Phenomenal Refusal to Acknowledge Reality

As the misnamed “World Days of Prayer for Peace” that started in Assisi, Italy, on Sunday, October 25, 2026, the Feast of Christ the King and the Commemoration of the Twenty-second Sunday after Pentecost, will not end its blathering from ignoramuses who do not understand that there can be no peace in the world when men are at war with Christ the King by means of their unrepented sins, including sins of the sort of religious indifferentism and idolatry these ignoramuses are committing  at their three day shindig, today, Tuesday, October 27, 2026, the Vigil of Saints Simon and Jude, I will wait until this latest exercise in ideological self-delusion ends to write my commentary about it

In the meantime, though, a reader sent me the sort of “low-hanging fruit” that is hard to resist. This “low-lying fruit” came in the form of an “analysis” that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King (see Leo XIV openly rejects the reign of Christ the King over states and nations).

This is supposed to be something no one knew before?

Even I, who am rarely at a loss for words, am pretty much speechless at such a shallow understanding of how the rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King is one of the foundational building blocks of Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, both of which were approved by the fathers of the “Second” Vatican Council on Tuesday, December 7, 1965, the Feast of Saint Ambrose and the Vigil of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, just four days shy of the fortieth anniversary of Pope Pius XI’s Quas Primas on December 11, 1925.

Although I included the excerpt from the late Michael Davies’s pamphlet on the Social Reign of Christ the King in one of the reflections I republished two days ago, I am going to do so again so that no one can have any doubt that Robert Francis Prevost’s rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King is nothing other than complete fidelity to the false spirit of the conciliar sect’s “official reconciliation” with the principles of the “new era” inaugurated in 1789:

The late Michael Davies, the great apostle of the Social Reign of Christ the King, noted how the conciliarists removed a number of readings derived from Quas Primas in their "revised" "Office of Readings." The late Mr. Davies also explained how Archbishop Annibale Bugnini changed the texts of the Mass of Christ the King as found in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service to signify the eschatological, not the social, Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

A number of readings from Quas primas itself were included in the Office, and they explained the traditional teaching on Church and State with great clarity. They have all been removed, showing how blatantly the compilers of the new Breviary went about their task of eliminating liturgical references to the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The removal of these readings from Quas primas must certainly be seen as an affront to the memory and the teaching of Pope Pius XI, at whose behest the Office had been composed only forty years earlier, with the specific aim of reminding rulers that they are bound to give public honour and obedience to Our Lord. Could this great Pope possibly have imagined that within four decades he would have a successor who would totally mutilate the Office that he had approved so recently, and that this mutilation would have the objective of removing any suggestion that rulers are bound to give honour and obedience to Our Lord? Pope Paul VI stated explicitly to the rulers of the world that the Church asked no more of them than freedom to pursue its mission

The thoroughness with which Archbishop Bugnini's Consilium expunged every specific expression of Our Lord's Social Kingship from the liturgy can hardly be denied. Its members did not even miss a reference to Our Lord's Social Kingship in the Good Friday liturgy. The first of the Solemn Collects, the one for the Church, read:

Let us pray, dearly beloved, for the holy Church of God: that our God and Lord may be pleased to give it peace, keep its unity and preserve it throughout the world: subjecting to it principalities and powers, and may He grant us, while we live in peace and tranquillity, grace to glorify God the Father almighty. {my emphasis]

This prayer has been replaced by the following:

Let us pray, dear friends, for the holy Church of God throughout the World, that God, the almighty Father guide it, and gather it together so that we may worship him in peace and tranquillity.

Lest anyone should imagine that an undue significance has been placed upon changes in the Breviary and Missal relating to the doctrine of Christ the King, a comment by Archbishop A. Bugnini, Great Architect of the Liturgical Revolution, should prove very illuminating.

In the ecumenical climate of Vatican II, some expressions in the Orationes sollemnes of the Good Friday service had a bad ring to them. There were urgent requests to tone down some of the wording. It is always unpleasant to have to alter venerable texts that for centuries have effectively nourished Christian devotion and have about them the spiritual fragrance of the heroic age of the Church's beginnings. Above all, it is difficult to revise literary masterpieces that are unsurpassed for their pithy form. It was nevertheless thought necessary to face up to the task, lest anyone find reason for spiritual discomfort in the prayer of the Church. The revisions, limited to what was absolutely necessary, were prepared by study group l8 bis. In Intercession 1: "For the Church," the phrase subiciens ei principatus et potestates ("subjecting principalities and powers to it [the Church]") was omitted: even though this was inspired by what St. Paul says about the "angelic powers" (Col. 2:15), it could be misinterpreted as referring to a temporal role which the Church did indeed have in other periods of history but which is anachronistic today.[7]

So there we have it. The social kingship of Christ is an anachronism.

In my book The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty, I have documented in great detail the manner in which Dignitatis humanae abandoned the traditional concept of a Catholic state as taught by the Popes. The term "Catholic State" is not so much as mentioned throughout the entire Declaration. Article 6 accepts the possibility of a religious body being given "special legal recognition," but insists that "it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious bodies to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice." This hardly corresponds with the insistence of Pope Leo XIII: "Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness— namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. (The Reign of Christ the King.)

The conciliar sect’s rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King was the culmination of the efforts by Sillonists, Modernists, Americanists, and ecumenists in the six decades leading up to the “Second” Vatican Council to reject the Social Reign of Christ the King, both in practice and as a matter of theology, in favor of the religiously neutral civil state of Modernity. These efforts produced a spirited colloquy between the Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, the famous Americanist, Father John Courtney Murray, in the 1950s.

At the root of this Ottaviani-Murray colloquy was whether the Social Reign of Christ the King was a matter of Divine Revelation and hence an irreformable teaching of Holy Mother Church from which she could never depart despite whatever practical concessions had to be made to the actual situations in which her children lived. Cardinal Ottaviani argued that the teaching is part of the patrimony of the Church and that, as dogmatic truth does not evolve because of changed temporal circumstanced, whatever concessions must be made to protect Catholics in countries such as the United States of America must in no way be seen as any diminution of the truth that it is the right of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to reign over all men and all nations. Thus, the debate was both about the nature of dogmatic truth and the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Here is what Cardinal Ottaviani wrote on this matter in 1954:

Here the problem presents itself of how the Church and the lay state are to live together. Some Catholics are propagating ideas with regard to this point which are not quite correct. Many of these Catholics undoubtedly love the Church and rightly intend to find a mode of possible adaptation to the circumstances of the times. But it is none the less true that their position reminds one of that of the faint-hearted soldier who wants to conquer without fighting, or of that of the simple, unsuspecting person who accepts a hand, treacherously held out to him, without taking account of the fact that this hand will subsequently pull him across the Rubicon towards error and injustice.

The first mistake of these people is precisely that of not accepting fully the "arms of truth" and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs, in the course of this last century, and in particular the reigning Pontiff, Pius XII, by means of encyclicals, allocutions and instructions of all kinds, have given to Catholics on this subject.

To justify themselves, these people affirm that, in the body of teaching given in the Church, a distinction must be made between what is permanent and what is transitory, this latter being due to the influence of particular passing conditions. Unfortunately, however, they include in this second zone the principles laid down in the Pontifical documents, principles on which the teaching of the Church has remained constant, as they form part of the patrimony of Catholic doctrine.

In this matter, the pendulum theory, elaborated by certain writers in an attempt to sift the teaching set forth in Encyclical Letters at different times, cannot be applied. "The Church," it has been written, "takes account of the rhythm of the world's history after the fashion of a swinging pendulum which, desirous of keeping the proper measure, maintains its movement by reversing it when it judges that it has gone as far as it should.... From this point of view a whole history of the Encyclicals could be written. Thus in the field of Biblical studies, the Encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, comes after the Encyclicals Spiritus Paraclitus and Providentissimus.  In the field of Theology or Politics, the Encyclicals, Summi Pontificatus, Non abbiamo bisogno and Ubi Arcano Deo, come after the Encyclical, Immortale Dei."

Now if this were to be understood in the sense that the general and fundamental principles of public Ecclesiastical Law, solemnly affirmed in the Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, are merely the reflection of historic moments of the past, while the swing of the pendulum of the doctrinal Encyclicals of Pope Pius XI and Pope Pius XII has passed in the opposite direction to different positions, the statement would have to be qualified as completely erroneous, not only because it misrepresents the teaching of the Encyclicals themselves, but also because it is theoretically inadmissible. In the Encyclical Letter, Humani Generis, the reigning Pontiff teaches us that we must recognize in the Encyclicals the ordinary magisterium of the Church: "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand assent, in that, when writing such Letters, the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say "He who heareth you heareth Me" (St. Luke 10:16); and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already belongs for other reasons to Catholic doctrine."

Because they are afraid of being accused of wanting to return to the Middle Ages, some of our writers no longer dare to maintain the doctrinal positions that are constantly affirmed in the Encyclicals as belonging to the life and legislation of the Church in all ages.  For them is meant the warning of Pope Leo XIII who, recommending concord and unity in the combat against error, adds that "care must be taken never to connive, in anyway, at false opinions, never to withstand them less strenuously than truth allows." (Duties of the Catholic State in Regard to Religion.)

Thus, good readers, we see that the advocates of the Americanist view of Church-State relations relied upon dogmatic evolutionism to advance their falsehoods despite such evolutionism being both philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned. God is immutable, and He does permit Holy Mother Church to teach one thing for nineteen hundred years and then its opposite as the state has a duty founded in both Divine Revelation to acknowledge His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Christ the King, as King and His Holy Church as its mater and magister in all things that pertain to the good of souls.

Father John Courtney Murray was trying to "historicize" Catholic Social Teaching even though our true popes had condemned "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" as heretical in se as matters of principle while, of course, conceding the existence of those heresies as a fait accompli in the pluralist, religious indifferentist state of Modernity. Our true popes never ceased condemning these heresies while making allowance for Holy Mother Church's childen in such countries to make use of the constitutional and legal structures under which they lived to practice their Faith and to profess It openly without inteference or molestation from the civil authorities.

Father Murray sought to "historicize" Catholic Social Teaching even though such "historicization," which asserts that part of a particular teaching was applicable only to the situation that existed at a certain time and thus was not binding upon the Church in perpetuity, had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, which was, of course, simply a reiteration of the condemnations of the "evolution of dogma" promulgated at the [First] Vatican Council by Pope Pius IX and contained in the teaching of Pope Saint Pius X, most particularly in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Father Murray's efforts to "historicize" Catholic Social Teaching did not escape the notice of young priest who had been ordained on June 29, 1951, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul, in Munich, Germany, named Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who had been trained in his seminary years by the "new theologians" in this exact same methodology.

The very foundation of what the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI came to term as the "hermeneutic of continuity" is both philosophically absurd and stands as dogmatically condemned, representing also, of course utter blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by not only "hiding" a "discovery" of the impermanence of dogmatic formulations but had actually permitted direct condemnations of this very proposition by a dogmatic council and various true popes.

Indeed, Joseph Alois Ratzinger, both as the prefect of the conciliar sect’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and as “Pope Benedict XVI,” made it very clear that he did not believe in the teaching of the Social Reign of Christ the King as part of Divine Revelation nor in its restoration.

Our Lord’s Social Kingship has been rejected by the conciliar "pontiffs" themselves, a rejection that the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, confronted the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger about on July 14, 1987, using, it should be noted, the same false ecclesiology ("traditional magisterium") that the Society uses to this very day to oppose a man they believe to be a true pope:

Under pressure, Rome gave in. On July 14, Cardinal Ratzinger received Archbishop Lefebvre at the Holy Office. At first the Cardinal persisted in arguing that "the State is competent in religious matters."

"But the State must have an ultimate and eternal end," replied the Archbishop.

"Your Grace, that is the case for the Church, not the State. By itself the State does not know."

Archbishop Lefebvre was distraught: a Cardinal and Prefect of the Holy Office wanted to show him that the State can have no religion and cannot prevent the spread of error. However, before talking about concessions, the Cardinal made a threat: the consequence of an illicit episcopal consecration would be "schism and excommunication."

"Schism?" retorted the Archbishop. "If there is a schism, it is because of what the Vatican did at Assisi and how you replied to our Dubiae: the Church is breaking with the traditional Magisterium. But the Church against her past and her Tradition is not the Catholic Church; this is why being excommunicated by a liberal, ecumenical, and revolutionary Church is a matter of indifference to us."

As this tirade ended, Joseph Ratzinger gave in: "Let us find a practical solution. Make a moderate declaration on the Council and the new missal a bit like the one that Jean Guitton has suggested to you. Then, we would give you a bishop for ordinations, we could work out an arrangement with the diocesan bishops, and you could continue as you are doing. As for a Cardinal Protector, and make your suggestions."

How did Marcel Lefebvre not jump for joy? Rome was giving in! But his penetrating faith went to the very heart of the Cardinal's rejection of doctrine. He said to himself: "So, must Jesus no longer reign? Is Jesus no longer God? Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. We can no longer trust this lot!" To the Cardinal, he said:

"Eminence, even if you give us everything--a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries--we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.

"For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything. He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.

Recounting this incident, the Archbishop described the Cardinal's attitude: "Motionless, he looked at me, his eyes expressionless, as if I had just suggested something incomprehensible or unheard of." Then Ratzinger tried to argue that "the Church can still say whatever she wants to the State," while Lefebvre, the intuitive master of Catholic metaphysics, did not lose sight of the true end of human societies: the Reign of Christ. (His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri: Angelus Press, 2004, pp. 547-548. It should be noted that the conciliar sect’s rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King was very much part of Archbishop Lefebvre’s meeting with Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI’s meeting at Castel Gandolfo, Italy, on September 11, 1976: The Audience with Paul VI.)

It was “Pope” Benedict XVI that Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who had long embraced dogmatic evolutionism (see the appendix below), gave his own “papal” stamp of approval to conciliarism’s embrace of “religious freedom” and the American system of Church-State relations in his infamous December 22, 2005, address to the conciliar curia:

In the meantime, however, the modern age had also experienced developments. People came to realize that the American Revolution was offering a model of a modern State that differed from the theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

Although the "model of a modern State" that emerged from the American Revolution did indeed differ from the "theoretical model with radical tendencies that had emerged during the second phase of the French Revolution," that difference was only a matter of degree, not of kind. The anti-Theism of the French Revolution even in its first phase from 1789 to 1792 was direct, open and violent, although not as bloodthirsty as the second phase's Reign of Terror under Maximilian Robespierre and The Directory. The American Revolution's anti-Theism was more subtle in that it paved the way for our current circumstances by bestowing irreligion with protected "constitutional rights," thus making it impossible to stop such things as the open worship of the devil (as opposed to the more subtle forms of devil worship found in other false religions) in the chapels of the armed forces of the United States of America and elsewhere.

Pope Leo XIII noted in Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888, that Holy Mother Church will accommodate herself to the concrete realities in which her children find themselves in the modern civil state in order to continue her work of sanctification and instruction. Holy Mother Church, however, never concedes as a matter of principle the false premises of the modern civil state as she seeks to exhort her children to know their obligations to pray and to work for the conversion of their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order:

But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting. And although in the extraordinary condition of these times the Church usually acquiesces in certain modern liberties, not because she prefers them in themselves, but because she judges it expedient to permit them, she would in happier times exercise her own liberty; and, by persuasion, exhortation, and entreaty would endeavor, as she is bound, to fulfill the duty assigned to her by God of providing for the eternal salvation of mankind. One thing, however, remains always true -- that the liberty which is claimed for all to do all things is not, as We have often said, of itself desirable, inasmuch as it is contrary to reason that error and truth should have equal rights.

And as to tolerance, it is surprising how far removed from the equity and prudence of the Church are those who profess what is called liberalism. For, in allowing that boundless license of which We have spoken, they exceed all limits, and end at last by making no apparent distinction between truth and error, honesty and dishonesty. And because the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, and the unerring teacher of morals, is forced utterly to reprobate and condemn tolerance of such an abandoned and criminal character, they calumniate her as being wanting in patience and gentleness, and thus fail to see that, in so doing, they impute to her as a fault what is in reality a matter for commendation. But, in spite of all this show of tolerance, it very often happens that, while they profess themselves ready to lavish liberty on all in the greatest profusion, they are utterly intolerant toward the Catholic Church, by refusing to allow her the liberty of being herself free. (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888.)

This is not a matter of ethereal speculation having nothing to with the real lives of human beings. Not at all. The heresy of religious liberty, which is at the heart of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, devastates souls. The belief that those who belong to false religions have a "civil right" to propagate themselves and that their false beliefs can contribute to the betterment of society make it impossible to exclude those false religions from making their presence felt everywhere in society, especially in "educational" institutions, where the tender souls of the young become ready prey to false ideas that are propagandized by charismatic professors. This is true in the United States of America and elsewhere in the allegedly "free" world of "democratic republics.

Unlike the Catholic Church, which makes concessions to the realities of the concrete cirumstances in which her children live without endorsing the errors of the moment, the counterfeit church of conciliarism concedes the liceity of the false principles, which its lords consider to be "good" in and of themselves. This is one of the reasons that chemical and surgical baby-killing under cover of law continues unabated. One cannot fight moral evils with false principles.

The counterfeit church of conciliarism rejects the truth that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order.

Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI made it very clear during his anti-apostolic visit to Portugal in May of 2010 that he supported what Pope Saint Pius X had condemned ninety-nine years previously in Iamdundum, the separation of Church and State:

From a wise vision of life and of the world, the just ordering of society follows. Situated within history, the Church is open to cooperating with anyone who does not marginalize or reduce to the private sphere the essential consideration of the human meaning of life. The point at issue is not an ethical confrontation between a secular and a religious system, so much as a question about the meaning that we give to our freedom. What matters is the value attributed to the problem of meaning and its implication in public life. By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church, to which the two concordats of 1940 and 2004 would give shape, in cultural settings and ecclesial perspectives profoundly marked by rapid change. For the most part, the sufferings caused by these transformations have been faced with courage. Living amid a plurality of value systems and ethical outlooks requires a journey to the core of one’s being and to the nucleus of Christianity so as to reinforce the quality of one’s witness to the point of sanctity, and to find mission paths that lead even to the radical choice of martyrdom. (Official Reception at Lisbon Portela International Airport, Tuesday, May 11, 2010.) 

Apostasy.

"By separating Church and State, the Republican revolution which took place 100 years ago in Portugal, opened up a new area of freedom for the Church"? Pluralism strengthens sanctity within the soul? Guess again.

Pope Saint Pius X specifically condemned the very separation of Church and State in Portugal that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI praised on May 11, 2010:

2. Whilst the new rulers of Portugal were affording such numerous and awful examples of the abuse of power, you know with what patience and moderation this Apostolic See has acted towards them. We thought that We ought most carefully to avoid any action that could even have the appearance of hostility to the Republic. For We clung to the hope that its rulers would one day take saner counsels and would at length repair, by some new agreement, the injuries inflicted on the Church. In this, however, We have been altogether disappointed, for they have now crowned their evil work by the promulgation of a vicious and pernicious Decree for the Separation of Church and State. But now the duty imposed upon Us by our Apostolic charge will not allow Us to remain passive and silent when so serious a wound has been inflicted upon the rights and dignity of the Catholic religion. Therefore do We now address you, Venerable Brethren, in this letter and denounce to all Christendom the heinousness of this deed.

3. At the outset, the absurd and monstrous character of the decree of which We speak is plain from the fact that it proclaims and enacts that the Republic shall have no religion, as if men individually and any association or nation did not depend upon Him who is the Maker and Preserver of all things; and then from the fact that it liberates Portugal from the observance of the Catholic religion, that religion, We say, which has ever been that nation's greatest safeguard and glory, and has been professed almost unanimously by its people. So let us take it that it has been their pleasure to sever that close alliance between Church and State, confirmed though it was by the solemn faith of treaties. Once this divorce was effected, it would at least have been logical to pay no further attention to the Church, and to leave her the enjoyment of the common liberty and rights which belong to every citizen and every respectable community of peoples. Quite otherwise, however, have things fallen out. This decree bears indeed the name of Separation, but it enacts in reality the reduction of the Church to utter want by the spoliation of her property, and to servitude to the State by oppression in all that touches her sacred power and spirit. (Pope Saint Pius X, Iamdudum, May 24, 1911.)

"Gay marriage" and the surgical execution of children were already "legal" in Portugal when Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visited in 2010. Some “new area of freedom for the Church,” eh?

Not to be outdone, of course, the late Jorge Mario Bergoglio scoffed at all mention of a state duty to the true religion, something that he made clear in his interview with Andrea Tornielli nine yeard ago now:

Tornielli: What is the right relationship between the Church and politics?

Bergoglio: “The relationship needs to be parallel and convergent at the same time. Parallel because each of us has his or her own path to take and his or her different tasks. Convergent only in helping others. When relationships converge first, without the people, or without taking the people into account, that is when the bond with political power is formed, leading the Church to rot: business, compromises… The relationship needs to proceed in a parallel way, each with its own method, tasks and vocation, converging only in the common good. Politics is noble; it is one of the highest forms of charity, as Paul VI used to say. We sully it when we mix it with business. The relationship between the Church and political power can also be corrupted if common good is not the only converging point.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

Wrong.

The civil state has an obligation to foster those conditions in which its citizens can better sanctify and thus save their immortal souls as members of the Catholic Church. While Holy Mother Church and the civil state do have autonomous spheres of operation, the former must subordinate itself to the latter in all that pertains to the good of souls.

Furthermore, Holy Mother Church has the Divinely-appointed right duty to impose sanctions upon those in positions of civil governance who proposed to do things--or who done them as a matter of fact--contrary to the good of souls after she has discharged her Indirect Power of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ by means of teaching, preaching and exhortation.

As early as 494 A.D., Pope Gelasius made the proper distinctions between the ecclesiastical and civil realms that the conciliar “popes” believe have come to the fore only in "recent" times.

Pope Gelasius had indeed spoken of the "two powers" that govern man, indicating that those who hold ecclesiastical office should not hold civil office. Pope Gelasius did not teach, however, that a State must not favor the Catholic Faith, a little fact overlooked by apologists of the conciliar embrace of the separation of Church and State. Indeed, Pope Gelasius wrote Emperor Anastasius in the year 494 A.D. to remind him of the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal, keeping in mind that even in the exercise of purely temporal power the Last End of man must be kept in mind:

There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled, namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these that of the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will.  ]

If the ministers of religion, recognizing the supremacy granted you from heaven in matters affecting the public order, obey your laws, lest otherwise they might obstruct the course of secular affairs by irrelevant considerations, with what readiness should you not yield them obedience to whom is assigned the dispensing of the sacred mysteries of religion. Accordingly, just as there is no slight danger m the case of the priests if they refrain from speaking when the service of the divinity requires, so there is no little risk for those who disdain - which God forbid -when they should obey. And if it is fitting that the hearts of the faithful should submit to all priests in general who properly administer divine affairs, how much the more is obedience due to the bishop of that see which the Most High ordained to be above all others, and which is consequently dutifully honored by the devotion of the whole Church.  (Letter to Emperor Anastasius)

Pope Saint Pius X merely reiterated the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church when he wrote the following in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, Feburary 11, 1906.)

The conciliar “popes, including Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio have endorsed the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic notion of "separation of Church and State."

Pope Saint Pius X noted that "the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State."

Pope Saint Pius X also taught us that it is impossible for there to be true moral or social reform without the true religion, which is Catholicism, nothing else:

But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The twin, inter-related enemies of Christ the King in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have banished from the minds of most Catholics any thought of the fact that all of the problems in the world, bar none, are the result of Original Sin and their own Actual Sins. They have also banished from the minds of Catholics any thought of the fact that it is impossible to pursue the common temporal good of one’s nation or to secure its borders from threats posed by enemies foreign and domestic while promoting that which is repugnant to peace and happiness of eternity.

After all, how many Catholics have ever heard of, no less read, Silvio Cardinal Antoniano’s reiteration of this simple truth?

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

The revolutionaries of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have robbed Catholics of any ability to see the world clearly through the eyes of the true Faith, thus making it more possible for everyone to be enslaved by the caesars of Modernity, who have the blood of millions of innocent human beings dripping on their hands, and to become a random victim of the barbarians who are now taking full advantage of the “liberties” that are still being by Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, who is simply carrying on the work of Montini/Paul VI, Luciani/John Paul I, Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Bergoglio himself.

Robert Francis Prevost’s rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King is not extraordinary as the conciliar sect he heads rejects almost everything taught by the Catholic Church prior to the dawning of Roncallian “Age of Aquarius” sixty-eight years ago tomorrow, October 28, 1958.

Prevost/Leo’s rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King is par-for-the-conciliar-course, and for anyone to make it appear that this rejection is extraordinary is a truly phenomenal descent into willful blindness.

May our fidelity to Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary help us to grow in sanctity and also to plant a few seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and thus of the Social Reign of Christ the King and our herself as Our Immaculate Queen.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saints Simon and Jude, pray for us.