Modernity's Ship of Fools, Including Emmanuel Macron

The devil is a mocker and a scorner. He is also the proto-revolutionary as it was the rebellion he fomented against God in Heaven that caused many angels to follow him in making an irrevocable choice to hate God for all eternity. This first of all revolutions was described as follows by Saint John the Evangelist in The Book of the Apocalypse:

[7] And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels:[8] And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. [9] And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Apocalypse 12: 7-9.)

As has been noted on this site repeatedly, the adversary hates the zenith of God’s creative handiwork, man, because man has a rational, immortal soul that is made in the very image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity. Knowing that his own revolution against God failed, the old serpent wants to wreak as much damage as possible by inciting men to hate God and thus to hate each other in order to create chaos on earth as the means to taking countless numbers of souls down with him into hell for all eternity.

The adversary’s role as the first revolutionary or radical was noted by one his many minions in the Twentieth Century, Saul Alinsky, in Rules for Radicals:

Opening page - Dedication

“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises.... 

"The job then is getting the people to move, to act, to participate; in short, to develop and harness the necessary power to effectively conflict with the prevailing patterns and change them. When those prominent in the status quo turn and label you an 'agitator' they are completely correct, for that is, in one word, your function—to agitate to the point of conflict." p.117

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

 "...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.)

Alinsky, a willing tool of the devil, thus identified how the adversary seeks to agitate men into hating the “other side.” This is the defining characteristic of all revolutions as each has been based in what can be called the “ideology of hatred,” starting with a fundamental hatred of God and all that He has revealed to us through His true Church.

Martin Luther, for example, came to hate the very means of his salvation, the Catholic Church, after he had fallen prey to the tempter’s deceptions to persist in his wanton sins of lechery, gluttony and drunkenness. One can see clearly that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s reaffirmation of hardened sinners in their lives of perdition is one of the many reasons that he, an agent of the devil in his own wicked right, praises Martin Luther so much.

The French Revolution, which started on July 14, 1789, was an open and undisguised revolution against God and all preexisting social order, resulting in the triumph of “Man” and his supposed “rights,” something that Father Denis Fahey, C.S. Sp., noted in The Mystical City of God in the Modern World:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)   

Although Holy Mother Church accommodates herself to the concrete realities in which her children live, she makes no concession to errors that have resulted in the triumph of religious indifferentism and overt hostility to the true Faith.

Yet it is, of course, that the lords of conciliarism made their "official reconciliation" with the principles of the "new era inaugurated in 1789 at the "Second" Vatican Council by means of Gaudium et Spes and Digntatis Humanae, December 7, 1965. None other than that great "restorer of tradition," Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, told us so in his very misnamed Principles of Catholic Theology:

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. From this perspective, too, we can understand the different emphases with which the individual parts of the Church entered into the discussion of the text. While German theologians were satisfied that their exegetical and ecumenical concepts had been incorporated, representatives of Latin American countries, in particular, felt that their concerns, too, had been addressed, topics proposed by Anglo-Saxon theologians likewise found strong expression, and representatives of Third World countries saw, in the emphasis on social questions, a consideration of their particular problems. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382)

Pope Leo XIII denounced efforts to "reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution" that seeks to "reocncile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God":

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

Ah, the “reconciliation” celebrated by the “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who eschewed the supposed more radical elements of the French Revolution as opposed to the American Revolution, which readers of this site undermined the integrity of the Holy Faith in this country by lulling Catholics into silence about their Faith in public in exchange for the ability to live without overt, state-sponsored persecution (noting that great acts of violence were committed by mobs against Catholics in this country in the Nineteenth Century), was nothing other than a reconciliation between Christ and Belial.

Well, the devil loves to mock those whom he deceives to become active and celebratory participants in his own revolutions, including the bloodbath against Christ the King, His Most Blessed Mother, and the entirety of the Catholic Faith that was the French Revolution at its origins, whose dreadful consequences are still being reaped, including the terrorist beheading of a school teacher, Samuel Paty, in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, which is northwest of Paris, France, on Wednesday, October 20, 2020, after he had shown a cartoon of the pedophilic mass murderer  and blasphemer, Mohammed, to his class:

Four students in Paris have been detained in connection to the beheading of a teacher who had shown his class cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, according to Agence France-Presse.

Samuel Paty, a 47-year-old history teacher, was killed near his school in the northwestern Paris suburb of Conflans-Sainte-Honorine on Friday afternoon. Witnesses said the attacker shouted "Allahu akbar," or "God is the greatest," as he attacked Paty with a kitchen knife.

The Paris police later shot dead the suspect near the scene of the attack. Local media outlets have identified the suspect as Abdoulakh Anzorov, an 18-year-old Chechen refugee.

As of Monday, the police had detained 15 people in connection to the killing. . . .

According to Reuters, officials found a phone near Paty's body containing what Ricard said was a message posted to the suspect's Twitter account: "In the name of Allah the most gracious, the most merciful ... to [French President Emmanuel] Macron, leader of the infidels, I have executed one of your hell-hounds who dared to belittle Mohammad."

The suspect is also believed to have shared videos and images of what appeared to be Paty's body with "fellow Russian-speaking ISIS supporters," according to The Sunday Times, one of which was a picture of the Paty's decapitated head.

Anzorov was given a 10-year French residency permit in March, Ricard said, adding that his half-sister had traveled to Syria in 2014 to join the Islamic State terrorist group.

Charlie Hebdo, the magazine that published the inflammatory cartoons, has been at the center of multiple attacks since January 2015. (https://www.businessinsider.com/france-teacher-beheaded-prophet-muhammad-cartoons-students-detained-2020-10.)

One of the saddest commentaries of our times is that Mohammedans, adherents of a false, blasphemous religion that was born in violence and bloodshed, are more outraged about blasphemies committed against their false “prophet,” Mohammed, than Catholics are about blasphemies committed against Our Lord and Our Lady and the Holy Faith in the name of “freedom of the press” and “freedom of speech.” Believing Mohammedans take the precepts of their false religion quite seriously, and those precepts teach them to kill to avenge their false “prophet.” Far too many Catholics in the world, having been brainwashed by conciliarism’s “opening to the world,” enjoy blasphemous attacks on Our Lord, Our Lady, Saint Joseph and everything to do with the Holy Faith.

Then again, it is entirely unsurprising that Catholics accept blasphemies against the Divine Redeemer and His Most Immaculate Mother in the name of “freedom of the press” and “freedom of speech” when their “popes” and “bishops” have given them a steady stream of blasphemous words and sacrilegious actions over the course of sixty-one years.

How is it possible for ordinary Catholics to recognize and reject blasphemy when the men who are their “leaders” are blasphemers and countenance blasphemy, indecency, immodesty and vice under cover of the civil of law and all throughout what passes for “popular culture.” The situation is so bad today that Catholics do not even think about making reparation for acts of blasphemy against Our Lord, Our Lady and Holy Mother Church.

Unlike Mohammedans and other infidels, Catholics do not seek to kill those who blaspheme the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, although it was once the case in Catholic France that such blasphemers were punished by the civil authority (noting that Saint Louis IX accepted papal correction from Pope Clement IV for the harsh measures he, Saint Louis, had taken against blasphemers). Catholics seek to pray for the conversion of those who blaspheme as they spend time in prayer, if possible, before the Most Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, for their conversion and to make reparation for these offenses against the Divine majesty.

The hubris of the French, so very certain that the tragedies that keep befalling their nation have nothing do with the direct consequence of the War on Christ the King that was begun on July 14, 1789, and reached its most bloodthirsty levels between the years of 1792 and 1795 during the Reign of Terror overseen by The Directory, is astounding.

How tragic it is that a revolution which celebrated the “rights of man” was used by an unbaptized infidel who was born in a Mohammedan land, Tunisia (where Saint Vincent de Paul, whose relics, save only for his heart, were destroyed during the French Revolution, was held as a captive by Mohammedans and forced to work as a slave for seven years), became an instrument to shed the blood of innocent human beings. The devil always uses his revolutions to mock and then to destroy, whether physically or spiritually—or both, those who celebrate their false principles. Go ask Maximilian Robespierre or Leon Trotsky, for instance.

Mohammedans take their false religion, which has always been at war with the true God of Divine Revelation and which thus has been at war with those who adore Him as the true God as members of the true Church, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order, very seriously, Part of this seriousness involves a hatred of “infidels,” and there are none of those they hate more than Catholics. Oh, by the way, the Mohammedans make no distinctions between baptized Catholics who believe the Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the “pope” and they are have access to what they think is daily Mass in their local parishes and those who have come to realize that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church.

Believing, orthodox Mohammedans, following the example of their false prophet, Mohammed, whose bloodlust and hatred for Catholicism was such that he and his followers wiped out the Faith from most parts of North Africa where it had taken root over the course of five centuries, have a duty to kill Catholics. They do not stop to make any kind of distinctions. A person who wears a Crucifix, carries a Rosary or who is in a Catholic Church is fair game for Mohammedans, who get rather outraged when any Western government that has welcomed them in great numbers to compensate for the lack of indigenous workers caused by the ready acceptance of the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn dares to respond with justifiable force after a terrorist attack such as the one upon Samuel Paty takes place.

This is what happened in at the Basilica of Notre Dame in Nice, France, on Thursday, October 29, 2020:

CNA Staff, Oct 29, 2020 / 03:40 am MT (CNA).- An attacker killed three people at a church in Nice, police in the French city said Thursday. 

The incident took place at the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Nice Oct. 29 at around 9am local time, according to French media. 

Christian Estrosi, Nice’s mayor, said that the perpetrator, who was armed with a knife, was shot and arrested by the municipal police.

He said in a video posted to Twitter that the attacker repeatedly shouted “Allahu Akbar” during and after the attack.

“It looks like for at least one of the victims, inside the church, it was the same method as for the poor professor of Conflans-Sainte-Honorine a few days ago, that is absolute horror,” Estrosi said in the video, referencing the beheading of middle-school teacher Samuel Paty in Paris Oct. 16.

The French newspaper Le Figaro reported that one of the victims, an elderly woman, was found “nearly beheaded” inside the church. It said that a man, identified as the sacristan, was also found dead inside of the basilica. A third victim, a woman, is said to have taken refuge in a nearby cafe, where she died from stab wounds.

Estrosi wrote on Twitter: “I confirm that everything suggests a terrorist attack in the Basilica of Notre-Dame de Nice.”

Bishop André Marceau of Nice said that all churches in Nice had been closed and would remain under police protection until further notice. 

The Basilica of Notre-Dame, completed in 1868, is the largest church in Nice, but is not the city’s cathedral.

Marceau said that his emotion was strong after learning of the “heinous terrorist act” at the basilica. He also noted that it occurred not long after the beheading of Paty. 

“My sadness is infinite as a human being in the face of what other beings, called human, can do,” he said in a statement.

“May Christ’s spirit of forgiveness prevail in the face of these barbaric acts.”

Cardinal Robert Sarah also responded to the news of the attack on the basilica.

He wrote on Twitter: “Islamism is a monstrous fanaticism which must be fought with force and determination ... Unfortunately, we Africans know this too well. The barbarians are always the enemies of peace. The West, today France, must understand this.”

Mohammed Moussaoui, president of French Council of Muslim Faith, condemned the terrorist attack and asked French Muslims to cancel their festivities for Mawlid, the Oct. 29 celebration of the Prophet Muhammad's birthday, “as a sign of mourning and solidarity with the victims and their loved ones.”

Other attacks took place in France Oct. 29. In Montfavet, near the southern French city of Avignon, a man waving a handgun made threats and was killed by the police two hours after the Nice attack. Radio station Europe 1 said the man was also shouting “Allahu Akbar.”

Reuters also reported a knife attack on a guard at the French consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Archbishop Éric de Moulins-Beaufort, president of the French bishops’ conference, wrote on Twitter that he was praying for Catholics in Nice and for their bishop.

French president Emmanuel Macron visited Nice following the attack.

He told journalists: “I want to say here first and foremost the support of the whole nation for Catholics, from France and elsewhere. After the assassination of Fr. Hamel in August 2016, it is once again the Catholics who are attacked in our country.”

He underlined the point on Twitter, writing: “Catholics, you have the support of the entire nation. Our country is our values, that everyone can believe or not believe, that every religion can be practiced. Our determination is absolute. Actions will follow to protect all our citizens.” (https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/two-dead-in-knife-attack-inside-french-basilica-46692.)

Before commenting on the moron Emmanuel Macron’s brilliant comments, I want to do a few moments of your good Catholic time to part company with those of my fellow Catholics, few  in number though they may be on this matter, who accept the fact of the papal vacancy since October 9, 1958, who do not believe that ordinary Catholics in the conciliar structures are members of the Catholic Church and thus do not merit to go to Heaven.

It is important to recognize that very, very few Catholics see, accept and have the true apostolic courage to admit openly that the See of Peter is vacant and that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not now nor can ever be the Catholic Church no matter the fact of its officials’ control of the Vatican, archdioceses, dioceses, schools, universities, seminaries, hospitals and other institutions tend to live in a self-reinforcing bubble, deceiving ourselves into thinking that everyone at this date should know and accept what we do. This attitude is wrong because even though those who do not recognize the objective facts of our situation are busy leading their lives. They have no time or inclination to go on any of our websites because they are busy with their families and their work responsibilities.

Remember, there are very few baptized Catholics who actually bother to go to what they think is Holy Mass on Sundays, no less than to do so during the week. According to one report last year, only 4.5% of baptized Catholics go to the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination on Saturday afternoon/evening or Sunday, and only 1.8% of them do so during the week (see https://www.europenowjournal.org/2019/10/02/the-catholic-ness-of-secular-france/). The victims of the Mohammedan terrorist attack in Nice three days ago, therefore, had a desire to practice that Holy Faith to the best of their ability and to receive what they thought was Holy Communion daily. They were targeted for their Faith by the Mohammedan from Tunisia. Martyrdom is something for which we should pray—and something that may very well be visited upon us in the United States of America very soon no matter who turns out to be the winner of the presidential election on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, the Feast of Saint Charles Borromeo within the Octave of all Saints—as it is the straight ticket to eternal glory. As I wrote fourteen and one-half years ago after embracing sedevacantism, it will be enough for the enemies of the Faith to ask the following question, “Do You Believe in the Apostles’ Creed?, before imprisoning, torturing or executing us on the spot. (See the appendix below for the short commentary.)

Emmauel Macron: A Captain of Modernity’s Ship of Fools

One will notice from French President Emmanuel Macron’s statement as contained in the Catholic News Agency report that “Catholics, you have the support of the entire nation. Our country is our values, that everyone can believe or not believe, that every religion can be practiced. Our determination is absolute. Actions will follow to protect all our citizens.”

What a fool.

France owes everything to the Catholic Faith. Everything.

Indeed, France’s very existence owes a debt to Charles Martel, who repelled an army on invading Mohammedans on October 10, 732, at the Battle of Tours:

The Muslims in northern Spain had easily overrun Septimania, had set up a capital at Narbonne which they called Arbuna, giving its largely Arian inhabitants honorable terms, and quickly pacified the south and for some years threatened Frankish territories. Duke Odo of Aquitaine, also known as Eudes the Great, had decisively defeated a major invasion force in 721 at the Battle of Toulouse, but Arab raids continued, in 725 reaching as far as the city of Autun in Burgundy. Threatened by both the Arabs in the south and by the Franks in the north, in 730 Eudes allied himself with Uthman ibn Naissa, called "Munuza" by the Franks, the Berber emir in what would later become Catalonia. As a gage, Uthman was given Eudes's daughter Lampade in marriage to seal the alliance, and Arab raids across the Pyrenees, Eudes' southern border, ceased [1].

However, the next year, Uthman rebelled against the governor of al-Andalus, Abd er Rahman. Abd er Rahman quickly crushed the revolt, and next directed his attention against the traitor's former ally, Eudes. According to one unidentified Arab, "That army went through all places like a desolating storm." Duke Eudes (called King by some), collected his army at Bordeaux, but was defeated, and Bordeaux was plundered. The slaughter of Christians at the River Garonne was evidently horrific; Isidorus Pacensis commented that "solus Deus numerum morientium vel pereuntium recognoscat", 'God alone knows the number of the slain' (Chronicon). The Muslim horsemen then utterly devastated that portion of Gaul, their own histories saying the "faithful pierced through the mountains, tramples over rough and level ground, plunders far into the country of the Franks, and smites all with the sword, insomuch that when Eudo came to battle with them at the River Garonne, and fled." Eudes appealed to the Franks for assistance, which Charles Martel only granted after Eudes agreed to submit to Frankish authority.

In 732, the Arab advance force was proceeding north toward the River Loire having already outpaced their supply train and a large part of their army. Essentially, having easily destroyed all resistance in that part of Gaul, the invading army had split off into several raiding parties, simply looting and destroying, while the main body advanced more slowly. A military explanation for why Eudes was defeated so easily at Bordeaux, after having won 11 years earlier at Battle of Toulouse, was simple. At Toulouse, Eudes managed a basic surprise attack against an overconfident and unprepared foe, all of whose defensive works were aimed inward, while he attacked from the outside. The Arab cavalary never got a chance to mobilize and meet him in open battle. At Bordeaux, they did, and resulted in absolute devastation of Eudes army, almost all of whom were killed, with minimal losses to the Muslims. Eudes forces, like other European troops of that era, lacked stirrups, and therefore had no armoured cavalry. Virtually all of their troops were infantry. The Muslim heavy cavalry broke the Christian infantry in their first charge, and then simply slaughtered them at will as they broke and ran. The invading force then went on to devastate southern Gaul, preparing it for complete conquest. One of the major raiding parties advanced on Tours. A possible motive, according to the second continuator of Fredegar, was the riches of the Abbey of Saint Martin of Tours, the most prestigious and holiest shrine in western Europe at the time. Upon hearing this, Austrasia Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel, collected his army of an estimated 15-75,000 veterans, and marched south avoiding the old Roman roads hoping to take the Muslims by surprise.

Location

Despite the great importance of this battle, its exact location remains unknown. Most historians assume that the two armies met each other where the rivers Clain and Vienne join between Tours and Poitiers.

The battle

Charles chose to begin the battle in a defensive, phalanx-like formation. According to the Arabian sources they drew up in a large square. Certainly, given the disparity between the armies, in that the Franks were mostly infantry, all without armour, against mounted and Arab armored or mailed horsemen, (the Berbers were less heavily protected) Charles Martel fought a brilliant defensive battle. In a place and time of his choosing, he met a far superior force, and defeated it.

For six days, the two armies watched each other with just minor skirmishes. The Muslims waited for their full strength to arrive, which it did, but they were still uneasy. No good general, and Abd er Rahman was one, liked to let his opponent pick the ground and conditions for battle -- and Martel had done both. Creasy says, and his theory is probably best, that the Muslims best strategic choice would have been to simply decline battle, depart with their loot, garrisoning the captured towns in southern Gaul, and return when they could force Martel to a battleground more to their liking, one that maximized the huge advantage they had of the first true "knights" mailed and amoured horsemen -- the Franks, without stirrups in wide use, had to depend on unarmoured foot soldiers. Martel gambled everything that Abd er Rahman would in the end feel compelled to battle, and to go on and loot Tours. Neither of them wanted to attack. The Franks were well dressed for the cold, and had the terrain advantage. The Arabs were not as prepared for the intense cold, but did not want to attack what they thought might be a numerically superior Frankish army. (most historians believe it was not) Essentially, the Arabs wanted the Franks to come out in the open, while the Franks, formed in a tightly packed defensive formation, wanted them to come uphill, into the trees, (negating at once some of the advantages of their cavalry). It became a waiting game, which Martel won. The fight commenced on the seventh day, as Abd er Rahman did not want to postpone the battle indefinitely.

Abd er Rahman trusted the tactical superiority of his cavalry, and had them charge repeatedly. This time the faith the Muslims had in their cavalry, armed with their long lances and swords which had brought them victory in previous battles, was not justified.

In one of the rare instances where medieval infantry stood up against cavalry charges, the disciplined Frankish soldiers withstood the assaults, though according to Arab sources, the Arab cavalry several times broke into the interior of the Frankish square. But despite this, Franks did not break, and it is probably best expressed by a translation of an Arab account of the battle from the Medieval Source Book: "And in the shock of the battle the men of the North seemed like North a sea that cannot be moved. Firmly they stood, one close to another, forming as it were a bulwark of ice; and with great blows of their swords they hewed down the Arabs. Drawn up in a band around their chief, the people of the Austrasians carried all before them. Their tireless hands drove their swords down to the breasts of the foe."

It might have been different, however, had the Muslim forces remained under control. According to Muslim accounts of the battle, in the midst of the fighting on the second day, scouts from the Franks began to raid the camp and supply train (including slaves and other plunder). A large portion of the army broke off and raced back to their camp to save their plunder. What appeared to be a retreat soon became one. While attempting to restore order to his men, who had managed to break into the defensive square, Abd er Rahman was surrounded by Franks and killed.

According to a Frankish source, the battle lasted one day. Frankish histories claim that when the rumor went through the Arab army that Frankish cavalry threatened the booty they had taken from Bordeaux, (Charles supposedly had sent scouts to cause chaos in the Muslim base camp, and free as many of the slaves as possible, hoping to draw off part of his foe, it succeeded beyond his wildest dreams), many of the Muslim Cavalry returned to their camp. This, to the rest of the Muslim army, appeared to be a full-scale retreat, and soon it was one. Both histories agree that while attempting to stop the retreat, Abd er Rahman became surrounded, which led to his death, and the Muslims returned to their camp.

The next day, when the Muslims did not renew the battle, the Franks feared an ambush. Only after extensive reconnaissance by Frankish soldiers of the Muslim camp was it discovered that the Muslims had retreated during the night.

Aftermath

The Arab army retreated south over the Pyrenees. Charles earned his nickname Martel, meaning hammer, in this battle. He continued to drive the Muslims from France in subsequent years. After Eudes died, who had been forced to acknowledge, albeit reservedly, the suzerainty of Charles in 719, his son wished independence. Though Charles wished to unite the duchy directly to himself and went there to elicit the proper homage of the Aquitainians, the nobility proclaimed Odo's son, Hunold, whose dukedom Charles recognised when the Arabs invaded Provence the next year. Hunold, who originally resisted acknowledging Charles as overlord, had no choice when the Muslims returned.

In 736 the Caliphate launched another massive invasion -- this time by sea. This naval Arab invasion was headed by Abdul Rahman's son. It landed in Narbonne in 736 and took Arles. Charles, the conflict with Hunold put aside, descended on the Provençal strongholds of the Muslims. In 736, he retook Montfrin and Avignon, and Arles and Aix-en-Provence with the help of Liutprand, King of the Lombards. Nîmes, Agde, and Béziers, held by Isalm since 725, fell to him and their fortresses destroyed. He smashed a Muslim force at the River Berre, and prepared to meet their primary invasion force at Narbonne. He defeated a mighty host outside of that city, using for the first time, heavy cavalry of his own, which he used in coordination with his planax. He crushed the Muslim army, though outnumbered, but failed to take the city. Provence, however, he successfully rid of its foreign occupiers.

Notable about these campaigns was Charles' incorporation, for the first time, of heavy cavalry with stirrups to augment his phalanx. His ability to coordinate infantry and cavalry veterans was unequaled in that era and enabled him to face superior numbers of invaders, and decisively defeat them again and again. Some historians believe Narbonne in particular was as imporant a victory for Christian Europe as Tours. Charles was that rarest of commonities in the dark ages: a brilliant stategic general, who also was a tactical commander par excellance, able in the crush and heat of battle to adapt his plans to his foes forces and movement -- and amazingly, defeated them repeatedly, especially when, as at Tours, they were far superior in men and weaponry, and at Berre and Narbonne, when they were superior in numbers of brave fighting men. Charles had the last quality which defines genuine greatness in a military commander: he foresaw the dangers of his foes, and prepared for them with care; he used ground, time, place, and fierce loyalty of his troops to offset his foes superior weaponry and tactics; third, he adapted, again and again, to the enemy on the battlefield, cooly shifting to compensate for the foreseen and unforeseeable.

The importance of these campaigns, Tours and the later campaigns of 736-7 in putting an end to Muslim bases in Gaul, and any immediate ability to expand Islamic influence in Europe, cannot be overstated. Gibbons and his generation of historians, and the majority of modern experts agree with them that they were unquestionably decisive in world history. Despite these victories, the Arabs remained in control of Narbonne and Septimania for another 27 years, but could not expand further than that. The treaties reached earlier with the local population stood firm and were further consolidated in 734 when the governor of Narbonne, Yusuf ibn 'Abd al-Rahman al-Fihri, concluded agreements with several towns on common defense arrangements against the encroachments of Charles Martel, who had systematically brought the south to heel as he extended his domains. He believed, and rightly so, that it was vital to keep the Muslims in Iberia, and not allow them a foothold in Gaul itself. Though he won the battle of Narbonne when the army there came out to meet him, Charles failed in his attempt to take Narbonne by siege in 737, when the city was jointly defended by its Muslim Arab and Christian Visigoth citizens. It was left to his son, Pippin the short, to force the city's surrender, in 759, and to drive the Arabs completely back to Iberia, and bring Narbonne into the Frankish Domains. His Grandson, Charlamagne, became the first Christian ruler to actually begin what would be called the Reconquista from Europe proper. In the east of the peninsula the Frankish emperors established the Marca Hispanica across the Pyrenees in part of what today is Catalonia, reconquering Girona in 785 and Barcelona in 801. This formed a buffer zone against Islam across the Pyrenees. (From https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/tours.html.)

Emmanuel Macron, a non-practicing Catholic who supports abortion and perversity, celebrates the supposed “right to believe” or “not to believe” that has destroyed France, the eldest daughter of Holy Mother Church, and turned it into a nest of Mohammedans, who have successfully carved out a niche for themselves and their false religion that Charles Martel defeated so decisively twelve hundred eighty-eight years ago.

Ah, the Mohammedans resent it when a Western leader, including Macron, who describes himself as “defender of secularism,” seeks to defend an “infidel” peoples, Catholics, from what they believe are “justifiable” attacks after their false prophet is “blasphemed” or mocked or both, and Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan is leading the charge in this regard:

BRUSSELS — Since a young Muslim beheaded a French schoolteacher who had shown caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in a class, France has conducted dozens of raids against suspected Islamic extremists, closed a major mosque and shut down some Muslim aid groups.

In France, a nation still traumatized by some 36 Islamic State-inspired terrorist attacks in the last eight years, including two that together killed more than 200 people, those broad measures have found widespread support. President Emmanuel Macron, a fierce defender of French secularism and the right to free speech, went as far as to suggest that Islam was in need of an Enlightenment, and his interior minister spoke of a “civil war.”

In the Muslim world, these actions, and the tone coming from top French officials, have opened France to criticism that the nation’s complicated, post-colonial relationship with its six million Muslim citizens has taken an ugly turn.

Leading the condemnation has been President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, who called Mr. Macron mentally damaged in a speech over the weekend. “Macron needs mental treatment,” he said. “What is the problem of this person Macron with Muslims and Islam?” (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/world/europe/French-Muslims-Turkey-crackdown.html.)

A Catholic king in France would have sought to convert the Mohammedans. Instead, however, the Mohammedans desire France to be converted and to submit itself to an yielding respect and admiration of that which is hideous in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity, Mohammedanism and its false beliefs.

Quite to the contrary of what Emmanuel Macron believes and what is professed as “Catholic teaching” by the lords of conciliarism, false religions and atheism have no rights to propagate themselves publicly, something that Pope Pius VI explained as France was about to undergo the bloodletting of the Reign of Terror in 1792:

The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

“Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.” (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right“).

France has not recovered from the revolutionary spirit that overtook her in 1789 and was unleashed again and again with great fury in 1830, 1848, and 1871. The anti-Theistic revolution undertaken in the name of the "people" and the "rights of man" was a violent outpouring of hatred of God and His Catholic Church. Relics of countless saints, including the patron saint of Paris, Saint Genevieve, and Saints Louis IX, Vincent de Paul, Denis and, among so many others, Joan of Arc, were destroyed by the fierce hatred of these revolutionaries for anything to do with the true Faith, a revolutionary zeal against all things authentically Catholic that is shared by none other than the Jacobin named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Pope Pius VII, who had been the prisoner of the man who exploited the “principles” of the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte, explained what would happen in France because of the religious liberty granted by  the Constitutional Charter that had been approved by King Louis XVIII at the behest of the Congress of Vienna in 1814:

For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself.For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

Pope Saint Pius X, writing to condemn the complete separation of Church and State in France in 1905, explained the bitter consequences would befall the French people by refusing to submit humbly to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church:

17. The vague and ambiguous-wording of some of its articles places the end pursued by our enemies in a new light. Their object is, as we have already pointed out, the destruction of the Church and the dechristianization of France, but without people's attending to it or even noticing it. If their enterprise had been really popular, as they pretend it to be, they would not have hesitated to pursue it with visor raised and to take the whole responsibility. But instead of assuming that responsibility, they try to clear themselves of it and deny it, and in order to succeed the better, fling it upon the Church their victim. This is the most striking of all the proofs that their evil work does not respond to the wishes of the country.

18. It is in vain that after driving Us to the cruel necessity of rejecting the laws that have been made -- seeing the evils they have drawn down upon the country, and feeling the universal reprobation which, like a slow tide, is rising round them -- they seek to lead public opinion astray and to make the responsibility for these evils fall upon Us. Their attempt will not succeed.

19. As for Ourselves, We have accomplished Our duty, as every other Roman Pontiff would have done. The high charge with which it has pleased Heaven to invest Us, in spite of Our unworthiness, as also the Christian faith itself, which you profess with Us, dictated to Us Our conduct. We could not have acted otherwise without trampling under foot Our conscience, without being false to the oath which We took on mounting the chair of Peter, and without violating the Catholic hierarchy, the foundation given to the Church by our Savior Jesus Christ.

We await, then, without fear, the verdict of history. History will tell how We, with Our eyes fixed immutably upon the defense of the higher rights of God, have neither wished to humiliate the civil power, nor to combat a form of government, but to safeguard the inviolable work of Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. It will say that We have defended you, Our beloved sons, with all the strength of Our great love; that what We have demanded and now demand for the Church, of which the French Church is the elder daughter and an integral part, is respect for its hierarchy and inviolability of its property and liberty; that if Our demand had been granted religious peace would not have been troubled in France, and that, the day it is listened to that peace so much desired will be restored in the country.

20. And, lastly, history will say, that if, sure beforehand of your magnanimous generosity. We have not hesitated to tell you that the hour for sacrifice had struck, it is to remind the world, in the name of the Master of all things, that men here below should feed their minds upon thoughts of a higher sort than those of the perishable contingencies of life, and that the supreme and intangible joy of the human soul on earth is that of duty supernaturally carried out, cost what it may and so God honored, served and loved, in spite of all. (Pope Saint Pius X, Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907.)

The verdict of history is clearly on the side of the great Pope Saint Pius X. Pope Saint Pius X manfully defended the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been abandoned and flushed down the Orwellian memory hole by the conciliar revolutionaries. The conciliar “popes” have celebrated the triumph of the very false principles condemned by our true popes and that have been championed by the lords of Modernity, including those of the ever-so-tolerant France of revolutionary principles who have welcomed Mohammedans into their country with great liberality only to suffer liberally at their hands.

Prophetically, Pope Saint Pius X condemned the efforts on the part of The Sillon to “reconcile” the “spirit of the French Revolution” with the Catholic Faith. Pope Saint Pius X’s prophetic words condemned conciliarism’s adoption of The Sillon’s “spirit of reconciliation” that have seen conciliar “popes” and “cardinals” extol Mohammedanism and is “role” to promote “religion” in civil society:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Conciliarism’s respect for the false principles of “liberty, equality, fraternity” have played a very significant role in de-Catholicizing France. The contraception and abortion of the Holy Faith in this once great Catholic kingdom led French Catholics to practice contraception and to have abortions to such an extent that a need for non-French workers, including were Mohammedans who came from formerly French colonies or territories after having fought for France against various independence movements, arose. The Mohammedans thus were able to vanquish France by means of lax immigration laws and the cowardice of her own agnostic politicians, thus winning by means of public policies and by procreation what they had lost to Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours (Poitiers) on October 10, 732.

Pope Pius X explained in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, that Modernism leads ultimately to the triumph of all false religions in the world, thus paving the way for the triumph of the secularism heralded by the lords of Judeo-Masonry in the world and the scions of conciliarism alike:

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X’s description of Modernism’s respect for false religions has been demonstrated by each of the conciliar “popes” as they have lavished upon heretics and infidels without distinction.

The revolutionary spirit that the devil unleashed by means of the Protestant and the French Revolutions continues to poison the world at this present time, and it is that revolutionary spirit with which the counterfeit church of conciliarism “reconciled” itself to at the “Second” Vatican Council and the decades that have followed it. The Jacobins/Bolsheviks of conciliarism unleashed a monstrous war against Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals whose contempt for all that was held sacred prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, the Feast of Saints Denis, Rusticus, and Eleutherius (yes, the very same Saint Denis who was martyred at the age of one hundred by beheading and then walked with his head in his hands as he preached for over six miles to Paris before he died.

Yet is that the lords of Modernity continue to extol the false principles underlying their revolutions wrought in blood, heedless of the fact that the blood being spilled around the world is on their very hands.

The adversary always mocks those who hold fast to his revolutionary schemes as those schemes backfire into the faces of the supposedly “enlightened” men who fall prey to belief that they can “save” the world by their ideological presuppositions that are founded upon a contempt for Our Lord and His true Church.

The adversary is also mocking the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, which is shriveling up in many countries in Europe and elsewhere despite all of their efforts to reconcile themselves to the principles of that “new era inaugurated in 1789.” As we know, of course, it is precisely because of that “official reconciliation” heralded by the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger that the false conciliar sect is dying out, a death that has been aided and abetted by the spiritual barrenness of its false, sacramentally invalid and abominable liturgical rites.

We must never give the adversary or his minions any breathing room in our own lives. They want us to be agitated about the violent events of the world in which we live. Agitation is always of the devil.

Catholics, although concerned about the state of the world, seek to do will of God despite their own sins and failings.

Catholics see the world through the supernatural eyes of the Holy Faith, not through the natural eyes of the false partisan divides of the “right” and the “left” that are nothing other than diabolical tricks designed to convince men that some naturalist solution can be found to retard the spread of evil in the world.

Catholics live in fear of only one thing, and that is to displease God, especially by Mortal Sin, and thence to die in a state of final impenitence that will result in their being condemned to hell for all eternity.

Catholics neither presume their salvation as do Protestants, and their do not despair of it. They simply keep close to the Mother of God, particularly by means of her Most Holy Rosary, and know that they are always in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of mantle. What else more do we need?

As we have the duty imposed upon by the precepts of filial piety that flow from the Fourth Commandment and are part of the Natural Law to pray for our civic officials every day, we cannot fail to pray for the conversion of those in public life are who are steeped in the errors of Modernity and/or Modernism lest they die in their first class compartments aboard Modernity’s Ship of Fools. These men and women have souls have been made in the image and the likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity and redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of the Most Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

No believing Catholic can say that he loves God and not pray for the conversion of those who are, whether or not they realize it, serving the adversary in public life. We must pray—by name—for the conversion of those who are the enemies of Christ the King and thus of the souls He redeemed during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross. This does not mean that we do not oppose evils advanced by men such as Obama/Soetoro. Of course not. We can and we must oppose such evils, but we do so while praying simultaneously for the conversion of such people, who may very well wind up being the means by which we can save our souls by commencing an open and undisguised persecution against all who resist them.

The necessity of opposing those who support evil in public life was stressed by Pope Leo XIII in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

Now, if the natural law enjoins us to love devotedly and to defend the country in which we had birth, and in which we were brought up, so that every good citizen hesitates not to face death for his native land, very much more is it the urgent duty of Christians to be ever quickened by like feelings toward the Church. For the Church is the holy City of the living God, born of God Himself, and by Him built up and established. Upon this earth, indeed, she accomplishes her pilgrimage, but by instructing and guiding men she summons them to eternal happiness. We are bound, then, to love dearly the country whence we have received the means of enjoyment this mortal life affords, but we have a much more urgent obligation to love, with ardent love, the Church to which we owe the life of the soul, a life that will endure forever. For fitting it is to prefer the good of the soul to the well-being of the body, inasmuch as duties toward God are of a far more hallowed character than those toward men.

 6. Moreover, if we would judge aright, the supernatural love for the Church and the natural love of our own country proceed from the same eternal principle, since God Himself is their Author and originating Cause. Consequently, it follows that between the duties they respectively enjoin, neither can come into collision with the other. We can, certainly, and should love ourselves, bear ourselves kindly toward our fellow men, nourish affection for the State and the governing powers; but at the same time we can and must cherish toward the Church a feeling of filial piety, and love God with the deepest love of which we are capable. The order of precedence of these duties is, however, at times, either under stress of public calamities, or through the perverse will of men, inverted. For, instances occur where the State seems to require from men as subjects one thing, and religion, from men as Christians, quite another; and this in reality without any other ground, than that the rulers of the State either hold the sacred power of the Church of no account, or endeavor to subject it to their own will. Hence arises a conflict, and an occasion, through such conflict, of virtue being put to the proof. The two powers are confronted and urge their behests in a contrary sense; to obey both is wholly impossible. No man can serve two masters,[3] for to please the one amounts to contemning the other.

7. As to which should be preferred no one ought to balance for an instant. It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men, an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ, in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers, or, under pretext of keeping the civil law, to ignore the rights of the Church; "we ought to obey God rather than men."[4] This answer, which of old Peter and the other Apostles were used to give the civil authorities who enjoined unrighteous things, we must, in like circumstances, give always and without hesitation. No better citizen is there, whether in time of peace or war, than the Christian who is mindful of his duty; but such a one should be ready to suffer all things, even death itself, rather than abandon the cause of God or of the Church.

8. Hence, they who blame, and call by the name of sedition, this steadfastness of attitude in the choice of duty have not rightly apprehended the force and nature of true law. We are speaking of matters widely known, and which We have before now more than once fully explained. Law is of its very essence a mandate of right reason, proclaimed by a properly constituted authority, for the common good. But true and legitimate authority is void of sanction, unless it proceed from God, the supreme Ruler and Lord of all. The Almighty alone can commit power to a man over his fellow men;[5] nor may that be accounted as right reason which is in disaccord with truth and with divine reason; nor that held to be true good which is repugnant to the supreme and unchangeable good, or that wrests aside and draws away the wills of men from the charity of God.

9. Hallowed, therefore, in the minds of Christians is the very idea of public authority, in which they recognize some likeness and symbol as it were of the Divine Majesty, even when it is exercised by one unworthy. A just and due reverence to the laws abides in them, not from force and threats, but from a consciousness of duty; "for God hath not given us the spirit of fear."[6]

10. But, if the laws of the State are manifestly at variance with the divine law, containing enactments hurtful to the Church, or conveying injunctions adverse to the duties imposed by religion, or if they violate in the person of the supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then, truly, to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey, a crime; a crime, moreover, combined with misdemeanor against the State itself, inasmuch as every offense leveled against religion is also a sin against the State. Here anew it becomes evident how unjust is the reproach of sedition; for the obedience due to rulers and legislators is not refused, but there is a deviation from their will in those precepts only which they have no power to enjoin. Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God, and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws. You are fully aware, venerable brothers, that this is the very contention of the Apostle St. Paul, who, in writing to Titus, after reminding Christians that they are "to be subject to princes and powers, and to obey at a word," at once adds: "And to be ready to every good work."[7] Thereby he openly declares that, if laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them. In like manner, the Prince of the Apostles gave this courageous and sublime answer to those who would have deprived him of the liberty of preaching the Gospel: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge ye, for we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."[8]

11. Wherefore, to love both countries, that of earth below and that of heaven above, yet in such mode that the love of our heavenly surpass the love of our earthly home, and that human laws be never set above the divine law, is the essential duty of Christians, and the fountainhead, so to say, from which all other duties spring. The Redeemer of mankind of Himself has said: "For this was I born, and for this came I into the world, that I should give testimony to the truth."[9] In like manner: "I am come to cast fire upon earth, and what will I but that it be kindled?''[10] In the knowledge of this truth, which constitutes the highest perfection of the mind; in divine charity which, in like manner, completes the will, all Christian life and liberty abide. This noble patrimony of truth and charity entrusted by Jesus Christ to the Church she defends and maintains ever with untiring endeavor and watchfulness.

12. But with what bitterness and in how many guises war has been waged against the Church it would be ill-timed now to urge. From the fact that it has been vouchsafed to human reason to snatch from nature, through the investigations of science, many of her treasured secrets and to apply them befittingly to the divers requirements of life, men have become possessed with so arrogant a sense of their own powers as already to consider themselves able to banish from social life the authority and empire of God. Led away by this delusion, they make over to human nature the dominion of which they think God has been despoiled; from nature, they maintain, we must seek the principle and rule of all truth; from nature, they aver, alone spring, and to it should be referred, all the duties that religious feeling prompts. Hence, they deny all revelation from on high, and all fealty due to the Christian teaching of morals as well as all obedience to the Church, and they go so far as to deny her power of making laws and exercising every other kind of right, even disallowing the Church any place among the civil institutions of the commonweal. These men aspire unjustly, and with their might strive, to gain control over public affairs and lay hands on the rudder of the State, in order that the legislation may the more easily be adapted to these principles, and the morals of the people influenced in accordance with them. Whence it comes to pass that in many countries Catholicism is either openly assailed or else secretly interfered with, full impunity being granted to the most pernicious doctrines, while the public profession of Christian truth is shackled oftentimes with manifold constraints. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

The words in Paragraph Twelve apply just as much to the lords of conciliarism, who possesseth no any authority in the Catholic Church, as they do to the lords of Modernity with whom they have been “officially reconciled” and allied in all things that pertain to the denial of the sacred rights of the Christ the King.

Thus it is we pray for the conversion of public life while we denounce and oppose the evil that they do. 

We must, though, also consider the fact that we must be converted on our daily basis away from our own sins and worldliness, from our lack of faith and our putting almost total trust in the “salvific” nature of secular politics. As I long noted, dating back to the earliest days of my full-time teaching career forty-four years ago very year at Mohawk Valley Community College in Utica, New York, there is no secular salvation, and we can never permit ourselves to become blinded by the illusion of such salvation.

Each of us is going to face Christ the King as our Divine Judge at the moment of our Particular Judgment, which is why the story of the saint whose feast we celebrate today, Saint Camillus de

Each Catholic must be ever ready to suffer these kinds of martyrdoms, and the way to be prepared to suffer them is by renouncing the world and its false allurements.

We would do well to remember that the adversary will mock us for all eternity in hell for doing his bidding for him if we are not willing to quit and then to do violence to our own will in order to love God more perfectly as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.

In all of this, of course, we have Our Lady’s help.

May we rely upon our dear Blessed Mother in these perilous times as we are lost—both in this life and for all eternity—without her maternal intercession and protection.  

Our Lady told us that her Immaculate Heart would triumph in the end. We must ever confident that this is so, and thus be content to do our daily duties with peace of mind and with hearts that are consecrated to her Divine Son’s Most Sacred Heart through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!  

Our Lady, Mother of God, 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 Saints, pray for us.

Appendix

Do You Believe in the Apostles’ Creed?

May 13, 2006

Do you believe in the Apostles' Creed? Those who do had better count on one thing in the not-too-distant future: overt harassment and possibly even imprisonment on the grounds of intolerance and bigotry.

What some of us, wrongly, as it turned out, feared would result from a Bill Clinton presidency in 1992 is coming true in the administration of his successor, who is the son of his predecessor. That is, President George W. Bush has authorized more invasions of the privacy of ordinary American citizens than any of his predecessors combined. The use of the coercive power of the state has increased dramatically since the events of September 11, 2001, without any real increase in the security of this country (indeed, our border with Mexico is a sieve through which is passing countless numbers of Mohammedans intent on doing us no good at all). There will come a time in the near future when some presidential administration, perhaps this one or perhaps another, is going to use the sophisticated means of data collection on ordinary citizens established under George W. Bush to question them closely about their beliefs. The Roman Emperors, who had their own system of informants, many of the them Jews of the Diaspora, to persecute Catholics, to be sure, could not have dreamed of a system as comprehensive and draconian as has been developed in a supposedly "free" country by a supposedly "conservative chief executive.

In truth, of course, all manner of the questioning of belief is done all of the time in practically every single aspect of our culture. The mere mention of the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is forbidden in some places in the military chaplaincy program. Corporations regularly screen prospective employees about their sensitivity to issues of "diversity," particularly as it concerns the "rights" of those who pervert the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. People who do wind up being hired must go through ideological brainwashing programs on a regular basis in order to retain their positions or have any chance for promotion. Educational institutions regularly screen out candidates with records that are considered to be politically incorrect (and, believe me, I know all about this one from thirty years of experience). Indeed, the famed Soviet dissident and Nobel Prize for Literature laureate Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn saw this clearly in his famous commencement address, "A World Split Apart," delivered at Harvard University on June 8, 1978:

Without any censorship in the West, fashionable trends of thought and ideas are fastidiously separated from those that are not fashionable, and the latter, without ever being forbidden have little chance of finding their way into periodicals or books or being heard in colleges. Your scholars are free in the legal sense, but they are hemmed in by the idols of the prevailing fad. There is no open violence, as in the East; however, a selection dictated by fashion and the need to accommodate mass standards frequently prevents the most independent-minded persons from contributing to public life and gives rise to dangerous herd instincts that block dangerous herd development.

In America, I have received letters from highly intelligent persons - maybe a teacher in a faraway small college who could do much for the renewal and salvation of his country, but the country cannot hear him because the media will not provide him with a forum. This gives birth to strong mass prejudices, to a blindness which is perilous in our dynamic era. (Aleksandr I. Solzehnitsyn, “A World Split Apart,” June 8, 1978.)

Freedom? It is an illusion. There can be no authentic freedom for the individual or for the state that is not founded in the Kingship of Jesus Christ as it must be exercised by the Catholic Church, which is why all of the novel language of the conciliar popes about "international solidarity" and "religious liberty" aids and abets the spread of objective evils and encourages armed hostilities within and among nations. Pope Pius XI put it this way in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922:

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail.

It is apparent from these considerations that true peace, the peace of Christ, is impossible unless we are willing and ready to accept the fundamental principles of Christianity, unless we are willing to observe the teachings and obey the law of Christ, both in public and private life. If this were done, then society being placed at last on a sound foundation, the Church would be able, in the exercise of its divinely given ministry and by means of the teaching authority which results therefrom, to protect all the rights of God over men and nations.

It is possible to sum up all We have said in one word, "the Kingdom of Christ." For Jesus Christ reigns over the minds of individuals by His teachings, in their hearts by His love, in each one's life by the living according to His law and the imitating of His example. Jesus reigns over the family when it, modeled after the holy ideals of the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ, maintains unspotted its true character of sanctuary. In such a sanctuary of love, parental authority is fashioned after the authority of God, the Father, from Whom, as a matter of fact, it originates and after which even it is named. (Ephesians iii, 15) The obedience of the children imitates that of the Divine Child of Nazareth, and the whole family life is inspired by the sacred ideals of the Holy Family. Finally, Jesus Christ reigns over society when men recognize and reverence the sovereignty of Christ, when they accept the divine origin and control over all social forces, a recognition which is the basis of the right to command for those in authority and of the duty to obey for those who are subjects, a duty which cannot but ennoble all who live up to its demands. Christ reigns where the position in society which He Himself has assigned to His Church is recognized, for He bestowed on the Church the status and the constitution of a society which, by reason of the perfect ends which it is called upon to attain, must be held to be supreme in its own sphere; He also made her the depository and interpreter of His divine teachings, and, by consequence, the teacher and guide of every other society whatsoever, not of course in the sense that she should abstract in the least from their authority, each in its own sphere supreme, but that she should really perfect their authority, just as divine grace perfects human nature, and should give to them the assistance necessary for men to attain their true final end, eternal happiness, and by that very fact make them the more deserving and certain promoters of their happiness here below.

It is, therefore, a fact which cannot be questioned that the true peace of Christ can only exist in the Kingdom of Christ -- "the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ." It is no less unquestionable that, in doing all we can to bring about the re-establishment of Christ's kingdom, we will be working most effectively toward a lasting world peace. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

This language was rejected by the “Second” Vatican Council, especially in Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965. An appeal to "modern man," condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis in 1950, has characterized the appeals of popes and bishops for "peace." There is no call for the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King as the penultimate fruit of the fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message. Indeed, there is no talk of Our Lady's Fatima Message at all as the anniversary of her first apparition to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Sister Lucia dos Santos is transformed into a celebration of the life of the late Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II. And the man who is now the conciliar antipope, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who has contempt for the way in which the social doctrine of the Church was reiterated by popes in the Nineteenth Century, played a major role in the deconstruction of the Third Secret Family  (along with Angelo Cardinal Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State). One of the most important books of the past decade, The Devil's Final Battle, chronicled this deconstruction, making the Fatima Message appear to be irrelevant as its "time" has passed.

Has the time for the Fatima Message passed?

Have the anti-Incarnational, statist errors of Russia ceased to spread in the world?

Hardly. The growth in the coercive power of the state in the supposedly "free" world since the end of World War II is one of the proofs of the spread of the errors of Russia that Our Lady had warned us about in Fatima starting eighty-nine years ago today, May 13, 1917. The errors of Russia have spread rapidly since the collapse of overt Bolshevism in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on December 25, 1991. Communism, though, is alive and well in Russia and most of the former republics of the old Soviet Union. I mean, who is Vladimir Putin? The former head of the KGB, that's all. He hates political dissent. He loves spying on his country's citizens.

George W. Bush hates dissent. He loves spying on his country's citizens. There will come a time when certain strains of thought and belief will be legally proscribed. This may not come in the Bush II administration.

Count on this, though, it is going to come, and George W. Bush will have paved the way for it if he does not implement it himself.

Criticism of the government?

A crime.

Seeking the conversion of souls to the Catholic Church.

A crime.

Public criticism of perversion?

A crime.

Proclamation of the Holy Name of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in public?

A crime.

Speaking out against corporate usury as a violation of the Seventh Commandment?

A crime.

Speaking out against blasphemies committed by the motion picture and related "entertainment" industries?

A crime.

Defending the inviolability of innocent human life?

A crime.

Far-fetched?

Think again, ladies and gentlemen.

Think again.

Tyrants have sought to silence Catholics from the very birth of the Church on Pentecost Sunday, starting with the thugs who composed the Sanhedrin. Roman Emperors and the kings of barbaric tribes tried with all of their might to get Catholics to deny the Faith during the early part First Millennium. Mohammedans have tried to do so from the Seventh Century to this very day. Protestants and Freemasons and social revolutionaries have tried to do so with varying degrees of ferocity since 1517. The names of these perpetrators have ranged from Nero to Trajan to Diocletian to Mohammed to Luther to Henry to Cranmer to Calvin to Cromwell to Danton to Robespierre to Garibaldi and Bismarck to Lenin to Hitler to Mao to Ho to Castro to Ortega and to all of the petty little men and women, many of them apostate Catholics, who have served in our own government in the past thirty to forty years, ever eager to sell out the Faith for their thirty pieces of silver of popularity and political power.

Tyrants never learn their lessons. Inspired by the adversary, who hates God and who hates us because our souls made in the image and likeness of God, new generations of tyrants arise to try to silence the voice of Catholics. This is why the accommodation of the Church in her human elements to the spirit of the world has made it more possible for the witches' brew of forces that has been coalescing and mutating and re-coalescing since the Sixteenth Century to be victorious in all aspects of the popular culture of most of the countries in the so-called "developed" world. The Church in her human elements has lost her ability to denounce the criminals of Modernity because she has been infiltrated by Modernists, men who are ashamed to speak in the clear, unambiguous language used by the Popes of Tradition, including the language used by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio on December 23, 1922. The devil and his minions grow bolder when Catholics, including popes and bishops and priests, begin to speak with the voice of the world.

Pope Leo XIII put it his way in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth, is the part of a man either devoid of character or who entertains doubt as to the truth of what he professes to believe. In both cases such mode of behaving is base and is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind. This kind of conduct is profitable only to the enemies of the faith, for nothing emboldens the wicked so greatly as the lack of courage on the part of the good. Moreover, want of vigor on the part of Christians is so much the more blameworthy, as not seldom little would be needed on their part to bring to naught false charges and refute erroneous opinions, and by always exerting themselves more strenuously they might reckon upon being successful. After all, no one can be prevented from putting forth that strength of soul which is the characteristic of true Christians, and very frequently by such display of courage our enemies lose heart and their designs are thwarted. Christians are, moreover, born for combat, whereof the greater the vehemence, the more assured, God aiding, the triumph: "Have confidence; I have overcome the world." Nor is there any ground for alleging that Jesus Christ, the Guardian and Champion of the Church, needs not in any manner the help of men. Power certainly is not wanting to Him, but in His loving kindness He would assign to us a share in obtaining and applying the fruits of salvation procured through His grace. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae, Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Pope Pius XI sounded a similar theme in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:

We firmly hope, however, that the feast of the Kingship of Christ, which in future will be yearly observed, may hasten the return of society to our loving Savior. It would be the duty of Catholics to do all they can to bring about this happy result. Many of these, however, have neither the station in society nor the authority which should belong to those who bear the torch of truth. This state of things may perhaps be attributed to a certain slowness and timidity in good people, who are reluctant to engage in conflict or oppose but a weak resistance; thus the enemies of the Church become bolder in their attacks. But if the faithful were generally to understand that it behooves them ever to fight courageously under the banner of Christ their King, then, fired with apostolic zeal, they would strive to win over to their Lord those hearts that are bitter and estranged from him, and would valiantly defend his rights. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

The enemy also becomes bolder in his attacks when those of us who want to see Tradition restored in the Church and the Social Reign of Christ the King restored become so focused on fighting each other, sometimes quite nastily, that we lose sight of the fact that adversary's minions are monitoring our words and actions. There will come a day when all of us will be rounded up without distinction to the traditionalist "camp" in which we associate ourselves. It won't matter to the statists and their Catholic collaborators (who will quite happily serve the role of the Jewish collaborators in the early days of the Third Reich) whether we are indultarians or members of the Society of Saint Pius X or sedevacantists.

Oh, no, anyone who believes in the Social Reign of Christ the King will be seen as an enemy of the State, a veritable incarnation of David Koresh (aka Wayne Howell) or Timothy McVeigh. People who cannot presently stand one another--and who hurl the most vile insults at each other--may very well find themselves in the same jail cell awaiting execution just because they believe in the Apostles' Creed and Christ the King.

Even this, though, is not without precedent.

Saint Hippolytus spent a good deal of his life as an antipope, believing that the several popes in Rome had countenanced heresy and/or were too weak on heretics. Thus, he had himself proclaimed pope after the death of Pope Saint Zephyrinus, thereby opposing three successive popes, Callistus, Urban, and Pontian. As Our Lord would have it, however, Pontian and Hippolytus were sent into exile together on the island of Sardinia by Emperor Maximinus in the year 235 A.D. The two former adversaries, Pontian and Hippolytus, were reconciled to each other during their captivity, which ended in their deaths. We face hatred from the political and economic and cultural tyrants of Modernity on the one hand and from the tyrants of Modernism in the Church on the other.

We must always recognize the devil's minions in the world will make no distinction amongst us at all. Truly believing Catholics are the worst threat to tyrants. (Not so with quisling Catholics who have bought into, whether wittingly or unwittingly, the "the joys of the world" as being compatible with the Faith.) Revolutionaries have always recognized this to be the case. They recognize it today, which is why we must understand that Modernism's obeisance to the altar of Modernity should be the focus of our attention, not the sideshow of the different ways in which our fellow traditional Catholics have reacted to the incredible series of events of the past sixty-one years. (I mean, the “Pontifical” Council for Interreligious Dialogue is cooperating with the pro-contraception, pro-abortion World Council of Churches to try to devise a universal code of conduct to supervise the process of religious conversions so as to not disparage any other religions? This is from Christ? Yes, I will do an article on this at some point in the next week or so. But, seriously, how in the world can any Catholic say that such an effort is of God or does not reflect poorly on the reigning pontiff who has authorized it?)

The enemies of the Faith know that anyone who professes traditional Catholicism is, at the very least, a potential enemy of the Revolution, an enemy of the "right" of the civil state to wipe out any expression of Catholicism from the midst of popular culture. Although I am tempted to point out numerous examples of who among the warring tribes of traditionalism could be paired up in prison by the statists in a repetition of the experience of Saints Pontian and Hippolytus, I will leave it to your own imaginations to conjure up pairings of people today who don't speak to each or who don't regard each other highly. Pontian and Hippolytus, despite their many differences, were ready to die for the Faith as it had been handed down to them from the Apostles. Do we really think that those who differ from us within the traditional movement are not as ready to die for the Faith today as were Pontian and Hippolytus in the Third Century?

Our only hope in the midst of these troubling times, ladies and gentlemen, is Our Lady of Fatima. We must cling to her. We must do our part to fulfill her Fatima Message in our own daily lives, trusting her with the same childlike simplicity and joy of Francisco, Jacinta, and Lucia. We must do penance for our own sins and for those of the whole world. We must pray, pray, pray, for the conversion of sinners. And we must pray for the consecration of Russia to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart by a pope with all the world's bishops (something that has not been done). The fulfillment of Our Lady's Fatima Message will bring about the end of the spread of the errors of Russia, which are the errors of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the Church. Tradition will be restored in the Church and Christendom in the world.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.