers.

54. A homily on the sacred text means an explanation, pertinent to the mystery celebrated and the special needs of the listeners, of some point in either the readings from sacred Scripture or in another text from the Ordinary or Proper of the day's Mass.

55. Because the homily is part of the liturgy for the day, any syllabus proposed for preaching within the Mass during certain periods must keep intact the intimate connection with at least the principal seasons and feasts of the liturgical year (see SC art. 102-104), that is, with the mystery of redemption.

IV. UNIVERSAL PRAYER OR PRAYER OF THE FAITHFUL (SC art. 53)

56. In places where the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful is already the custom, it shall take place before the offertory, after the Oremus, and, for the time being, with formularies in use in individual regions. The celebrant is to lead the prayer at either his chair, the altar, the lectern, or the edge of the sanctuary.
A deacon, cantor, or other suitable minister may sing the intentions or intercessions. The celebrant takes the introductions and concluding prayer, this being ordinarily the Deus, refugium nostrum et virtus (MR, Orationes diversae no. 20) or another prayer more suited to particular needs.
In places where the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful is not the custom, the competent territorial authority may decree its use in the manner indicated above and with formularies approved by that authority for the time being.

V. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR IN MASS (SC art. 54)

57. For Masses, whether sung or recited, celebrated with a congregation, the competent, territorial ecclesiastical authority on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular into:

a. the proclaiming of the lessons, epistle, and gospel; the universal prayer or prayer of the faithful;
b. as befits the circumstances of the place, the chants of the Ordinary of the Mass, namely, the Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus-Benedictus, Agnus Dei, as well as the introit, offertory, and communion antiphons and the chants between the readings;
c. acclamations, greeting, and dialogue formularies, the Ecce Agnus Dei, Domine, non sum dignus, Corpus Christi at the communion of the faithful, and the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism.

Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text as well.

58. The Holy See alone can grant permission for use of the vernacular in those parts of the Mass that the celebrant sings or recites alone.

59. Pastors shall carefully see to it that the Christian faithful, especially members of lay religious institutes, also know how to recite or sing together in Latin, mainly with simple melodies, the parts of the Ordinary of the Mass proper to them.

VI. FACULTY OF REPEATING COMMUNION ON THE SAME DAY (SC art. 55)

60. The faithful who receive communion at the Mass of the Easter Vigil or the Midnight Mass of Christmas may receive again at the second Mass of Easter and at one of the Day Masses of Christmas.

Chapter III. The Other Sacraments and Sacramentals

1. PART ALLOWED THE VERNACULAR (SC ART. 63)

61. The competent territorial authority, on approval, that is, confirmation, of its decisions by the Holy See, may introduce the vernacular for:

a. the rites, including the essential sacramental forms, of baptism, confirmation, penance, anointing of the sick, marriage, and the distribution of holy communion;
b. the conferral of orders: the address preliminary to ordination or consecration, the examination of the bishop-elect at an episcopal consecration, and the admonitions;
c. sacramentals;
d. rite of funerals.

Whenever a more extensive use of the vernacular seems desirable, the prescription of the Constitution art. 40 is to be observed.

II. Elements to be Dropped in the Rite of Supplying Ceremonies for a Person Already Baptized (SC ART. 69)

62. In the rite of supplying ceremonies in the case of a baptized infant, Rituale Romanum tit. 11, cap. 6, the exorcisms in no. 6 (Exi ab eo), no. 10 (Exorcizo te, immunde spiritus - Ergo, maledicte diabole), and no. 15 (Exorcizo te, omnis spiritus) are to be dropped.

63. In the rite for supplying ceremonies in the case of a baptized adult, Rituale Romanum tit. 11, cap. 6, the exorcisms in no. 5 (Exi ab eo), no. 15 (Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 17 (Audi, maledicte satana), no. 19 (Exorcizo te - Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 21 (Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 23 (Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 25 (Exorcizo te - Ergo, maledicte diabole), no. 31 (Nec te latet), and no. 35 (Exi, immunde spiritus) are to be dropped. (INTER OECUMENICI, Sepember 26, 1964.)

One can see that all of this "innovation," which was more or less being conducted ad experimentum in various parts of the world, especially here in the United States of America, was incorporated directly into the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service itself, and it was accepted with barely a peep of protest by most Catholics. The only ones who did have the prophetic insight to recognize apostasy for what it was and remain were castigated by family members and shunned by friends as being "outside of the Church."

The nature and the extent of the changes were bound to--and did in fact--bewilder at least a few ordinary Catholics. This is why the following announcement was inserted into the parish bulletin of Saint Matthew's Church in Norwood, Ohio, a facility that is now Immaculate Conception Church, which operates under the auspices of the Society of Saint Pius V, on November 29, 1964,  to tell the sheep just to do what they were told as a revolution unfolded before their very eyes and with their own "full, active and conscious participation:"

Today is the First Sunday of Advent and the beginning of the Church's new liturgical year. Today we begin our "New Liturgy". Beginning today many parts of Holy Mass will be said in English. We ask each of you to do your very best to join the priest in the prayers of the Mass. Leaflets with the official text of these prayers were given most of your last Sunday. (For those of you who were unable to obtain your copies last Sunday, you may obtain one at the bulletin stands today.) For the Masses with singing (including the 9:45 a.m. High Mass), you are asked to use the cards found in the pews. Kindly stand, sit and kneel, according to the directions on your leaflet or the card. At the Masses today, seminarians will be on hand to help and guide you in this new participation. We wish to thank Msgr. Schneider, Rector of Mt. St. Mary's Seminary, for his kindness in sending us his students; and also the young men themselves for their generosity in helping us. We know that it will take a while (perhaps even months) before we have this new method of participating in Holy Mass perfected; we earnestly ask each one to cooperate loyally and faithfully to the best of his or her ability to make the public worship of God in St. Matthew Parish a true and worthy "sacrifice of praise." [Historical note: the Mount Saint Mary's Seminary referred to in the bulletin was known as Mount Saint Mary's Seminary of the West, located in Norwood, Ohio.]

Such unceasing changes in the liturgy in the 1950s and 1960s conditioned Catholics to accept "changes" in Catholic doctrine, including rationalist "explanations" to eradicate belief in the miracles of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, including His very Bodily Resurrection on Easter Sunday, moral teaching and pastoral praxis. Most of the "changes" in these areas were accepted as the sheep went "baa, baa," coming to view the "changes" themselves as what constitutes authentic Catholic doctrine while viewing all that happened before the "Second" Vatican Council as "outdated" (see A New Sense for a New Faith, part one and A New Sense for a New Faith, part two.) As noted a little over eight years ago now, most Catholics in the conciliar structures like the "changes." Yes, They Like It!.

To wit, apostasy of teaching had become so rife in the Department of Theology at Saint John's University, Jamaica, Queens, New York, in the 1970s that the university's president at the time, Father Joseph Cahill, S.J., asked the founder of the Fellowship of Catholic Scholars, Monsignor George A. Kelly, to found and to run the Institute for Advance Studies in Catholic Doctrine to do an end-run around the theology department whose direction Father Cahill has lost control of as a result of a faculty strike that lasted from January 4, 1966, to June of 1967. The Vincentian who succeeded Father Cahill in 1989, Father Donald Harrington, C.M., had no use for the Institute of Advance Studies in Catholic Doctrine, which was being run at the time by a protege of Kelly's, Monsigor Eugene V. Clark, Ph.D.

Two of the theology professors I had during my time as an undergaduate at Saint John's University were complete revolutionaries. The first was a lay woman, who taught in the Spring of 1970 that which had become very conventional conciliar doctrine by that time, namely, that the account of Special Creation in the Book of Genesis was merely allegorical. The second revolutionary was a priest of the Congregation of the Passion who really believed that Our Lord Himself was an allegorical figure, a belief that just might have cost him a wee little bit when he met Christ the King in the very face at the moment of his Particular Judgment. The priest was a complete supporter of the work of the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., and was enamored as well with the work of the likes of Fathers Hans Urs von Balthasar, Yves Congar, O.P., Karl Rahner, S.J., Edward Schilebeeckx, O.P., and a certain Joseph Ratzinger, who said as "Pope Benedict XVI" that the devil himself was nothing other than an allegorical figure (see Preparing To Spend All Eternity With His Allegorical Figure). In other words, everything was open for "reexamination" in order to be given a "new meaning" for "modern man" in light of supposedly "changed circumstances. (I was not the only student in that class to moan upon learning that we were being assigned to read another passage from Ratzinger or Rahner, "No, not these clowns again.")

As has been noted in many articles on this site, including my long two-part series on the sensus fidei in 2017, false ecumenism has been one of those areas that has the most ready appeal to Catholics and non-Catholics alike as it makes quick work of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church by eschewing "conversion," which is categorized as coercive proselytizing, and reaffirming "believers" in the essential goodness of their false religions and how they can contribute as "belivers" to the building of the "better world" and the realization of the "civilization of love." This is a point that has been made repeatedly on this site and is emphasized in volume one of Conversion in Reverse and will be discussed in volumes two and three as well.

In Jorge Mario Bergoglio's economy of salvation, you see, everyone is "saved" except for those Catholics he disparages as "Pelagians" and "Pharisees" who desire to "cage the Holy Spirit." According to Jorge, who believes in complete conformity with conciliar "doctrine," such as it is:

Protestants are in the "Church of Christ," which is larger than the Catholic Church. There is no need to seek the conversion of any of them as they are "in."

Talmudists are saved as the Old Covenant was never revoked, something that is completely heretical and is ignored by Catholics as being such only upon the peril of the loss of their own souls.

Mohammedans are saved as theirs is a "noble" religion, a veritable religion of "peace," of course.

The Orthdox have "sister churches" even though they defect from the Catholic Faith on numerous points of Faith and Morals.

The way for Jorge Mario Bergoglio's serial acts of apostasy in the past nearly fifity-two months had been paved before him by a steady dose of the sights and sounds of conciliarism. Indeed, images such as those below show that they has been a "hermeneutic of continuity" in how the conciliar "popes" have given "joint blessings" with the "Ecumenical Patriarch" of the heretical and schismatic Greek Orthodox church, treating each (Athenagoras, Dimitrios and Barthlomew) with fawning respect as a "brother" in the Faith:

"Saint John Paul II" with Dimitrios, November 30, 1979, Istanbul, Turkey

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI with Bartholomew, November 30, 2006

(These photographs were found at: Meetings of "Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs.")

Although "ecumenical prayer" has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church, including by her true popes and by the Holy Office with their approval and authorization, it is now accepted as "normal" and as a "sign" that Catholics are on a "path" to "unity" with non-Catholic Christians. Never understimate the role of the liturgical revolution in helping to bring about such acceptance over the course of the last six decades now, especially in the last forty-five to fifty years. Most Catholics today applaud the images of a putative "pope" "praying" with non-Catholic Christians and Talmudists and Mohammedans, something that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done, both privately and publicly, since becoming "Pope Francis" on March 13, 2013.

There is, however, very little "new" in anything that Bergoglio has said and done as he is simply the "end product" of the false religion whose beginnings were festering underground in the Catholic Church prior to the "election" of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII (also known as "Saint John XXIII") on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude.

To wit, the remarks that the Argentine Apostate made three hundred sixty-seven days ago, that is, on Tuesday, June 27, 2017, to an "ecumenical" delegation of Orthodox clergymen were almost identical to those that have been made by his predecessors in apostasy:

Your Eminence,

Dear Brothers in Christ,

         I offer you a warm welcome and I thank you for being here for the celebration of Saints Peter and Paul, the principal patrons of this Church of Rome.  I am most grateful to His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and to the Holy Synod for having sent you, dear brothers, as their representatives, to share with us the joy of this feast.

         Peter and Paul, as disciples and apostles of Jesus Christ, served the Lord in very different ways.  Yet in their diversity, both bore witness to the merciful love of God our Father, which each in his own fashion profoundly experienced, even to the sacrifice of his own life.  For this reason, from very ancient times the Church in the East and in the West combined in one celebration the commemoration of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.  It is right to celebrate together their self-sacrifice for love of the Lord, for it is at the same time a commemoration of unity and diversity.  As you well know, the iconographical tradition represents the two apostles embracing one another, a prophetic sign of the one ecclesial communion in which legitimate differences ought to coexist.

         The exchange of delegations between the Church of Rome and the Church of Constantinople on their respective patronal feasts increases our desire for the full restoration of communion between Catholics and Orthodox, of which we already have a foretaste in fraternal encounter, shared prayer and common service to the Gospel.  In the first millennium, Christians of East and West shared in the same Eucharistic table, preserving together the same truths of faith while cultivating a variety of theological, spiritual and canonical traditions compatible with the teaching of the apostles and the ecumenical councils.  That experience is a necessary point of reference and a source of inspiration for our efforts to restore full communion in our own day, a communion that must not be a bland uniformity.

         Your presence affords me the welcome opportunity to recall that this year marks the fiftieth anniversary of the visit of Blessed Paul VI to the Phanar in July 1967, and of the visit of Patriarch Athenagoras, of venerable memory, to Rome in October of that same year.  The example of these courageous and farsighted pastors, moved solely by love for Christ and his Church, encourages us to press forward in our journey towards full unity.  Fifty years ago, those two visits were events that gave rise to immense joy and enthusiasm among the faithful of the churches of Rome and of Constantinople, and led to the decision to send delegations for the respective patronal feasts, a practice that has continued to the present.

         I am deeply grateful to the Lord for continuing to grant me occasions to meet my beloved brother Bartholomew.  In particular, I recall with gratitude and thanksgiving our recent meeting in Cairo, where I saw once more the profound convergence in our approach to certain challenges affecting the life of the Church and the world in our time.

         Next September, in Leros, Greece, there will be a meeting of the Coordinating Committee of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, co-chaired by Your Eminence and Cardinal Kurt Koch, at the gracious invitation of Metropolitan Paisios.  It is my hope that the meeting will take place in a spiritual climate of attentiveness to the Lord’s will and in a clear recognition of the journey already being made together by many Catholic and Orthodox faithful in various parts of the world, and that it will prove most fruitful for the future of ecumenical dialogue.

Your Eminence, dear brothers, the unity of all his disciples was the heartfelt prayer that Jesus Christ offered to the Father on the eve of his passion and death (cf. Jn 17:21).  The fulfilment of this prayer is entrusted to God, but it also involves our docility and obedience to his will.  With trust in the intercession of Saints Peter and Paul, and of Saint Andrew, let us pray for one another and ask the Lord to make us instruments of communion and peace.  And I ask you, please, to continue to pray for me. (Jorge Meets Felllow Non-Catholics from the East )

Before discussing Bergoglio's reference to the "shared Eucharistic table" of the First Millennium, which is his way of saying that the dogmatic pronuncements made by the General Councils of the Catholic Church of the Second Millennium, especially the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent and the [First] Vatican Council, cannot be "imposed" upon the Orthodox, it is important to note that it was as the concliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina from 1998 to 2013 that Bergoglio participated in the Divine Litrugy of various Orthodox communities. This is simply normal for the man. It is part of what he believes, erroneously, of course, that the Catholic Church professes as the God the Holy Ghost has been "uncaged" to blow as He will to help Catholics and non-Catholics find a "path to unity," to "full communion."

An excellent article that appeared in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture, fifteen years ago now explained the many different condemnations of "ecumenical prayer" that been issued by the Holy Office from 1622 to 1939. The article concluded as follows:

To summarize, we may recall that the Holy Office said that it is not so much a matter of whether schismatic worship contains anything objectionable to the Faith; rather, the problem is the very participation in worship with schismatics.  By participating in schismatic and heretical worship, one is giving exterior signs of segregation and disapproval. Any participation in liturgical actions would constitute a sign of unity with those who are not in union with the Church.  By coming together with them in unity of prayer, in unity of cult, in unity of veneration and worship, Catholics would offer worship with perverse schismatic and heretical ministers.  In effect, the Holy Office said that it is by the very coming together with them and joining one's prayer and worship to theirs that one is participating in worship of those who reject the Catholic Church.  To participate with those who reject the Faith was therefore forbidden, since there is a danger of perversion and loss of the Catholic faith.  There is the very danger of participating in a heretical or schismatic rite, since the participation manifests a sign of disunity from the Church.  Participation in heretical or schismatic worship is an occasion of scandal and by participating in their worship, one confirms schismatics and heretics in their errors.  The Holy Office therefore observed that the Council of Carthage forbade praying and singing with heretics and that participation in schismatic and heretic worship is "universally prohibited by natural and divine law...[about which] no one has the power to dispense...[and with respect to this participation] nothing excuses." (The Holy Office on Worship with Non-Catholics from 1622 to 1939 by Craig Allan.)

Guess what?

The conciliar "popes" have been doing precisely what our true popes and the Holy Office have condemned, a condemnation that dates back to apostolical times, something that Bishop George Hay had noted at the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, and has its roots in Sacred Scripture itself. Although there may be "hermeneutic of continuity" at work between Bergoglio and his predecessors, those who have worn the Shoes of the Antichrist are in abject discontinuity from the truths of the Catholic Faith.

Moreover, the conciliar "popes" have been trying to find an acceptable way to effect a "reconciliation" with the Orthodox in a manner that does not require them to accept Papal Primacy, Papal Infalliblity, the Filioque or anything else of what has been declared as binding by the Catholic Church.

Indeed, it was none other than that "restorer of tradition," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who helped to convince his superior at the time, "Saint John Paul II," to write about such a "restoration" of how popes "presided" in" charity in communion with the Eastern churches, which means that, according to the conciliar reveolutionaries, those popes did not excercise Papal Primacy over the Eastern churches in the First Millennium.

Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger wrote the following in his very misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology thirty-two years ago now:

After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as "very Christian and orthodox", although their concept of the Roman primacy was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199.)

Perhaps influenced by his chief ideologist, "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, this distortion of Catholic history found its way into the text of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995, which was the complete and total contradiction of Pope Pius XI's Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: 

Whatever relates to the unity of all Christian communities clearly forms part of the concerns of the primacy. As Bishop of Rome I am fully aware, as I have reaffirmed in the present Encyclical Letter, that Christ ardently desires the full and visible communion of all those Communities in which, by virtue of God’s faithfulness, his Spirit dwells. I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in “a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life … If disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator“.

In this way the primacy exercised its office of unity. When addressing the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Dimitrios I, I acknowledged my awareness that “for a great variety of reasons, and against the will of all concerned, what should have been a service sometimes manifested itself in a very different light. But … it is out of a desire to obey the will of Christ truly that I recognize that as Bishop of Rome I am called to exercise that ministry … I insistently pray the Holy Spirit to shine his light upon us, enlightening all the Pastors and theologians of our Churches, that we may seek—together, of course—the forms in which this ministry may accomplish a service of love recognized by all concerned“.

This is an immense task, which we cannot refuse and which I cannot carry out by myself. Could not the real but imperfect communion existing between us persuade Church leaders and their theologians to engage with me in a patient and fraternal dialogue on this subject, a dialogue in which, leaving useless controversies behind, we could listen to one another, keeping before us only the will of Christ for his Church and allowing ourselves to be deeply moved by his plea “that they may all be one … so that the world may believe that you have sent me” (Jn 17:21)? (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995.)

It was twelve years later, October 13, 2007, the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, that an "unofficial" official document, the Ravenna Document, was issued by William "Cardinal" Levada on behalf of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church that formalized the musings of Ratzinger in Principles of Catholic Theology and of Wojtyla/John Paul II in Ut Unum Sint:

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and thatit provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI put his “papal” seal of approval on The Ravenna Document just forty-one days after its issuance on the ninetieth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal:

This year we thank God in particular for the meeting of the Joint Commission which took place in Ravenna, a city whose monuments speak eloquently of the ancient Byzantine heritage handed down to us from the undivided Church of the first millennium. May the splendour of those mosaics inspire all the members of the Joint Commission to pursue their important task with renewed determination, in fidelity to the Gospel and to Tradition, ever alert to the promptings of the Holy Spirit in the Church today.

While the meeting in Ravenna was not without its difficulties, I pray earnestly that these may soon be clarified and resolved, so that there may be full participation in the Eleventh Plenary Session and in subsequent initiatives aimed at continuing the theological dialogue in mutual charity and understanding. Indeed, our work towards unity is according to the will of Christ our Lord. In these early years of the third millennium, our efforts are all the more urgent because of the many challenges facing all Christians, to which we need to respond with a united voice and with conviction. (Letter to His Holiness Bartholomaios I, Archbishop of Constantinople, Ecumenical Patriarch, on the occasion of the feast of St. Andrew, November 23, 2007.)

So much for the “unofficial” nature of The Ravenna Document.

Everything that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done in the past nearly fifty-two months has pointed to a very well thought-out plan to change the entire nature of how the conciliar Petrine ministry" is exercised while contending, perhaps with tongue in cheek, that the doctrine of Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility will remain untouched. Only those willing to suspend all rationality can accept this gratuitius denial of what is part of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church and was defined solemnly at the [First] Vatican Council on July 18, 1870:

1. And so, supported by the clear witness of Holy Scripture, and adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs and of general councils, we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical Council of Florence [49], which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people.

To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.

All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

3. In this way, by unity with the Roman Pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the Church of Christ becomes one flock under one Supreme Shepherd [50].

4. This is the teaching of the Catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.

5. This power of the Supreme Pontiff by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, by which bishops, who have succeeded to the place of the apostles by appointment of the Holy Spirit, tend and govern individually the particular flocks which have been assigned to them. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Universal Pastor; for St. Gregory the Great says: “My honor is the honor of the whole Church. My honor is the steadfast strength of my brethren. Then do I receive true honor, when it is denied to none of those to whom honor is due.” [51]

6. Furthermore, it follows from that supreme power which the Roman Pontiff has in governing the whole Church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire Church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

7. And therefore we condemn and reject the opinions of those who hold that this communication of the Supreme Head with pastors and flocks may be lawfully obstructed; or that it should be dependent on the civil power, which leads them to maintain that what is determined by the Apostolic See or by its authority concerning the government of the Church, has no force or effect unless it is confirmed by the agreement of the civil authority.

8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52], and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53]. The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema. (Chapter 3, Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

As has been noted before on this site, Pope Leo XIII put the lie to the contention that Papal Primacy had been exercised any differently in the First Millennium than was the case thereafter:

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ’s Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.  Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood.  The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known.  Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, “in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report”; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began.  Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.

We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling.  To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.

Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: “What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified?  What will our defense be in the  eyes of posterity?  Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren.”

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.  It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God’s bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased.  May God, then, in His goodness, hear the Prayer that you yourselves address to Him: “Make the schisms of the Churches cease,” and “Assemble those who are dispersed, bring back those who err, and unite them to Thy Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  May you thus return to that one Holy Faith which has been handed down both to Us and to you from time immemorial; which your forefathers preserved untainted, and which was enhanced by the rival splendor of the Virtues, the great genius, and the sublime learning of St. Athanasius and St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nazianzum and St. John Chrysostom, the two Saints who bore the name of Cyril, and so many other great men whose glory belongs as a common inheritance to the East and to the West. (See also the excellent discussion of the the history of what led up to the Greek Schism that is contained in Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki’s Tumultuous Times.)

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio continues to propagate a myth and desires to find a way to exercise the office of what he thinks is the "Bishop of Rome" in a manner that tears to shred the letter and the spirit of the [First] Vatican Council and thus the entire received patrimony of the Catholic Church. Jorge's address to the Orthodox a week ago today, Tuesday, June 27, 2017, was thus simply boilerplate conciliarism, and that means, of course, they were conceived by the adversary in order to lead souls to eternal perdition.

As an antidote to this poison about the nature of the papacy, consider  a few excerpts from Dom Prosper Gueranger's reflections on the the papacy written for the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29:

In the case of a priest admitted into partnership with the eternal Pontiff, love is not complete, except when it extends itself to the whole of mankind ransomed by the great Sacrifice. This entails upon him more than the obligation common to all Christians of loving one another as fellow-members of one Head; for, by this priesthood, he forms part of that Head, and by this very title charity should assume in him something in depth and character of the love which the divine Head bear towards his members. But more than this: what if to the power he possesses of immolating Christ, to the duty incumbent on him of the joint offering of himself likewise in the secret of the Mysteries the plenitude of the pontificate be added, imposing the public mission of giving to the Church the support she needs, that fecundity which the heavenly Spouse exacts of her? According to the doctrine expressed expressed from the earliest ages by the Popes, the Councils and the fathers, the Holy Ghost adapts him to his sublime role by fully identifying his love with that of the Spouse, whose obligation he fulfils, whose rights he exercises. Then, likewise, according to the same teaching, there stands before him the precept of the apostle; from throne to throne of all the bishops, whether of East or West, the angels of the Churches pass on the word: ‘Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.’

Such is the divine reality of these mysterious nuptials, that every age of sacred history has basted with the name of adultery the irregular abandonment of the Church first espoused. So much is exacted by this sublime union that one may be called to it who is not already abiding steadfast on the lofty summit of perfection; for a bishop must ever hold ready to justify in his own person that supreme degree of charity of which our Lord saith: ‘Greater love than this no man hath, that he lay down his life for his friends.’ Nor does the difference between the hireling and the true shepherd end there; this readiness of the Pontiff to defend unto death the Church confided to him, to wash away even in his own blood every stain that disfigures the beauty of this bride, is itself the guarantee of that contracted whereby he is wedded to this chosen one of the Son of God, and it is the just price of those purest of joys reserved to him.

‘These things have I spoken to you,’ saith our Lord, when instituting the Testament of the new Alliance, ‘that my joy may be in you and your joy may be filled.’

If such should be the privileges and obligations of the bishop of Church, how much more so in the case of the universal Pastor! When regenerated man was confided to Simon, son of John, by the Incarnate God, his chief care was in the first place, to make sure that he would indeed be the Vicar of his love; that, having received more than the rest, he would love more than all of them; that, being the inheritor of the love of Jesus for his own who were in the world, he would love, as he had done, even to the end. For this reason Peter’s martyrdom is foretold in the Gospel immediately after our Lord has confirmed him in his office of chief Pastor of the flock; the Pontiff-King, he must follow, even to the Cross, the supreme Ruler of the Church.

The feast of his two Charis, that of Antioch and that of Rome, have recalled to our minds the sovereignty whereby he presides over the government of the whole world, and the infallibility of the doctrine which he distributes as food to the whole flock; but these two feasts and the primacy to which they bear witness in the sacred cycle, call for that completion and further sanction afforded by the teachings including in to-day’s festival. Just as the power received by the Man-God from his Father and the full communication made by him of this power to the visible Head of his Church had for their end the consummation of glory, the one object of the thrice-holy God in the whole of his work; so likewise all jurisdiction, all teaching, all ministry here below, says St. Paul, has for end the consummation of the saints, which is but one with the consummation of this sovereign glory; and the sanctity of the creature and the glory of God, Creator and Saviour, taken together, find their full expression only in the Sacrifice which embraces both Shepherd and flock in the same holocaust.

It was for this final end of all pontificate, of all hierarchy, that Peter, from the day of Jesus’ Ascension, traversed the earth. At Joppa, when he was beginning his apostolic labours, a mysterious hunger seized him; ‘Arise, Peter, kill and eat,’ said the Spirit; and at the same hour, in symbolic vision, were presented before his gaze all the animals of earth and all the birds of heaven. This was the Gentile world which he must join to the remnant of Israel on the divine banquet-board. Vicar of the Word, he must share his vast hunger; his preaching, like a two-edged sword, will strike down whole nations before him; his charity, like a devouring fire, will assimilate to itself the peoples; realizing his title of Head, the day will come when as true Head of the world he will have formed (from all mankind, become now a prey to his avidity) the body of Christ in his own person. Then like a new Isaac, or rather a very Christ, he will behold rising before him the mountain where the Lord seeth, awaiting the oblation. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume 12, Time After Pentecost, Book III.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., thus summaried the entirety of the nature of the papacy, inclduing its primacy and infalliblity, that the Orthodox and Modernists such as Montini, Wotyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio reject. The great Benedictine's prayer to Saint Peter on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul also reminds us that there can be no separation between the See of Peter and him who occupies it, meaning that one who recognizes the claim of a man to be a true pope does not have the luxury of making any distinction between loving the See of Peter and obeying the reigning Successor of Saint Peter:

O Peter, we also hail thy glorious tomb! Well does it behoove us, thy chosen sons of the West, to celebrate with faith and love the glories of this day. If all nations are moved at thy tidings of thy triumphant death; if all tongues proclaim that from Rome the law of the Lord must come forth unto the whole world; is it not because thy death has turned Babylon into that city of divine oracles hailed by the son of Amos in his prophecy? It is not because the mountain prepared in distant ages to bear the house of the Lord comes forth from the mist and stands in full daylight before all peoples? The site of the new Sion is for ever fixed; for on this day is the corner-stone laid; and Jerusalem is to have no other foundation that this tried and precious stone.

O Peter, on thee must we build; for we wish to be dwellers in the holy city. We will follow our Lord’s counsel, by raising our structure upon the rock, so that it may resist the storm, and may become an eternal abode. Our gratitude to thee, who hast vouchsafed to uphold us, is all the greater, since our senseless age tries to build a new social edifice on the shifting sands of public opinion, and therefore accomplishes nothing except ruin and confusion! Is the stone rejected by our modern architects any the less the head of the corner? And does not its strength appear in the fact (as it is written) that, having rejected, and cast it aside they stumble against it and are hurt, yea broken?

Standing erect amid these ruins, firm upon the foundation, the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, we have a the more right to extol this day, on which the Lord hath, as the psalmist says, established the earth. The Lord did indeed manifest his greatness when he cast the vast orbs into space, and poised them by laws so marvelous that the mere discovery thereof does honour to science; but his reign, his beauty, his power, are far more stupendous when he lays the basis prepared by him to support that temple of which a myriad of worlds scarcely deserve to be called the pavement. Of this immortal day did eternal Wisdom sing, when divinely foretasting its pure delights, and preluding our gladness, he thus led on our happy chorus. ‘When our mountains with their large bulk were being balanced were being established, and when the earth was balanced on its poles, when he established the sky above and poised the fountains of waters, when he laid the foundations of the earth, I was with him forming all things; and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times, playing in the world, for my delights are to be with the children of men.’

Now that eternal Wisdom is raising upon thee, O Peter, the house of her mysterious delights, where else could she possibly find her, or be inebriated with her chalice, or advance in her love. Now that Jesus hath returned to heaven, and given us thee to hold his place, is it not henceforth from thee that we have the words of eternal life? In thee is continued the mystery of the Word made Flesh and dwelling amongst us. Our religion and our love of our Lord are incomplete if they do not acknowledge thee as Vicar. Thou hast thyself having joined the Son of Man at the right hand of the Father, the cultus paid to thee on account of thy divine prerogatives reaches thy successors, and which cannot possibly be fitted into a subtle distinction between the See of Peter and him who occupies it. In the Roman Pontiff, thou art ever, O Peter, the one sole shepherd and support of the world. If our Lord hath said: ‘No man cometh to the Father but by me,’ we also know that none can reach the Lord save by thee. How could the rights of the Son of God, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, suffer through such homage paid by a grateful earth unto thee? We cannot celebrate thy greatness without turning our thoughts to him, likewise of whom thou art a sensible sign an august sacrament. Thou seemest to say to us, as heretofore our fathers by the inscription of thine ancient statue: CONTEMPLATE GOD THE WORD, THE STONE DIVINELY CUT INTO STONE, UPON WHICH FIRMLY FIXED I CANNOT BE SHAKEN!’ (pp. 348-350.)

No one can be forced to "see" the truth of our situation for what it is, that the conciliar revolutionaries are not Catholic and that they belong to a counterfeit church bereft of Holy Orders and of the graces that flow therefrom. That any of our true bishops and priests, among so many others, who have seen things clearly in the past forty years, right in the midst of a most diabolically clever use of the media to convey images of Catholicism and Catholicity, is the working of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that flowed into their hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must remember that it is very easy to go "back," to refuse to "kick against the goad," to "conform" to what the "mainstream" believes is "respectable" and "prudent."

The "mainstream" is not to be followed.

God permitted one hundred percent of the human race to be deceived in the Garden of Eden.

God permitted all but eight members of the human race to be deceived and deluded prior to the Great Flood.

Almost all of the Chosen People who had been led out of their bondage to the slavery of the Egyptian Pharaoh by Moses built and worshiped a molten calf whilst Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai.

All but a handful of people stood by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He suffered and died for us on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

All but one bishop, Saint John Fisher of Rochester, England, defected from the Faith at the time of the Protestant Revolt in England when King Henry VIII took this thoroughly Catholic country out of the Church.

All but thirty bishops defected from the Faith at the time Queen Elizabeth I took England out of the Church once again in the 1660s following the brief restoration that took place under the reign of her half-sister, Queen Mary, from 1553 to 1558.

The "mainstream" is not be followed. We need apostolic courage in these times of apostasy and betrayal. God's greater honor and glory must be defended against the against of men who have proved themselves to be precursors of the Antichrist.

How do we think that we are going to recognize, no less resist and reject, the Antichrist when he comes we are so complacent and smug in the face of the groundwork that is being laid by his conciliar minions for his coming? Will the emotionalism of sentimentality and the delusion of positivism not prevail then in the minds and hearts of most men?

It's been over eleven years, two months ago now since I began to publicly write about the plausibility of the sedevacantist thesis. I can report that those eleven years have been difficult ones, humanly speaking, as friendships have been strained or broken and as many former contributors stopped donating to us. Obviously, friendship is a free gift and people are free also to end non-tax-deductible donations whenever they want to do so. It is not for the "money" or for any kind of "honor" or "prestige" that one comes to recognize that the conciliar "popes" have indeed been figures of Antichrist. To embrace sedevacantism is to lose one's credibility on all subjects, including that of the defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King, in the eyes of traditionally-minded "gatekeepers" in the "resist but recognize movement," some of whom would rather turn to lifelong Protestants or to Catholic apostates turned Protestants or Mormons for "commentary" on the events of the day.

No, embracing the truth of our ecclesiastical situation does not make one any bit better than those who do not. Indeed, some of the worst witnesses in behalf of sedevacantism are sedevacantists, both clergy and laity. The bad example given by those who do see the truth of our ecclesiastical situation does not invalidate the truth that they seek to defend despite all of the opposition that is engendered thereby.

No one has anything to gain, humanly speaking by recognizing that the conciliar "popes" are apostates and their liturgical rites are sacramentally barren and offensive to God and their doctrines have been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church. Yes, it is good to suffer for one's sins. It is necessary to do so in order to save one's soul. One does not embrace the truth in order to suffer, though, as that suffering will find him in due course.

Sedevacantists compose only a handful of mostly warring tribes, a conflict caused by the fact that we lack the Principle of Unity represented in the person of a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. Catholics who understand that the See of Peter is vacant at this time are not the problem facing Holy Mother Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal. Just take a look at the evidence presented above if you believe that I am mistaken. 

All the more reason, of course, to flee from everything to do with conciliarism and its false shepherds. If we can't see that the public esteeming of false religions and of the symbols and places of "worship" of false religions is offensive to God and can in no way lead to any kind of authentic restoration of the "Catholic" Church, then it is perhaps necessary to recall these words of Saint Teresa of Avila in her Foundations:

"Know this: it is by very little breaches of regularity that the devil succeeds in introducing the greatest abuses. May you never end up saying: 'This is nothing, this is an exaggeration.'" (Saint Teresa of Avila, Foundations, Chapter Twenty-nine)

We turn, as always to Our Lady, who holds us in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of her mantle. We must, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, trusting that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart.

We may not see until eternity, please God and by the graces He sends to us through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, the fruit of the seeds we plant by means of our prayers and penances and sacrifices, given unto the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Immaculate Heart of Mary. We must remain confident, however, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wants to us, as unworthy as we are, to try to plant a few seeds so that more and more Catholics in the conciliar structures, both "priests" and laity alike, will recognize that it is indeed a sin to stand by He is blasphemed by Modernists, that He--and His true priesthood--are to be found in the catacombs where no concessions at all are made to conciliarism or its wolves in shepherds' clothing.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

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.

All the Holy Roman Pontiffs, pray for us.

Appendix

Exerpts from Dom Prosper Guerange's Reflections on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul

‘Simon, son of John, lovest me?’ Behold the hour when answer which the Son of Man exacted exacted of the fisher of Galilee re-echoes from the seven hills and fills the whole earth. Peter no longer dreads the triple interrogation of his Lord. Since that fatal night wherein, after the first cockcrow, the prince of the apostles had denied his Master, tears have not ceased to furrow the cheeks of the Vicar of Christ; at last the day has come when his tears shall be dried! From that gibbet to which, at his own request, the humble disciple has been nailed head downwards, his bounding heart repeats the protestation which, ever since the scene enacted on the brink of Lake Tiberias, has been silently wearing his life away: ‘Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love Thee.’
Sacred day, on which the oblation of the first of Pontiffs assures to the West the rights of supreme priesthood! Day of triumph, in which the effusion of a generous life-blood wins for God the conquest of the Roman soil; which, upon the cross of his representative, the divine Spouse concludes his eternal alliance with the queen of nations.

The tribute of death was unknown to Levi; this dower of blood was never exacted by Aaron by Jehovah; for who is it that would die for a slave? The Synagogue was no bride! Love is the sign that distinguishes this age of the new dispensation form the law of servitude. Powerless, sunk in cringing fear, the Jewish priest could but sprinkle the blood of victims substituted for the horns of the figurative altar. At once both Priest and Victim, Jesus expects more of those who he calls to a participation in the sacred prerogative which makes him Pontiff for ever according to the order of Melchisdech. ‘I will not now call you servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth’ thus saith he to these men whom he raised above angels at the Last Supper; ‘but I have called you friends, because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you.’ As the Father hath loved me, I have also love you. Abide in my love.’

In the case of a priest admitted into partnership with the eternal Pontiff, love is not complete, except when it extends itself to the whole of mankind ransomed by the great Sacrifice. This entails upon him more than the obligation common to all Christians of loving one another as fellow-members of one Head; for, by this priesthood, he forms part of that Head, and by this very title charity should assume in him something in depth and character of the love which the divine Head bear towards his members. But more than this: what if to the power he possesses of immolating Christ, to the duty incumbent on him of the joint offering of himself likewise in the secret of the Mysteries the plenitude of the pontificate be added, imposing the public mission of giving to the Church the support she needs, that fecundity which the heavenly Spouse exacts of her? According to the doctrine expressed expressed from the earliest ages by the Popes, the Councils and the fathers, the Holy Ghost adapts him to his sublime role by fully identifying his love with that of the Spouse, whose obligation he fulfils, whose rights he exercises. Then, likewise, according to the same teaching, there stands before him the precept of the apostle; from throne to throne of all the bishops, whether of East or West, the angels of the Churches pass on the word: ‘Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for her, that he might sanctify her.’

Such is the divine reality of these mysterious nuptials, that every age of sacred history has basted with the name of adultery the irregular abandonment of the Church first espoused. So much is exacted by this sublime union that one may be called to it who is not already abiding steadfast on the lofty summit of perfection; for a bishop must ever hold ready to justify in his own person that supreme degree of charity of which our Lord saith: ‘Greater love than this no man hath, that he lay down his life for his friends.’ Nor does the difference between the hireling and the true shepherd end there; this readiness of the Pontiff to defend unto death the Church confided to him, to wash away even in his own blood every stain that disfigures the beauty of this bride, is itself the guarantee of that contracted whereby he is wedded to this chosen one of the Son of God, and it is the just price of those purest of joys reserved to him.

‘These things have I spoken to you,’ saith our Lord, when instituting the Testament of the new Alliance, ‘that my joy may be in you and your joy may be filled.’

If such should be the privileges and obligations of the bishop of Church, how much more so in the case of the universal Pastor! When regenerated man was confided to Simon, son of John, by the Incarnate God, his chief care was in the first place, to make sure that he would indeed be the Vicar of his love; that, having received more than the rest, he would love more than all of them; that, being the inheritor of the love of Jesus for his own who were in the world, he would love, as he had done, even to the end. For this reason Peter’s martyrdom is foretold in the Gospel immediately after our Lord has confirmed him in his office of chief Pastor of the flock; the Pontiff-King, he must follow, even to the Cross, the supreme Ruler of the Church.

The feast of his two Charis, that of Antioch and that of Rome, have recalled to our minds the sovereignty whereby he presides over the government of the whole world, and the infallibility of the doctrine which he distributes as food to the whole flock; but these two feasts and the primacy to which they bear witness in the sacred cycle, call for that completion and further sanction afforded by the teachings including in to-day’s festival. Just as the power received by the Man-God from his Father and the full communication made by him of this power to the visible Head of his Church had for their end the consummation of glory, the one object of the thrice-holy God in the whole of his work; so likewise all jurisdiction, all teaching, all ministry here below, says St. Paul, has for end the consummation of the saints, which is but one with the consummation of this sovereign glory; and the sanctity of the creature and the glory of God, Creator and Saviour, taken together, find their full expression only in the Sacrifice which embraces both Shepherd and flock in the same holocaust.

It was for this final end of all pontificate, of all hierarchy, that Peter, from the day of Jesus’ Ascension, traversed the earth. At Joppa, when he was beginning his apostolic labours, a mysterious hunger seized him; ‘Arise, Peter, kill and eat,’ said the Spirit; and at the same hour, in symbolic vision, were presented before his gaze all the animals of earth and all the birds of heaven. This was the Gentile world which he must join to the remnant of Israel on the divine banquet-board. Vicar of the Word, he must share his vast hunger; his preaching, like a two-edged sword, will strike down whole nations before him; his charity, like a devouring fire, will assimilate to itself the peoples; realizing his title of Head, the day will come when as true Head of the world he will have formed (from all mankind, become now a prey to his avidity) the body of Christ in his own person. Then like a new Isaac, or rather a very Christ, he will behold rising before him the mountain where the Lord seeth, awaiting the oblation.

The future has now become the present, and as on Good Friday we know what will take place. The scene is one of triumph, for on this occasion the crime of deicide is absent, and the odour of sacrifice rises from earth to heaven as an odour of sweetness and joy. Divnized by virtue of the adorable Victim of Calvary, it might indeed be said, this day, that earth is now able to stand alone. Simple son of Adam by nature, and yet nevertheless true Sovereign Pontiff, Peter advances bearing the world; his own sacrifice is to complete that of the Man-God, with whose dignity he is invested; inseparable from visible Head, the Church likewise invests him with her own glory. When the cross was lifted on Good Friday, darkness fell at noon, to hide hear tears, but to-day she sings for joy of ‘the beautiful light of eternity which floods with sacred fires this day which opens to the guilty a free path to heaven.’ What more could she of the Sacrifice of Jesus himself? But this is because by the power of this other cross which is rising up, Babylon becomes to-day this holy city. Although Sion is cursed for having crucified her Saviour, Rome can commit no crime that will prevail against the fact fixed for ever at this hour, even though she rejects Christ and pour out the blood of his martyrs in her streets like water. The cross of Peter has transferred to her all the rights of the cross of Jesus leaving to the Jews the curse, she now becomes the new Jerusalem.

Such being the meaning of this day, it is not surprising that eternal Wisdom should enhance it still further, by joining the sacrifice of Paul that of Peter. More than any other, Paul advanced by his preachings the building up of the body of Christ. If on this day holy Church has attained such full development as to be able to offer herself, in the person of her visible Head, as a sweet-smelling Sacrifice, who better than Paul may deservedly perfect the oblation, furnishing from his own veins the sacred libation? The bride, having attained fullness of age, his own work is likewise ended. Inseparable from Peter in his own labours by faith and love, he will accompany him also in death; both quit this earth, leaving her to the gladness of the divine nuptials sealed in their blood, whilst they ascend together to that eternal abode wherein that union is consummated. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume 12, Time After Pentecost, Book III, pp. 306-311.)

Thus the quality of the bishop of Rome entailed that of universal pastor; and Peter must needs leave that heritage of the divine keys to him who should next occupy the See which he held at the moment of his death. So had Christ ordained; and a heavenly inspiration had led Peter to choose Rome for his last station, that long before had been prepared by Providence for universal empire. Hence, at the moment when the supremacy of Peter passed to one his disciples, no astonishment was manifested in the Church. It was well known that the Primacy was and must necessarily be a local heritage, and none ignored the fact that Rome herself was the spot chosen by Peter long years before. Nor after Peter’s death did it ever occur to the mind of any of the Christians to see the centre of holy Church either at Jerusalem, or at Alexandria, or at Antioch, or elsewhere.

The Christians in Rome made great account of the paternal devotedness he had lavished on their city. Hence their alms, to which the apostle once consented to yield. St. Peter’s epistles, so redolent of affection, bear witness to the tenderness of soul with which he was gifted to a very high degree. He is ever the shepherd devoted to his sheep, fearing, above all else, a domineering tone; he is ever the Vicar offering himself, so that nothing may transpire save the dignity and rights of him whom he represents. This exquisite modesty was further increased in Peter, by the remembrance which haunts his whole life, as ancient writers say, of the sin he once committed, and which he continued to deplore up to the closing days of extreme old age. Faithful ever to that transcending love of which his divine Master had required him to make a triple affirmation before confiding to him the care of his flock, he endured unflinchingly the immense labours of his office of fisher of men. One circumstance of his life, which relates to this its closing period, reveals most touchingly the devotedness wherewith he clung to him who had vouchsafed both to call him to follow him and to pardon his inconstancy. Clement of Alexandria has preserved this detail as follows.

Before being called to the apostolate, Peter had lived in the conjugal state: from that time forth his wife became his sister; she nevertheless continued in his company, following him about from place to place, in his various journeys, in order to render him service. She was in Rome while Nero’s persecution was raging, and the honour of martyrdom thus sought her out. Peter watched her as she stepped forth on her way to triumph, and that that moment his solicitude broke out in this one exclamation: ‘Oh! bethink thee of the Lord.’ These two Galileans had seen the Lord, had received him into their house, had made him their guest at table. Since then the divine Pastor had suffered on the cross, had risen again, had ascended into heaven, leaving the care of his flock to the fisherman of Lake Genesareth. What else, then, would Peter have his wife do at this moment but recall such sweet memories, and run forward to him whom she had known here below in his human features, and who was now about to crown her hidden life with immortal glory!

The moment for entering into this same glory came at last for Peter himself. ‘When thou shat be old,’ his Master had mysteriously said to him; thou shalt stretch forth thy hands and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not.’ So Peter was to attain an advanced age; like his Master, he must stretch forth his arms upon a cross; he must know captivity and the weight of chains with which a foreigner’s hand will load him; he must be subjected to death, in its violent form, from which nature recoils, an drink the chalice from which even his divine Master himself prayed to be spared. But, like his Master also, he will arise strong in the divine aid and press forward to the cross. Lo! this oracle is about to accomplished to the letter.

On the day fixed by God’s decree, pagan power gave orders for the apostle’s arrest. Details are wanting as to the judicial procedure which followed, but the constant tradition of the Roman Church is that he was incarcerated in the Mamertime prison. By this name his known the dungeon constructed at the foot of the Capitoline hill by Ancus Martius, and afterwards completed by Servius Tullius, whence is it is also called Carcer Tullianus. Two outer staircases, called ‘the steps of sighs,’ led to this frightful den. An upper dungeon gave immediate entrance to that which was to receive the prisoner and never to deliver him up alive, unless he were destined for a public execution. To be put into this horrible place, he had to be let down by cords, through an opening above, and by the same was he finally drawn up again, whether dead or alive. The vaulting of this lower dungeon was high, and its darkness was utter and horrible, so that it was an easy task to guard a captive detained there, especially if he were laden with chains.

On the twenty-ninth of June, in the year sixty-seven, Peter was at length drawn up to be led to death. According to Roman law, he must first be subjected to the scourge, the usual prelude to capital punishment. An escort of soldiers conducted the apostle to his place of martyrdom, outside the city walls, as the laws required. Peter was marched to execution, followed by a large number of the faithful, drawn by affection along his path, and for his sake defying every peril.

Beyond the Tiber, facing the Campus Martius, there stretches a vast plain which is reached by the bridge name the Triumphal, whereby the city is put is communication with the Via Triumphalis and the Via Cornelia, both which roads lead to the north. From the river-side the plain is bounded on the left by the Janiculum, and beyond that, in the background, by the Vatican hills, whose chain continues along to the right in the form of an amphitheatre. Along the bank of the Tiber the land is occupied by immense gardens, which there years previously had been made by Nero the scene of the principal immolation of the Christians, just at this same season also. To the west of the Vatican plain, and beyond Nero’s gardens, was a circus of vast extent, usually called by his name, although in reality it owes its original to Caligula, who placed in tis centre an obelisk which he had transported from Egypt. Outside the circus, towards the farthest end, rose a temple to Apollo, the protector of the public games. At the other end the declivity of the Vatican hills begins, and about the middle, facing the obelisk, was planted a turpentine tree well known to the people. The spot fixed upon for Peter’s execution was close to this tree. There, likewise, was his tomb already dug. No other spot in all Rome could be more suitable for so august a purpose. From remotest ages, something mysterious had hovered over the Vatican. An old oak, said by the most ancient traditions to be anterior to the foundation of Rome, was there held in great reverence. There was much talk of oracles heard in this place. Moreover, where could a more choice resting-place be found for this old man who had just conquered Rom than a mound beneath this venerated soil, opening upon the Triumphal Way and the Cornelian Way, thus uniting the memories of victorious Rome and the name of the Corenlii which had now become inseparable from that of Peter?

There is something supremely grand in the taking possession of these places by the Vicar of the Man-God. The apostle, having reached the spot and come up to the instrument of death, implored of his executioners to set him thereon, not in the usual way, but head downwards in order, said he, that the servant be not seen in the position once taken by the Master. His request was granted; and Christian tradition, in all ages, renders testimony to this fact which adds further evidence to the deep humility of so great an apostle. Peter, with outstretched arms, prayed for the city, prayed for the whole world while his blood flowed down upon that Roman soil, the conquest of which he had just achieved. At this moment Rome became for ever the new Jerusalem. When the apostles had gone through the whole round of his sufferings, he expired; but he was to live again in each one of his successors to the end of time. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume 12, Time After Pentecost, Book III, pp. 320-324.)

O Peter, we also hail thy glorious tomb! Well does it behoove us, thy chosen sons of the West, to celebrate with faith and love the glories of this day. If all nations are moved at thy tidings of thy triumphant death; if all tongues proclaim that from Rome the law of the Lord must come forth unto the whole world; is it not because thy death has turned Babylon into that city of divine oracles hailed by the son of Amos in his prophecy? It is not because the mountain prepared in distant ages to bear the house of the Lord comes forth from the mist and stands in full daylight before all peoples? The site of the new Sion is for ever fixed; for on this day is the corner-stone laid; and Jerusalem is to have no other foundation that this tried and precious stone.

O Peter, on thee must we build; for we wish to be dwellers in the holy city. We will follow our Lord’s counsel, by raising our structure upon the rock, so that it may resist the storm, and may become an eternal abode. Our gratitude to thee, who hast vouchsafed to uphold us, is all the greater, since our senseless age tries to build a new social edifice on the shifting sands of public opinion, and therefore accomplishes nothing except ruin and confusion! Is the stone rejected by our modern architects any the less the head of the corner? And does not its strength appear in the fact (as it is written) that, having rejected, and cast it aside they stumble against it and are hurt, yea broken?

Standing erect amid these ruins, firm upon the foundation, the rock against which the gates of hell cannot prevail, we have a the more right to extol this day, on which the Lord hath, as the psalmist says, established the earth. The Lord did indeed manifest his greatness when he cast the vast orbs into space, and poised them by laws so marvelous that the mere discovery thereof does honour to science; but his reign, his beauty, his power, are far more stupendous when he lays the basis prepared by him to support that temple of which a myriad of worlds scarcely deserve to be called the pavement. Of this immortal day did eternal Wisdom sing, when divinely foretasting its pure delights, and preluding our gladness, he thus led on our happy chorus. ‘When our mountains with their large bulk were being balanced were being established, and when the earth was balanced on its poles, when he established the sky above and poised the fountains of waters, when he laid the foundations of the earth, I was with him forming all things; and was delighted every day, playing before him at all times, playing in the world, for my delights are to be with the children of men.’

Now that eternal Wisdom is raising upon thee, O Peter, the house of her mysterious delights, where else could she possibly find her, or be inebriated with her chalice, or advance in her love. Now that Jesus hath returned to heaven, and given us thee to hold his place, is it not henceforth from thee that we have the words of eternal life? In thee is continued the mystery of the Word made Flesh and dwelling amongst us. Our religion and our love of our Lord are incomplete if they do not acknowledge thee as Vicar. Thou hast thyself having joined the Son of Man at the right hand of the Father, the cultus paid to thee on account of thy divine prerogatives reaches thy successors, and which cannot possibly be fitted into a subtle distinction between the See of Peter and him who occupies it. In the Roman Pontiff, thou art ever, O Peter, the one sole shepherd and support of the world. If our Lord hath said: ‘No man cometh to the Father but by me,’ we also know that none can reach the Lord save by thee. How could the rights of the Son of God, the Shepherd and Bishop of our souls, suffer through such homage paid by a grateful earth unto thee? We cannot celebrate thy greatness without turning our thoughts to him, likewise of whom thou art a sensible sign an august sacrament. Thou seemest to say to us, as heretofore our fathers by the inscription of thine ancient statue: CONTEMPLATE GOD THE WORD, THE STONE DIVINELY CUT INTO STONE, UPON WHICH FIRMLY FIXED I CANNOT BE SHAKEN!’ (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume 12, Time After Pentecost, Book III, pp. 348-350.)