Puzzled?

The deluge of revolutionary activity is such that I have decided that my time is better spent on finishing book projects that might prove to be of more longterm benefit to souls than repeating what has been written endlessly in an attempt to respond with alacrity to the latest conciliar outrages, each of which is either a variation on a particular theme or the logical end-product of the teleology of conciliarism's false doctrines, sacreligious and invalid liturgical rites, corrupt moral teaching and neo-pagan pastoral practices.

As has been noted in the past on this site, those who saw the true state of the Church Militant in the immediate aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council and the "pontificates" of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick, Albino Luciani/John Paul I and Karol Josef Wojytla/John Paul II were given the graces by Our Lady to do so. Such Catholics saw falsehood and abomination for what it was without a moment's hesitation and proceeded to protect themselves from all contagion with things they knew could not come from the Catholic Church, which is blessed, of course, with .

The description of the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber of how many priests reacted in the wake of the imposition of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service applies equally to members of the laity in the early-1970s:

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

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

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

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

I know this first-hand as a conciliar presbyter in Troy, New York, assured me in April of 1974 that the "new Mass" was simply a "translation" of the "old Mass" into the vernacular. Occupied with the pursuit of my doctorate as well as teaching discussion sections of American Government, I accepted the assurance at face-value, spending the next twenty years fighting various battles within parishes and dioceses to "maintain liturgical discipline" in what I came to realize later was the very root cause of the problems I was trying to "resolve" was the conciliar liturgy itself.

Without the constant flow of information that we have available at our disposal today, many Catholics, this writer included, paid only marginal attention to what was happening at the "Second" Vatican Council, being occupied with the events of daily life. This is something that many younger Catholics today do not take into account when reviewing the events of those tumultuous times. Heroic souls there were, to be sure. Most Catholics, though, just went along as they were acting out of a sense of obedience, a sense that the conciliar revolutionaries used, of course, to destroy their sensus Catholicus in order to replace it with a false sense of a false faith in order to program them into accept the "changes" as good, if not long overdue.

As one whose household was steeped in naturalism and the ebb and flow of current events, my own parents did not discuss the events taking place in Rome from October 11, 1962, the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and ended on December 8, 1965, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Indeed, the Cuban Missile Crisis was occurring simultaneously with the first few weeks of the “Second” Vatican Council. Although we know more about the details of that manufactured crisis now than when it occurred fifty-two years ago, many of us who were alive at the time believed that a nuclear war with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a real possibility. It was thirteen months later that the world’s attention was focused on the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dallas, Texas, on Friday, November 22, 1963, the Feast of Saint Cecilia, setting the stage for yet another expansion of the size and scope of the powers of the Federal government under the administration of President Lyndon Baines Johnson.

The events of the “Second” Vatican Council were eclipsed in many Catholic homes in 1964 by the contest between President Lyndon “War on Poverty” and “Great Society” Johnson and United States Senator Barry Goldwater (R-Arizona), whose wife had been a direct associate of Margaret Sanger as early as 1937:

Margaret Sanger, the notorious and pioneering president of the American Birth Control League, came to Arizona from New York during the early 1930s for the same reason as many other new arrivals during this time—to improve a relative's health. Her grown son suffered from respiratory illnesses, and doctors recommended Arizona's dry, warm climate. Sanger quickly began working with local volunteers to establish birth control clinics in Tucson and Phoenix. In 1934, Tucson volunteers leased a small house in a Tucson barrio for $25 a month, and hired a practical nurse to staff Clinica para Madres [the Mothers' Clinic]. Fees charged were never greater than $1, and many women paid nothing for services. Many of the early clients were Mexican American. Despite strong opposition from the Catholic Church, this clinic remained open and eventually became Planned Parenthood of Tucson. Sanger and other volunteers organized the Mothers' Health Clinic in Phoenix in 1939. Like the Tucson clinic, it was staffed by a volunteer doctor and paid nurse. Sanger worked with Peggy Goldwater, Maie Heard and other prominent women to found this clinic, which became a Planner Parenthood clinic in the 1940s. (Sanger, Margaret - Arizona Women's Heritage Trail.)

Barry Goldwater, who died on May 29, 1998 (which would have been John F. Kennedy’s eighty-first birthday) at the age of eighty-nine), supported his wife’s efforts with great enthusiasm:

She [Sanger] became known as a great party giver, specializing in curry and mariachi, and the world's rich and famous regularly made the trek to her home. Eleanor Roosevelt came to tea; John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his wife, Martha, to a party; Frank Lloyd Wright to dinner. Ansel Adams took photos of her in her Elm Street garden and declared "at least one of the photographs was about the best thing of its kind that I have done .... The small figure in the garden is simply swell."

Peggy and Barry Goldwater, pioneers for birth control in Phoenix, were friends, Logan Rothschild said, though Goldwater once joked to her that "Margaret Sanger didn't like him very much--Peggy was always expecting another child when they met up." (Margaret Sanger: Tucson's Irish Rebel.)

Who had time for the third session of the “Second” Vatican Council in the Fall of 1964 with the distractions of the false opposites of Johnson and Goldwater going after each other along the campaign trail as the incumbent statist, who became the first President of the United States of America to support Federal funding for the pills and devices to contravene the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, denounced the anti-statist Goldwater, Johnson’s bobsie-twin on “family planning, as a war-monger? Tony Schwartz, the man who produced the Johnson-[Senator Hubert Horatio] Humphrey campaigns “Daisy” commercial, told me personally in 1986 when I was running for lieutenant governor of New York on the Right to Life Party line that was a firm “pro-choice” supporter. So was Goldwater.

With the distraction of the dog and pony shows of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the assassination of John Kennedy and the 1964 presidential election, who had time to notice that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick had taken off his “art-deco” bullet miter that had been designed for him while he was the Archbishop of Milan, Italy, well before the conclave that selected him to be the second in the line of conciliar antipopes on June 21, 1963? (For photographs of Montini’s ceremonial taking off of the papal miter, which was the adversary’s way of advertising pretty boldly that Montini was not in fact a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, on November 13, 1964, see the information provided at The Day Paul VI Ditched The Tiara.)

Perhaps more to the point, the distractions of the world’s dog and pony shows, including the peaceful overthrow of the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Chairman of the Soviet Council of Ministers, Nikita S. Khrushchev, on October, 16, 1964, by the troika of Leonid Brezhnev, Alexi N. Kosygin and Nikolai Podgorny and a riveting seven-game World Series that was won by the St. Louis Cardinals over the incarnation of all evil in the world, New York Yankees, thus beginning the latter’s delightful twelve year absence from the Fall Classic, kept whatever news was filtering out of the Vatican way, way off the front pages and from the nightly news reports.

Yet it is that the adversary used these distractions to keep the world focused on them as true bishops voted to support Sacrosanctum Concilium on November 1, 1963, All Saints Day, the same day that the Kennedy administration-engineered overthrow of the Catholic President of the Republic of Vietnam, Ngo Dinh Diem, the brother of Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc, and voted to support Lumen Gentium, which denied that the Catholic Church is the one and only Church of Christ, on November 21, 1964, the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Most American Catholics were so busy with their own lives and the affairs of current events during the Cold War and the escalation of the Vietnam War under the man, Lyndon Johnsons, who had promised to send not one more American boy to fight Asian wars (he kept that promise as he sent more than 55,000 American boys to their deaths in a war that was not fought to be won), that they were relatively unaware of everything taking place at the “Second” Vatican Council. The irony of this is that it was several American bishops, led by the likes of Francis Cardinal Spellman, John Cardinal Dearden, whose Archdiocese of Detroit became a breeding ground of revolutionary cells such as “Call for Action” and a central axis for the lavender brigade in the Midwest, Richard “Cardinal” Cushing, Joseph “Cardinal” Ritter, the Archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, and the American who is considered perhaps even more influential than the powerhouses just named, Albert “Cardinal” Meyer, the Archbishop of Chicago, who died from a brain tumor on April 9, 1965, who helped to institutionalize Americanist concepts of religious liberty, separation of Church and State and tradition into the texts of the “Second” Vatican Council. The “Second” Vatican Council is really the triumph of Americanism, which was even in its nascent years in the early-Nineteenth Century a prophetic harbinger of full-blown Modernism in all of its hideous aspects.

The outgoing conciliar “archbishop” of Chicago, Illinois, Francis “Cardinal” George, who has been, believe it or not, the first lay “archbishop” in the Archdiocese of Chicago’s history as both John “Cardinal” Cody and Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin before George were true bishops, was not one of those Catholics who was unware of what was taking place at the “Second” Vatican Council. Indeed, he was studying for the priesthood for the Oblates of Mary Immaculate and ordained to the priesthood on December 21, 1963, the Feast of Saint Thomas the Apostle. George was well-educated. He knew full-well what was happening at the “Second” Vatican Council.

Yet it is that the supposedly “conservative” Ratzingerian, Francis George, is “puzzled” by the direction that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is taking what most people in world believe to be the Catholic Church:

“He says wonderful things,” Cardinal George said about Francis in an interview on Sunday, “but he doesn’t put them together all the time, so you’re left at times puzzling over what his intention is. What he says is clear enough, but what does he want us to do?”

Cardinal George, who is 77 and being treated for cancer, remains a voting cardinal until age 80 and says he would like to travel to Rome to see Francis: “I’d like to sit down with him and say, Holy Father, first of all, thank you for letting me retire. And could I ask you a few questions about your intentions?”  (U.S. Bishops Struggle to Follow Lead of Francis.)

Jorge says “wonderful things”?

Puzzled by Jorge’s intentions?

There is nothing puzzling at all about where the Argentine Apostate is leading his false church. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply taking the counterfeit church of conciliarism to the only end result that could come out of the “Second” Vatican Council: the One World Ecumenical Church of Apostasy. 

Perhaps more to the point, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is taking the counterfeit church of conciliarism where the Americanist bishops of the Nineteenth Century, including Bishop John England, an Irish native who was the first Bishop of Charleston, South Carolina, the diocese in which Joseph Bernardin was ordained a priest on April 26, 1952, one hundred ten years after England’s death, John Ireland of Saint Paul, Minnesota, James Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, Maryland, Peter Kenrick of St. Louis, Missouri, and his brother, Francis Kenrick of Baltimore, Maryland (after having served in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), and, among others, John Lancaster Spalding of Peoria, Illinois, had long desired. The Americanist bishops desired to make an accommodation with the world as a matter of principle, not as a concession to the actual circumstances in which Catholics found themselves in the modern world.

Pope Leo XIII prophetically noted the following in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899:

For it [an adherence to the condemned precepts of Americanism] would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive of and desire the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolical Letter to James Cardinal Gibbons, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)

The Roman Curia under Pope Leo XIII did not invent a “phantom heresy.” Its members were well aware that Father Isaac Thomas Hecker and others, including Bishop John Keane of Richmond, Virginia (and the first rector of an Americanist stronghold, The Catholic University of America), were promoting a church different from what is in the rest of the world:

"American Catholicism" is not, in the thought of is promoters, a way of thinking and of practicing Catholicism solely in the contingent and changing things that would be common to the United States, in accordance with the particular conditions that are found on American soil. If this had been so, we would not have believed it incumbent upon us to be concerned with it.

No, their pretension is to speak to the entire universe: "The ear of the world is open to our thinking, if we know what to say to them," Msgr. [Bishop of Richmond, John] Keane had written to the Congress of Brussels. And in fact they are speaking, and their word has not been without echo upon each part of France. If, at least, they had not put into the ear of the world anything other than what the Church leaves to our free discussion; but, no, as we shall see, we shall come to understand that their words are more or less imposed upon that which belongs to the very fundamentals of the Catholic faith.

The Abbot Klein had said in the preface he gave to The Life of Fr. Hecker: "His [Fr. Hecker's] unique and original work is to have shown the profound harmonies joining the new state of the human spirit to the true Christianity." "The American ideas that he recommended are, he knew, those which GOD wanted all civilized people of our time to be at home with  ..."

"The times are solemn," Msgr. Ireland had said, in his discourse, The Church and the Age. "At such an epoch of history ... the desire to know is intense ... The ambition of the spirit, fired up by the marvelous success in every field of human knowledge ... The human heart lets itself go to the strangest ideals ... Something new! Such is the ordered word of humanity, and to renew all things is its firm resolution.

"The moment is opportune for men of talent and character among the children of the Church of God. Today the routine of old times is dead;  today the ordinary means lead to the decrepitude of the aged; the crisis demands something new, something extraordinary; and it is upon this condition that the Church shall record the greatest of victories in the greatest of historical ages" (Discourse given in the Cathedral of Baltimore, October 18, 1893, on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Episcopal consecration of Cardinal Gibbons.) (Monsignor Henri Delassus, Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy, available from Catholic Action Resource Center, pp. 9-10.)

Without disparaging the roles played by Spellman, Dearden, Cushing and Ritter in behalf of the new ecclesiology, false ecumenism, religious liberty and a “new relationship” with Talmudism, Meyer provided the intellectual muscle behind the heretical decree on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, which was issued on November 18, 1965, the Feast of the Dedication of the Basilicas of Saints John and Paul. “Cardinal” Meyer proved to be very instrumental in helping to give new life and a new name to the Modernist precept of the “evolution of dogma” that had been condemned by the [First] Vatican Council on April 24, 1870, Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. “Cardinal” Meyer made so bold as to refer to the concept of “living tradition,” a phrase that would be adopted by another heretic at the “Second” Vatican Council, Karol Josef Wojtyla, as his own.

Here are brief excerpts from two of “Cardinal” Meyer’s interventions in support of the “Second” Vatican Council’s revamped schema on Divine Revelation as found in an article by Father Francis J. Sullivan, S.J., “Catholic Tradition and Traditions,” which was included Michael J. Lacey and Francis Oakley, editors, The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, a book that was published in 2011:

What I have to say in this brief intervention has to do specially with chapter 2, paragraph 8, of our schema. The whole of chapter 2 pleases me very much, and in particular the way in which paragraph 8 shows that tradition is living, is dynamic, is total, is dynamic, that is, it consists not only in doctrinal propositions, but also of the worship and practice of the whole Church. . . . However, this paragraph, if I have understood it correctly. . . . presents the life and the worship of the Church only in its positive aspect. As I understand it, tradition, in this paragraph, extends beyond the limits of infallible magisterium. If this interpretation is correct, then this tradition is subject to the limits and the failings of the pilgrim Church, which is a Church of sinners, that knows divine things “indistinctly, as in a mirror.” The history of the Church offers multiple proofs of such failings, for example, the fact that the theological doctrine of the Resurrection of Christ was for a long time obscured, that piety was non-liturgical, that Sacred Scripture was neglected, and other like things.  Consequently, this paragraph needs to be completed by adding words about these failings that are always possible in this life, and by proposing remedies for them. I therefore suggestion to the Fathers the following formula. . . . “However, that living progress does not make progress always and in every respect. For when the Church ponders divine things in its pilgrim state, in some respects it can fail, and it does in fact fail. For this reason it carries Sacred Scripture in itself as a perpetual norm, so that it can unceasingly correct and perfect itself by conforming its life to this norm.” (As found in an article by Father Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., “Catholic Tradition and Traditions. Michael J. Lacey and Francis Oakley, editors, The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 114. (See The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity.)

This quotation above contains excerpts from two inventions made by Albert “Cardinal” Meyer, Archbishop of Chicago, Illinois, during the third session of the “Second” Vatican Council in 1964. The first was made on September 30, 1964, the Feast of Saint Jerome, and the second was made on October 5, 1964. Taken together, of course, one can see that “Cardinal” Meyer was advancing a view of a “living tradition” that was nothing other than Modernism’s “evolution of dogma.” It is this condemned Modernist precept that is at the foundation of the process of theological, liturgical, moral and pastoral degeneration that has accelerated apace during the past twenty months since the “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Even though Meyer’s proposal was not adopted at the “Second” Vatican Council, his intervention nevertheless carried the day theologically just as it is the case that the dissenting justice on the Supreme Court of the United States of America can become the basis of jurisprudence accepted as legitimate by law school professors and even by future Supreme Court justices themselves.

The book that contained the combined excerpts of Albert “Cardinal” Meyer’s two inventions on the text of chapter two, paragraph eight of the scheme on Divine Revelation at the “Second” Vatican Council also included a comment made on Meyer’s remarks made by a theology professor in the late-1960s:

Article 8. . . . is an attempt to a widely expressed need for a clear and positive account of what is meant by tradition. The first section points out the total nature of tradition: primarily it means the many-layered yet one presence of the mystery of Christ throughout all the ages; it means the totality of the presence of Christ in this world. . . . Teaching, life and worship are named as the three ways in which tradition is handed on. It has a place not only in the explicitly traditional statements of Church doctrine, but in the unstated—and often unstatable—elements of the whole service of the Christian worship of God and the life of the Church. This is the basis of the final comprehensive formulation of tradition as the “perpetuation,” the constant continuation and making present of everything that the Church is, of everything that it believes. Tradition is identified, and is thus defined, with the being the life of the Church. The danger that lurks in this statement . . . had been point out by Cardinal Meyer in an important speech on 30 September 1964: not everything that exists in the Church must for that reason be a legitimate tradition: in other words, not every tradition that arises in the Church, is a true celebration and keeping of the mystery of Christ. There is a distorting, as well as a legitimate, tradition. . . . Consequently, tradition must not only be considered affirmatively, but also critically; we have Scripture as criterion for this indispensable criticism of tradition, and tradition must therefore always be related back to it and measured by it. . . . It is to be regretted that the suggestion made by the American Cardinal was not, in fact, taken up. . . . On this point Vatican II has unfortunately not make any progress, but has more or less ignored the whole question of the criticism of tradition. There is, in fact, no explicit mention of the possibility of distorting tradition . . . which means that a most important side of the problem of tradition, as shown by the history of the Church—has been overlooked. (As found in an article by Father Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., “Catholic Tradition and Traditions. Michael J. Lacey and Francis Oakley, editors, The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 114-115. (See The Crisis of Authority in Catholic Modernity.)

There is thus no need for Francis “Cardinal” George, O.M.I., to be “puzzled” in the slightest by where Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the current star of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s Masquerade Party, is leading Catholics. He is leading along the path to the One World Ecumenical Church that is the one and only logical end-result of the principles enshrined in the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council and of the interpretation and application of those principles by the conciliar “popes,” who have used Albert “Cardinal” Meyer’s “living tradition” as the means to justify wholesale contradictions between conciliar teachings and the immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. 

For his part, Albert “Cardinal” Meyer was advancing a restrictive view of the infallibility of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church that was premised upon the belief that it, the magisterium, can and has failed to understand Tradition properly. 

There is a quite an irony here as even though the resist while recognize crowd would never admit it, the fact remains that they share the same restrictive view of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium as that advanced by “Cardinal” Meyer fifty years ago now.

Meyer’s contention, of course, was blasphemous as, for example, the Council of Trent, which stated dogmatically that Divine Revelation consists of Sacred Scripture and Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition, met under the Divine guidance and infallible protection of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Similarly, the [First] Vatican Council, which condemned what became known as the “evolution of dogma,” met under the same Divine guidance and infallible protection of the same God the Holy Ghost.

To assert, therefore, that there needed to be admission of the possibility of a failure to understand tradition properly is to deny the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church and to make it possible for there be a “religion” without stable dogmas, liturgical rites or pastoral practices.

Moreover, both the late “Cardinal” Meyer and the very much alive former theology professor use the Scripture as the normative means for the interpretation of tradition when Holy Mother Church herself used Tradition to prove the canonicity of the books of the New Testament. The Apostles taught orally before a single word of the New Testament was written under the Divine inspiration of God the Holy Ghost.

As noted before, however, it had been some of the Americanist bishops of the Nineteenth Century who paved the way for the many of the “doctrines” of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes,” including on the necessity of a “living tradition” that requires a “reconciliation” with the principles of Modernity.

Archbishop John Ireland, the Bishop and (starting in 1888) the Archbishop of Saint Paul, Minnesota, from July 31, 1884, to May 25, 1918, preached in the Cathedral of Mary our Queen in Baltimore Maryland, on October 18, 1893, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the episcopal consecration of James Cardinal Gibbons, Ireland's co-conspirator in the creation of a new "faith," American Catholicism, which served as one of the prototypes for the "new faith" and the "new theology" and the "new liturgy" and the "new way of 'defining' doctrine" provided to "humanity" and the "age" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Here is but a brief excerpt to demonstrate the Americanist anticipation of what the theology professor quoted above noted in Principles of Catholic Theology as an “official reconciliation” with the new principles of the era inaugurated in 1789:

What! the Church of the living God, the Church of ten thousand victories over pagans and barbarians, over false philosophies and heresies, over defiant kings and unruly peoples–the great, freedom-loving, philanthropic, truth-giving Catholic Church–this Church afraid of the nineteenth century! afraid of any century! not seeing in the nineteenth the fervent ebullitions of noblest sentiments, the germinations of her own Christlike plantings; this Church not eager for the fray, not precipitating herself with force irresistible upon this modern world to claim it, to love it, to foster and admire or to correct and cure, to own it for Christ, and with her impetuous arm to lift it to the very summit of its highest aspirations, to which only the Church’s aid this panting, hoping, despairing world can every reach! Far, far from Catholics be the chilling, fatal, un-Catholic thought!

I preach the new, the most glorious crusade. Church and age! Unite them in the name of humanity, in the name of God.

Church and age! Bring them into close contact; they pulsate alike; the God of humanity works in one, the God of supernatural revelations works in the other–in both the self-same God. . .

It is an age of social battlings for justice to all men, for the right of all men to live in the frugal comfort becoming rational creatures, to all of whom birth in the world gives them title of a sufficiency of the things of the world. Very well; is not this sudden revolution which has come upon men in the plea for social justice and social comfort the loud outburst of the cry which has ever been going forth from the bosom of the Church since the words were spoken by the Founder: "Seek first the king of God and His justice, and all things else should be added unto you"? It is not sufficiently made public that the principles underlying the social movement of the times in all its legitimate demands are the principles constantly taught in Catholic theological schools, as, for instance, this chief one proclaimed by the Cardinal Manning, to the horror of the aristocratic England, that in case of extreme need of food all goods become common property. Catholics have of late been so accustomed to lock up their teachings in temple and seminary that when the same teachings appear in active evolution upon the broad sea of humanity they do not recognize them; they even fear and disown them.

It is an age of material progress, of inventions, of the subjugation of nature's forces to the service of man, of the building up of the man over all irrational creatures. Does Church in these things condemn the age? It is her doctrines that the earth was given to man that he dominates over it. Progress of every kind the Church blesses; for progress along the lines of all human activities and human uses is the divine ordering,--stagnation and inactivity calling down from God reprobation, as we learn from the parable of the talents. (Archbishop John Ireland, A Sermon of the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Episcopal Consecration of His Eminence James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore. Full text found in The Voice of the Church, a book published by the Bishops of the United States of America in 1899, pp. 103-113. We were given this book by a friend of ours who believed that it would be of use in my work. It is a treasure of Americanism mixed in with various articles that are authentically Catholic. In other words, it was very representative of the state of confusion that existed in the minds of Catholics in the United States of America at the end of the Nineteenth Century, a state of confusion that has now been spread worldwide as a result of conciliarism's embrace of "the age.")

Archbishop John Ireland’s voice echoed throughout the four sessions of the “Second” Vatican Council, and it helped to produce the likes of men such as Albert “Cardinal” Meyer and Joseph Ratziner/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, who has long condemned the “locking up” of what he thinks is Catholic teaching in temples and seminaries.

Father Gerald Fogarty, S.J., commented favorably upon the work of these Americanist bishops as having produced the environment in which Albert “Cardinal” Meyer had cut his theological eyeteeth:

The Constitution on Revelation had not introduced something new for the American Church, but in fact had returned to the teaching on tradition of the early nineteenth century. Yet, there were still problems. While Scripture and Tradition were now seen as a single source of Revelation, and while there were instructions to exegetes for the interpretation of Scripture, there were no similar norms given for the interpretation of Tradition. John  England in the 1820s had made the distinction that the Epistle to the Hebrews was inspired even if it was not written by Paul. He thus did not feel obliged to adhere to the literal interpretation of the magisterium of Trent in attributing the letter to Paul. At the beginning of the century, Edward Dyer sought to defend Francis Gigot against charges of deviating from the common teaching of the Church in regard to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. At Vatican II, among the Americans, only Cardinal Meyer seems to have seen the danger of an uncritical acceptance of Tradition, although he focused primarily on practice and devotion. As the lessons of the debates over Church and State and of the repression of biblical scholarship during the Modernist crisis remind us, however, not everything that the Church has taught, that is not all of tradition, is on the same level of authority. In these post-conciliar years, the doctrine of tradition is perhaps still developing and will need a close link with the reemergence of episcopal collegiality before it will again have the full dynamic sense it had over a century ago. To do this, it may be necessary for the Church to encourage theologians and others to study tradition in order to determine what is doctrine to be preserved and what is historically conditioned. (Father Gerald Fogarty, S.J., Theology of Tradition in the American Church.)

Yes, according to the likes of apologists for the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium of the conciliar “popes” tradition is “historically conditioned” and “still developing” in order to determine “what is doctrine to be preserved and what is “historically conditioned.”

Here is a reminder of how the former theology professor, who shifted residences within the confines of the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber Riber about eighteen months ago now, has been able to disparage “past” teaching by claiming that it was “conditioned” by the historical circumstances in which it was formulated:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time."

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

As noted earlier, Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council condemned such views on April 24, 1870, a condemnation that was taken up anew by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Behold a false religion, conciliarism, that is built on an edifice of sophisms that have indeed ruined and wrecked the average Catholic’s understanding of the Holy Faith. This edifice of sophisms has produced such instability and uncertainty in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Joseph Ratziner/Benedict XVI’s interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council can be swept away by the next by using the exact same “hermeneutic” that he been used to sweep away the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church in order to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, condemned interpretations of Sacred Scripture according to an unfettered use of the historical-critical method of modern Scriptural exegesis and, of course, ever-changing liturgical rites and pastoral practices.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, “Cardinal” George, is only making use of his predecessor’s own heretical tools to foment more revolutionary activity that can never be undone, he believes. Bergoglio wants a perpetual revolution that will tickle the people’s itching ears just as

Today is the Feast of Saint Albert the Great, one of my own patron saints and the great son of Germany who was the teacher of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Here is an account of his life and work as found in Matins for today's feast:

Albert, called the Great, because of his extraordinary learning, was born in Swabia, at Lauingen on the Danube, and very carefully educated from boyhood. To further his higher studies he left his native country and went to Padua. At the urging of blessed Jordan, Master General of the Order of Preachers, he asked admission into the family of the Dominicans, in spite of the futile protests of his uncle. After his election to membership among the brethren, Albert was dedicated in all things to God, and was conspicuous for his piety, his strict observance of the rule, and especially for his tender and filial devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Always before study he spent some time in prayer. After his profession of apostolic religion, he so regulated his schedule of life that he became an accomplished preacher of the word of God and an efficient instrument for the salvation of souls. Soon the Order sent Albert to complete his studies at Cologne, where he made such progress in every branch of secular science that he surpassed all his contemporaries in scholarship and achievement. In the meantime, as Alexander IV testifieth, he drank so deeply of the health-giving waters of doctrine, sprung forth from the fountain of the divine law, that his soul was flooded with their abundance.

That others might share the rich treasure of his learning, Albert was appointed professor at Hildesheim, then Freiburg, Ratisbon and Strasbourg successively. He became the marvel of all. During the period when he taught sacred theology in the famous University of Paris, he became world-famous, and received the degree of Master of Theology. Examining the teachings of pagan philosophers in the light of sound reason, he demonstrated clearly that they were in fundamental accord with the tenets of the faith. He expounded most brilliantly the thesis on the extent of the power of human understanding to comprehend divine mysteries. How great was his genius, how brilliant his intellect, how zealously he applied himself to study until he had become learned in every branch of scholarship, especially sacred theology, is best shown by his numerous writings. These encompass every known subject. Albert returned to Cologne to become president of the university conducted by his Order. He was so successful that he became ever more widely acknowledged as an authority by the schools; his reputation for learning increased. Among his pupils was his beloved Thomas Aquinas. Albert was first to recognize and acclaim the greatness of that intellect. He had a deep devotion towards the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar and composed some magnificent works upon it. He also pointed out wider fields for the study of the mystical things of the soul. He succeeded so well that the zeal of this great master spread far and wide in the Church.

Amid so many very important duties Albert shone as an exemplar of the religious life. His brethren, therefore, selected him to be prior of the German province. He was summoned to Anagni, in the presence of the Supreme Pontiff, Alexander IV to refute that William who had been impiously and arrogantly attacking the mendicant orders. Soon after this the Pope appointed Albert Bishop of Ratisbon. As Bishop, Albert devoted himself almost entirely to the care of his flock. Yet he retained meticulously his humility and love of poverty. Up to the time he resigned his see, Albert was prompt and energetic in fulfilling the duties of his episcopal office. He ministered to the spiritual needs of souls throughout Germany and the neighbouring provinces. He was careful that the advice he gave to those who sought his counsels was wise and salutary. So prudent was he in settling disputes that at Cologne he was called the peacemaker. From far distant places, prelates and princes invited him to act as an arbiter to resolve differences. Saint Louis, King of France, presented him with some relics of the sacred Passion of Christ, and Albert cherished them devoutly all his days. In the second Council of Lyons he was instruméntal in bringing to a successful conclusion several weighty matters. He taught until he was worn out with age. His last days were spent in holy contemplation. In the year 1280 he entered into the joy of his Lord. By the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, the honours of the altar had long since been conferred upon Albert in many dioceses and in the Order of Preachers, when Pius XI, gladly accepting the recommendations of the Congregation of Sacred Rites, extended his Feast to the universal Church, and conferred upon the title of Doctor. Pope Pius XII appointed him the heavenly patron with God of all those who study the natural sciences. (Matins, Divine Office, November 15.)

We need to pray for more good teachers, priests and bishops in the pattern of Saint Alber the Great.

Today, the Saturday before the third Sunday in November, is also the day on which the Feast of Our Lady of Divine Providence may be commemorated. We need the help of Our Lady at all times, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, to persevere in the Catholic underground where no concessions are made to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false, blasphemous, heretical shepherds, men who are actually wolves in shepherds’ clothing.

It may not be within the Providence of God for us to see the restoration of the Church Militant on earth. We can, however, beg Our Lady to send us the graces to plant a few seeds for this restoration as we make reparation for our sins as the consecrated slave of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of Divine Providence, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, Patron of Departing Souls, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Albert the Great, pray for us.