Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
January 3, 2011

Another Year of the Same Conciliar Apostasy

Part One

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Next year, 2012, will mark the fiftieth anniversary of the opening of the "Second" Vatican Council. Barring a direct intervention from God Himself to spare us the additional chastisements that will come our way as we approach the Feast of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on October 11, 2012, which is the fiftieth anniversary of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII's "opening address" to the gathered council fathers, we can look forward with quite some trepidation to one event after another to commemorate the now infamous "opening to the world" inaugurated by the foes of the Catholic Faith, men who were waiting quietly for decades for their opportunity to put their Modernist principles into action.

It might even be possible for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who was a "peritus" (expert) at the "Second Vatican Council, dressed, of course, in a suit jacket and tie, to proclaim the year between October 11, 2011, and October 11, 2012, to be a "holy year" of "thanksgiving" for the "graces" that are alleged to have flowed as a result of the work of this council and its aftermath. The events of commemoration leading up to October 11, 2012 (and those that following through December 8, 2015, as the fiftieth anniversaries of the council's documents are noted with great fanfare and prayers of thanksgiving), will be exceeded only by the counterfeit church of conciliarism's celebrations to commemorate the quincentennial of Father Martin Luther's posting of his ninety-five theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517. (You think that I am exaggerating or being an alarmist? It's already in the works! See LWF President Younan Invites Benedict XVI to Help Plan 500th Anniversary Commemoration.)

Ratzinger/Benedict is certainly spading the ground for such celebrations as he continues to exalt two of the cornerstones of conciliarism's doctrinal revolution, "religious liberty" and false ecumenism. The false "pontiff's" 2011 "World Day of Peace Message" is a paean of praise in behalf of "religious liberty." It is a direct and open contradiction of everything taught by our true popes and is thus the work of Antichrist. After all, what is the Antichrist to be but the opposite of Our Blessed Lord and Jesus Jesus Christ? Antichrist's "gospel" will be the opposite of the Gospel of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King. Antichrist will contradict the defined teaching of the Catholic Church.

Well, behold, my very, very, very few readers, the work of Antichrist as found in Ratzinger/Benedict's World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace:

Religious freedom expresses what is unique about the human person, for it allows us to direct our personal and social life to God, in whose light the identity, meaning and purpose of the person are fully understood. To deny or arbitrarily restrict this freedom is to foster a reductive vision of the human person; to eclipse the public role of religion is to create a society which is unjust, inasmuch as it fails to take account of the true nature of the human person; it is to stifle the growth of the authentic and lasting peace of the whole human family.

For this reason, I implore all men and women of good will to renew their commitment to building a world where all are free to profess their religion or faith, and to express their love of God with all their heart, with all their soul and with all their mind (cf. Mt 22:37). This is the sentiment which inspires and directs this Message for the XLIV World Day of Peace, devoted to the theme: Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.

A sacred right to life and to a spiritual life

2. The right to religious freedom is rooted in the very dignity of the human person, whose transcendent nature must not be ignored or overlooked. God created man and woman in his own image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:27). For this reason each person is endowed with the sacred right to a full life, also from a spiritual standpoint. Without the acknowledgement of his spiritual being, without openness to the transcendent, the human person withdraws within himself, fails to find answers to the heart’s deepest questions about life’s meaning, fails to appropriate lasting ethical values and principles, and fails even to experience authentic freedom and to build a just society.

Sacred Scripture, in harmony with our own experience, reveals the profound value of human dignity: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have established, what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man, that you care for him? Yet you have made him little less than God, and crowned him with glory and honour. You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet” (Ps 8:3-6).

Contemplating the sublime reality of human nature, we can experience the same amazement felt by the Psalmist. Our nature appears as openness to the Mystery, a capacity to ask deep questions about ourselves and the origin of the universe, and a profound echo of the supreme Love of God, the beginning and end of all things, of every person and people.The transcendent dignity of the person is an essential value of Judeo-Christian wisdom, yet thanks to the use of reason, it can be recognized by all. This dignity, understood as a capacity to transcend one’s own materiality and to seek truth, must be acknowledged as a universal good, indispensable for the building of a society directed to human fulfilment. Respect for essential elements of human dignity, such as the right to life and the right to religious freedom, is a condition for the moral legitimacy of every social and legal norm. (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)


Religious freedom expresses what is unique about the human person? What is unique about the human being is that he has a rational, immortal soul created in the very image and likeness of the Most Blessed Trinity. God has created man to know, love and to serve Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church. Catholicism and it alone is the only foundation of peace among men, whose immortal souls must be at peace with God by means of persisting in a state of Sanctifying Grace.

Judeo-Christian norms? What about the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they have been entrusted by Christ the King solely to His Catholic Church for their eternal safekeeping and infallible explication? Religious freedom is a condition for the moral legitimacy of every social and legal norm? I know that many of my former colleagues in the resist and recognize movement have airbrushed their past criticisms of the former Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger. However, a review of their own past articles and books indicates that they savaged Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for making such clearly apostate comments time and time again during the disaster that was his 9,666 days of his "reign" that began on Monday, October 16, 1978, and Saturday, April 2, 2005 (if we accept the conciliar Vatican's official line that he died on Saturday, April 2, 2005, and not the day before when seventeen conciliar "bishops" were appointed even though the "pontiff" was comatose and near death, if not already dead).

This is what Pope Pius VI called "religious freedom," a heresy that cannot but lead to the triumph of blasphemy and religious indifferentism despite the fact that the currently governing false "pontiff" cannot recognize or accept as being so:

"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").


The language of the conciliar revolutionaries, including the octogenarian Ratzinger/Benedict, himself a progenitor and principal apologist of all things conciliar, is that of the French Revolution, meaning that it is the language of Judeo-Masonry. Conciliarism's view of Church-State relations, hinging upon the twin falsehoods of religious liberty and separation of Church and State, is nothing new. It is but a contemporary expression of the first organized effort on the part of Catholics to attempt to "reconcile" the Catholic Faith with the "principles of the new era inaugurated in 1789." That first effort to "reconcile" the irreconcilable was made by the the proponents of The Sillon, whose false tenets, including a specious understanding of "human dignity," was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

Alas! yes, the double meaning has been broken: the social action of the Sillon is no longer Catholic. The Sillonist, as such, does not work for a coterie, and “the Church”, he says, “cannot in any sense benefit from the sympathies that his action may stimulate.” A strange situation, indeed! They fear lest the Church should profit for a selfish and interested end by the social action of the Sillon, as if everything that benefited the Church did not benefit the whole human race! A curious reversal of notions! The Church might benefit from social action! As if the greatest economists had not recognized and proved that it is social action alone which, if serious and fruitful, must benefit the Church! But stranger still, alarming and saddening at the same time, are the audacity and frivolity of men who call themselves Catholics and dream of re-shaping society under such conditions, and of establishing on earth, over and beyond the pale of the Catholic Church, "the reign of love and justice" with workers coming from everywhere, of all religions and of no religion, with or without beliefs, so long as they forego what might divide them - their religious and philosophical convictions, and so long as they share what unites them - a "generous idealism and moral forces drawn from whence they can" When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace - the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man - when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.

We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the "Kingdom of God". - "We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind."

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Human dignity? What about the sacred rights of the Social Reign of Christ the King?

The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God. That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which, please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" (John xii., 32).  (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)


Ratzinger/Benedict's mind, shaped by the Hegelian mentality he learned from his mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, lives in such a world of contradiction and paradox that he cannot see that he contradicted himself at different points in this "2011 World Day of Peace Message:"


A freedom which is hostile or indifferent to God becomes self-negating and does not guarantee full respect for others. A will which believes itself radically incapable of seeking truth and goodness has no objective reasons or motives for acting save those imposed by its fleeting and contingent interests; it does not have an “identity” to safeguard and build up through truly free and conscious decisions. As a result, it cannot demand respect from other “wills”, which are themselves detached from their own deepest being and thus capable of imposing other “reasons” or, for that matter, no “reason” at all. The illusion that moral relativism provides the key for peaceful coexistence is actually the origin of divisions and the denial of the dignity of human beings. Hence we can see the need for recognition of a twofold dimension within the unity of the human person: a religious dimension and a social dimension. In this regard, “it is inconceivable that believers should have to suppress a part of themselves – their faith – in order to be active citizens. It should never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one’s rights”. . . .

Religious freedom is, in this sense, also an achievement of a sound political and juridical culture. It is an essential good: each person must be able freely to exercise the right to profess and manifest, individually or in community, his or her own religion or faith, in public and in private, in teaching, in practice, in publications, in worship and in ritual observances. There should be no obstacles should he or she eventually wish to belong to another religion or profess none at all. In this context, international law is a model and an essential point of reference for states, insofar as it allows no derogation from religious freedom, as long as the just requirements of public order are observed. The international order thus recognizes that rights of a religious nature have the same status as the right to life and to personal freedom, as proof of the fact that they belong to the essential core of human rights, to those universal and natural rights which human law can never deny. (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI condemns what he calls a "freedom which is hostile or indifferent to God" such "becomes self-negating and does not guarantee full respect for others" while at the same same stating that there must be no obstacles placed in the way of those who wish "to belong to another religion or to none at all., holding that "each person must be able freely to exercise the right to profess and manifest, individually or in community, his or her own religion or faith, in public and in private, in teaching, in practice, in publications, in worship and in ritual observances." How can religious indifferentism, succeeded in its turn by hostility to God, not triumph when those who belong to false religions or to no religious belief at all are said to have a "civil right" that comes from God Himself to directly contradict Him and the Sacred Deposit of Faith that He has given exclusively to His Catholic Church for the right ordering of men and their nations? Ratzinger/Benedict does indeed live in a wonderland of self-delusional absurdity.

The false "pontiff's" respect for false religions, each of which is hideous and loathsome in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, is of the essence of Judeo-Masonry and, of course, of the Sillon:


How can anyone deny the contribution of the world’s great religions to the development of civilization? The sincere search for God has led to greater respect for human dignity. Christian communities, with their patrimony of values and principles, have contributed much to making individuals and peoples aware of their identity and their dignity, the establishment of democratic institutions and the recognition of human rights and their corresponding duties.

Today too, in an increasingly globalized society, Christians are called, not only through their responsible involvement in civic, economic and political life but also through the witness of their charity and faith, to offer a valuable contribution to the laborious and stimulating pursuit of justice, integral human development and the right ordering of human affairs. The exclusion of religion from public life deprives the latter of a dimension open to transcendence. Without this fundamental experience it becomes difficult to guide societies towards universal ethical principles and to establish at the national and international level a legal order which fully recognizes and respects fundamental rights and freedoms as these are set forth in the goals – sadly still disregarded or contradicted – of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)


As a Roman Catholic, I deny that the "world's great religions" contributed to the development of true civilization. Catholicism is the one and only foundation of true and lasting personal and social order.

There is no need to "search for God." He has revealed Himself. The Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity became Man for us in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother by the power of God the Holy Ghost to redeem us. He commissioned His Apostles to proclaim His Gospel to the ends of the world. It is His Divine Will that each man and each nation be professedly Catholic as they submit themselves to Him, Christ the King. Indeed, it is as King that the Three Kings of the East--Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balathsazar--worshiped the Infant Jesus as they presented Him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh at the Epiphany.

Ratzinger/Benedict believes that this "search for God" has lead to a "greater respect for human dignity." The man is mad. Mad. Insane. Where is this greater respect to be found? One cannot even find this in the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service as so-called "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" and lectors dress in short skirts or tight pants and as members of the laity dress casually and immodestly and speak or applaud almost at will? Greater respect for human dignity? Where? In one's local pharmacy, where one can find a variety of pills and devices to frustrate the natural end of marriage and, at least in most instances, to chemically execute an innocent preborn baby? Where? In local abortuaries, in hospices, in hospitals, where elderly or chronically or terminally ill patients are routinely denied food and water and/or are administered with such increasingly higher doses of sedatives and palliatives that they stop respirating? Where? In the world's entertainment industry? The "pope" lives in a fanciful world of his own creation, a world that does not correspond to reality in the slightest.

Ratzinger/Benedict's respect for "religions" is indeed of the essence of Judeo-Masonry and it has been condemned in no uncertain terms by our true popes:


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.)


For Ratzinger/Benedict to be correct, of course, one must believe in his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," contending himself that past dogmatic pronouncements and papal statements have been conditioned by the historical circumstances in which they were made and are thus in need of further "adjustments" in light of the changing circumstances that develop over the course of time. Those who use such utter sophistry to attempt to justify Ratzinger/Benedict's abject contradictions of Catholic teaching (and/or to bury their heads in the sand as they pat themselves on the back for being in "communion" with "the pope" who has been so kind and generous as to give them access to an increasingly modernized version of the Immemorial Memorial Mass of Tradition simulated mostly by presbyters who are not true priests) must ignore the logical end of such a false contention: namely, if Ratzinger/Benedict can ignore the teaching of true councils and true popes, why can't some future "pope" ignore what he, Ratzinger/Benedict, has "taught" as that future "pope" himself makes advertence to the "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity"?

We do not respect all religions. They possess no "ability" to "contribute" to a just social order or to world peace. Consider these words of Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique as he explained that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour, Christ the King, did not respect false ideas. Neither should we:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


Alas, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believes that religious and social pluralism is an "irreversible" phenomenon of Modernity. Moreover, the false "pope" believes that this pluralism, which was condemned as insanity by Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX, is beneficial to what he thinks is the Catholic Church and to the right ordering of the civil state. Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict believes that anyone who would want to restore the confessionally Catholic state is a "fundamentalist" who is to  be compared with those in the Mohammedan world.

8. The same determination that condemns every form of fanaticism and religious fundamentalism must also oppose every form of hostility to religion that would restrict the public role of believers in civil and political life.

It should be clear that religious fundamentalism and secularism are alike in that both represent extreme forms of a rejection of legitimate pluralism and the principle of secularity. Both absolutize a reductive and partial vision of the human person, favouring in the one case forms of religious integralism and, in the other, of rationalism. A society that would violently impose or, on the contrary, reject religion is not only unjust to individuals and to God, but also to itself. God beckons humanity with a loving plan that, while engaging the whole person in his or her natural and spiritual dimensions, calls for a free and responsible answer which engages the whole heart and being, individual and communitarian. Society too, as an expression of the person and of all his or her constitutive dimensions, must live and organize itself in a way that favours openness to transcendence. Precisely for this reason, the laws and institutions of a society cannot be shaped in such a way as to ignore the religious dimension of its citizens or to prescind completely from it. Through the democratic activity of citizens conscious of their lofty calling, those laws and institutions must adequately reflect the authentic nature of the person and support its religious dimension. Since the latter is not a creation of the state, it cannot be manipulated by the state, but must rather be acknowledged and respected by it.

Whenever the legal system at any level, national or international, allows or tolerates religious or antireligious fanaticism, it fails in its mission, which is to protect and promote justice and the rights of all. These matters cannot be left to the discretion of the legislator or the majority since, as Cicero once pointed out, justice is something more than a mere act which produces and applies law. It entails acknowledging the dignity of each person, which, unless religious freedom is guaranteed and lived in its essence, ends up being curtailed and offended, exposed to the risk of falling under the sway of idols, of relative goods which then become absolute. All this exposes society to the risk of forms of political and ideological totalitarianism which emphasize public power while demeaning and restricting freedom of conscience, thought and religion as potential competitors. (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)


Catholicism was never violently imposed upon any nation. The Catholic Faith grew organically amongst the former barbaric tribes and pagan peoples of Europe in the First Millennium, resulting in the establishment of the era we know as Christendom, that Christ-centered world that was distinguished by many holy civil rulers who understood that they had to rule according to the mind of Christ the King as He had discharged It in Holy Mother Church. Sure, there were stinkers in the Middle Ages who ruled for their themselves and their corrupt courtiers, enabled all too frequently by bishops who betrayed Christ the King by selling out the Faith and even the demands of natural justice in order to live lives of empty pleasure at the court. There were also, however, the likes of Saint Louis IX, King of France, and Saint Edward the Confessor in England and Saint Wenceslaus in Bohemia and Saint Casimir in Poland and Saint Canute in Denmark. These exemplars of the Social Reign of Christ the King did not "impose" their rule upon anyone. They simply attempted to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

Ratzinger/Benedict believes, incredibly enough, that the rise of political and ideological totalitarianism is the result of the lack of the "guarantee" of "religious freedom," not the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by the rise of the revolutionary naturalistic forces associated with the phrase Judeo-Masonry.

It is the madness of "freedom of conscience" that leads to such social abyss in "democratic" nations that provides naturalists with one opportunity to impose statism, whether all or once, as happened in Russia and other Communist nations, or incrementally, as has been happening for decades now right here in the United States of America.

Pope Gregory XVI, who was nowhere quoted in any of the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council and who, quite of course, was not quoted in Ratzinger/Benedict's new "World Day of Peace Message," explained in very succinct terms what happens to nations that permit unrestricted liberty of conscience of the sort favored by Ratzinger/Benedict that permits people of every  religion or of no religion to express their views publicly in the "marketplace of ideas:"

"This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.

Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)


As is noted in the appendices below, Pope Pius VII condemned Ratzinger/Benedict's vision of "religious liberty" as a heresy in 1814 and Pope Pius IX did so fifty years year, that is, in 1864. Ratzinger/Benedict knows this, which is why there is not one single, solitary reference in the footnotes of his "World Day of Peace Message" to the teaching of any true pope of the Catholic Church. Not one. There is no true pope of the Catholic Church to cite in support of this massive work of apostasy that is contained in the "2011 World Day of Peace Message." Not one. That is why the conciliar "pontiff" invented his absurd "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity" as he teaches the exact opposite of what has been taught by the Catholic Church from time immemorial. His is the teaching of Antichrist, that is, of the opposite of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Ratzinger/Benedict's invented "hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity," however, is premised on the blasphemous proposition that God the Holy Ghost not only kept knowledge about the joys of "religious freedom" until the "Second" Vatican Council but permitted our true popes to be condemn something that the false "pope" wants to believe is a basic "human right," the very foundation of world peace. This is both blasphemous and utterly absurd.

Where has this pluralism gotten the Catholic Faith? Mohammedans and Hindus and Buddhists and downright atheists continue to attack Catholics worldwide. Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict noted the suffering of Catholics in Iraq at the beginning of his "message" and the suffering of Catholics in Asia, Africa and elsewhere in the Middle East near the end of the "message." He really believes, however, that the "solution" to this suffering is not to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all men and their nations to the Catholic Faith but for all peoples in the world to join together in an expression of inter-religious harmony as we learn to accept our differences and work together for the common brotherhood of humanity. This man is stuck in the delusions of the 1960s. Those who hate the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Whose Kingship was honored by the Three Kings from the East on the Feast of the Epiphany have no intention of ceasing their warfare against Catholics by joining the conciliarists in the madness of "inter-religious dialogue" and "freedom of religion."

Where has this pluralism gotten the Catholic Faith in the very nation of pluralism that Ratzinger/Benedict believes is the "model" for the rest of the world, the United States of America? It is pluralism that has led to the sort of subtle persecutions against Catholics that the false "pope" noted in his "message." He does not see that this is the case. Pope Leo XIII, however, did:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)


The pluralism that is extolled by Ratzinger/Benedict is what has cowed Catholics into saying "happy holidays" in their places of business and that prevents even the secular music associated with the "holiday season," no less actual Christmas music, from being played in public places. I was told at Bear Mountain State Park in Bear Mountain, New York, on Saturday, January 1, 2011, the Feast of the Circumcision, that even secular music connoting Christmas in any way could not be played on an outdoor loudspeaker as too many people had registered complaints that they were "offended" by such music. It is also the fear of "offending" others that causes many Catholic businessmen to avoid posting signs wishing their customers a "Merry Christmas."

This fear of human respect is but the natural, logical, inexorable end-result of pluralism, which makes Catholics believe that they are somehow exempt from the example provided us by the Apostles about the willingness to suffer for the sake of the Holy Name of Jesus:

Then went the officer with the ministers, and brought them without violence; for they feared the people, lest they should be stoned. And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, Saying: Commanding we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men. The God of our fathers hath raised up Jesus, whom you put to death, hanging him upon a tree.

Him hath God exalted with his right hand, to be Prince and Saviour, to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. And we are witnesses of these things and the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to all that obey him. When they had heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they thought to put them to death. But one in the council rising up, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, respected by all the people, commanded the men to be put forth a little while. And he said to them: Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what you intend to do, as touching these men.

For before these days rose up Theodas, affirming himself to be somebody, to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all that believed him were scattered, and brought to nothing. After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the enrolling, and drew away the people after him: he also perished; and all, even as many as consented to him, were dispersed. And now, therefore, I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone; for if this council or this work be of men, it will come to nought; But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God. And they consented to him. And calling in the apostles, after they had scourged them, they charged them that they should not speak at all in the name of Jesus; and they dismissed them.

And they indeed went from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were accounted worthy to suffer reproach for the name of Jesus. And every day they ceased not in the temple, and from house to house, to teach and preach Christ Jesus. (Acts 5: 26-42)


Pluralism is of the devil.

So is the separation of Church and State that Ratzinger/Benedict exalts time and time again, having done so repeatedly in the just concluded year of Our Lord 2010. Ratzinger/Benedict believes that it is "enough" for what he thinks is the Catholic Church to engage in a "dialogue" with civil leaders as leaders of other religions do the same to fight the influences of irreligion in the world:

9. The patrimony of principles and values expressed by an authentic religiosity is a source of enrichment for peoples and their ethos. It speaks directly to the conscience and mind of men and women, it recalls the need for moral conversion, and it encourages the practice of the virtues and a loving approach to others as brothers and sisters, as members of the larger human family.

With due respect for the positive secularity of state institutions, the public dimension of religion must always be acknowledged. A healthy dialogue between civil and religious institutions is fundamental for the integral development of the human person and social harmony.  (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)


Authentic religiosity? This is the talk of Judeo-Masonry. The civil state is duty bound to recognize the true religion as its leaders seek to foster those conditions in which citizens may better sanctify and save their souls as members of the Catholic Church. Who says so? Pope after true pope. For the sake of brevity (hey, many articles last year were briefer than in past years, especially after I took ill last summer), let me just cite one that most of you should have committed to memory by now:

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, February 11, 1906.)


When our true popes referred to religion, my few readers, they were referring to the one and only true religion, Catholicism. Pope Saint Pius X made it abundantly clear in Notre Charge Apostolique that Catholicism is the only foundation of personal and social order.

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. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)


"Pope" Benedict XVI does not believe this as a matter of principle, not as a regrettable concession to the circumstances of the moment. He does not believe that it is even necessary to plant the seeds for the conversion of men and their nations to the Catholic Faith. He rejects the confessionally Catholic State as a matter of firm principle in favor of "religious freedom" and "positive" or "healthy" "secularity." The true Roman Pontiffs, however, "have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State." Ratzinger/Benedict endorses what our true popes have condemned. He does the work of Antichrist. This simply cannot get any clearer.

Ratzinger/Benedict's belief in the utility of "dialogue" as the means to use the world's religions as a force for justice and peace was on display once again at the end of his "world day of peace message" while he insisted that such dialogue is "not the way of relativism or religious syncretism" when in fact it is precisely this no matter how strongly he denies this to be the case:

11. For the Church, dialogue between the followers of the different religions represents an important means of cooperating with all religious communities for the common good. The Church herself rejects nothing of what is true and holy in the various religions. “She has a high regard for those ways of life and conduct, precepts and doctrines which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men and women”.

The path to take is not the way of relativism or religious syncretism. The Church, in fact, “proclaims, and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth and the life (Jn 14:6); in Christ, in whom God reconciled all things to himself, people find the fullness of the religious life”. Yet this in no way excludes dialogue and the common pursuit of truth in different areas of life, since, as Saint Thomas Aquinas would say, “every truth, whoever utters it, comes from the Holy Spirit”.

The year 2011 marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the World Day of Prayer for Peace convened in Assisi in 1986 by Pope John Paul II. On that occasion the leaders of the great world religions testified to the fact that religion is a factor of union and peace, and not of division and conflict. The memory of that experience gives reason to hope for a future in which all believers will see themselves, and will actually be, agents of justice and peace.

15. The world needs God. It needs universal, shared ethical and spiritual values, and religion can offer a precious contribution to their pursuit, for the building of a just and peaceful social order at the national and international levels. (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)


Sacred Scripture itself condemns this. So have our true popes:


Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God; as God saith: I will dwell in them, and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore, Go out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing: And I will receive you; and I will be a Father to you; and you shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Cor. 6: 14-18.)

"We charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received from us." (2 Thes. 3:6)

Be ye therefore followers of God, as most dear children;  And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath delivered himself for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odour of sweetness. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not so much as be named among you, as becometh saints: Or obscenity, or foolish talking, or scurrility, which is to no purpose; but rather giving of thanks. For know you this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

Let no man deceive you with vain words. For because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief. Be ye not therefore partakers with them. For you were heretofore darkness, but now light in the Lord. Walk then as children of the light. For the fruit of the light is in all goodness, and justice, and truth; Proving what is well pleasing to God:

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of. But all things that are reproved, are made manifest by the light; for all that is made manifest is light. Wherefore he saith: Rise thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead: and Christ shall enlighten thee. See therefore, brethren, how you walk circumspectly: not as unwise. (Ephesians 5: 1-15.)

Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity? Who would dare to say that he loved Christ, unless he worked with all his might to carry out the desires of Him, Who asked His Father that His disciples might be "one." And did not the same Christ will that His disciples should be marked out and distinguished from others by this characteristic, namely that they loved one another: "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another"? All Christians, they add, should be as "one": for then they would be much more powerful in driving out the pest of irreligion, which like a serpent daily creeps further and becomes more widely spread, and prepares to rob the Gospel of its strength. These things and others that class of men who are known as pan-Christians continually repeat and amplify; and these men, so far from being quite few and scattered, have increased to the dimensions of an entire class, and have grouped themselves into widely spread societies, most of which are directed by non-Catholics, although they are imbued with varying doctrines concerning the things of faith. This undertaking is so actively promoted as in many places to win for itself the adhesion of a number of citizens, and it even takes possession of the minds of very many Catholics and allures them with the hope of bringing about such a union as would be agreeable to the desires of Holy Mother Church, who has indeed nothing more at heart than to recall her erring sons and to lead them back to her bosom. But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. . . .

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly."The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928; see also Bishop George Hay, The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

The counterfeit church of conciliarism is indeed a "church" of the most vile kind of contamination as its "pope" dares to assert that the condemned practice of inter-religious prayer and "dialogue" is not what is is in fact, an exercise in syncretism that is offensive to God and thus harmful to souls.

The final bit of absurdity, if not blasphemy, contained in Ratzinger/Benedict's "world day of peace message" contains his apostate view that "religious freedom" is the path to "peace," a proposition that is pure Antichrist:

Peace is a gift of God and at the same time a task which is never fully completed. A society reconciled with God is closer to peace, which is not the mere absence of war or the result of military or economic supremacy, much less deceptive ploys or clever manipulation. Rather, peace is the result of a process of purification and of cultural, moral and spiritual elevation involving each individual and people, a process in which human dignity is fully respected. I invite all those who wish to be peacemakers, especially the young, to heed the voice speaking within their hearts and thus to find in God the stable point of reference for attaining authentic freedom, the inexhaustible force which can give the world a new direction and spirit, and overcome the mistakes of the past. In the words of Pope Paul VI, to whose wisdom and farsightedness we owe the institution of the World Day of Peace: “It is necessary before all else to provide peace with other weapons – different from those destined to kill and exterminate mankind. What are needed above all are moral weapons, those which give strength and prestige to international law – the weapon, in the first place, of the observance of pacts”. Religious freedom is an authentic weapon of peace, with an historical and prophetic mission. Peace brings to full fruition the deepest qualities and potentials of the human person, the qualities which can change the world and make it better. It gives hope for a future of justice and peace, even in the face of grave injustice and material and moral poverty. May all men and women, and societies at every level and in every part of the earth, soon be able to experience religious freedom, the path to peace!  (44th World Day of Peace 2011, Religious Freedom, the Path to Peace.)


What does a true pope teach us is the path to peace? Catholicism, nothing else:

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.)


Our true popes have been apostles of Christ the King. The conciliar "popes" have been apostles of Antichrist. It is very clear.

Indeed, it is now five years ago since I began to force myself to face our situation with clarity, slowly beginning to recognize that the allocutions of "Pope" Benedict XVI were indeed the speech of Antichrist. It took much time to study and to pray, knowing full well the castigation that would come my way if I came to the conclusion the conciliar church is a counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church, knowing also of the various divisions that existed amongst the clergy who do not mention the name of the conciliar "pontiff" in the Roman Canon as they offer Holy Mass. The castigation indeed came my way. It is still coming. The divisions that serve to make a caricature of the truth of our ecclesiastical situation and that keep so many Catholics from embracing it have certainly proved to be quite a minefield, fraught with personal disappointment and with disillusionment over the lack of regard for the Social  Teaching of the Catholic Church found amongst many Catholics who assist at fully traditional chapels.

Such, however, is the state of the Church Militant on earth during this time of apostasy and betrayal. It is good, very good, to be castigated, to have one's overweening pride be crushed more and more, to be ground into the dust from which one was formed. It is good to be marginalized and ostracized as our sins caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to be considered but a common criminal during His fearful Passion and Death. It is good to be misunderstood and reviled as we have so frequently reviled Our Lord by choosing to persist in lifelong patterns of Venial Sin, to say nothing of those Mortal Sins that have been committed.

We are not going to change the state of the Church Militant on earth right now. It will take a direct intervention from God at the behest of the prayers His Most Blessed Mother for this to happen as her Fatima Message is fulfilled. Even those in the conciliar structures who recognize that this "world day of peace message" is, at the very least, problematic and emblematic of concilairism are looking for the same miracle as they cannot point to a single "cardinal" in their conciliar church who is one of mind and one heart with the true popes whose encyclical letters and allocutions have been quoted in this article. No, not even from the Eastern rite churches, which are under attack now from the conciliar revolutionaries, something that will be explored in part two tomorrow. We are thus at the mercy of the good God as we suffer during this time that God has has appointed for all eternity for us to live. We must remain faithful, therefore, as best we can to the true Faith as we cling closely to Our Lady, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

We must pray for the unconditional conversion of all of those who are steeped in the world's false religions, including the false religion of conciliarism that has offended Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ so much and has done so much damage to the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross. We must pray daily for our own conversion away from our sins as we seek to live more penitentially as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through His Most Blessed Mother's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, consoling the good God and making reparation for our sins as best as we can by praying our Rosaries.

This time of chastisement, and it is a time of chastisement, will pass. There will be the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and it will be a glorious triumph beyond all telling in perfect fulfillment of her Fatima Message as people of different ethnicities and races live and work united as Catholics for the greater honor and glory of the Most Holy Trinity as the clients of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the shouts of:

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

Appendix A

Pope Pius VII's Condemnation of Religious Liberty

The Catholic Church: 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)

Appendix B

Pope Pius IX's Condemnation of Religious Liberty and Separation of Church and State

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?" (Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Appendix C

Material from The Great Facade on the 1986 Assisi World Day of Peace and Assisi 2002

No doubt the height of the fever engendered by the virus of dialogue was the World Day of Peace at Assisi in October 1986. In the plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis of Assisi, the "representatives of the world's great religions" stepped forward one by one to offer their prayers for peace. These "prayers" included the chanting of American Indian shamans. The Pope was photographed standing in a line of "religious leaders," including rabbis, muftis, Buddhist monks, and assorted Protestant ministers, all of them holding potted olive plants. The official Vatican publication on the World Day of Prayer for Peace at Assisi, entitled "World Day of Pray for Peace," pays tribute to the "world's great religions by setting forth their prayers, including an Animist prayer to the Great Thumb. The world's great religions" are honored by the Vatican in alphabetical order: the Buddhist prayer for peace; the Hindu prayer for peace; the Jainist prayer for peace; the Muslim prayer for peace; the Shinto prayer for peace; the Sikh prayer for peace; the Traditionalist African prayer for peace (to "The Great Thumb"); the Traditionalist Amerindian prayer for peace; the Zoroastrian prayer for peace. In a glaring symptom of the end result of ecumenism. and dialogue in the Church, the only prayer not included in the official book is a Catholic prayer for peace. There is only a Christian prayer for peace, which appears after the prayers of the "world's great religions"--and after the Jewish prayer. Catholicism has been subsumed into a generic Christianity.

At the beginning of the list of prayers of the world's religions, there is an amazing statement by Cardinal Roger Etchergary, president of the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue. According to Etchergary, "Each of the religions we profess has inner peace, and peace among individuals and nations, as one of its aims. Each one pursues this aim in its own distinctive and irreplaceable way." The notion that there is anything "irreplaceable" about the false religions of the world seems difficult to square with the de fide Catholic teaching that God's revelation to His Church is complete and all-sufficient for the spiritual needs of men. Our Lord came among us--so Catholics were always taught--precisely to replace false religions with His religion, with even the Old Covenant undergoing this divinely appointed substitution. Yet the members of all "the world's great religions" were invited to Assisi and asked for their "irreplaceable" prayers for world peace--the "irreplaceable" prayers of false shepherds who preach abortion, contraception, divorce, polygamy, the treatment of women like dogs, the reincarnation of human beings as animals, a holy war against infidel Christians and countless other lies, superstitions and abominations in the sight of God. . . .

[Italian journalist Vittorio] Messori was merely observing the obvious when he stated that the Assisi 2002 implied that the doctrine of every religion is acceptable to God. For example, the invited representative of Voodoo (spelled Vodou by its native practitioners), Chief Amadou Gasseto from Benin, was allowed to sermonize on world peace from a wooden pulpit suitable for a cathedral set up in the lower plaza outside the Basilica of Saint Francis. The Chief declared to the Vicar of Christ and the assembled cardinals and Catholic guests: "The invocation to take prayer in the Prayer for Peace at Assisi is a great honour for me, and it is an honour for all the followers of Avelekete Vodou whose high priest I am." The high priest of Avelekete Vodou then give the Pope and all the Catholic faithful the Vodou prescription for world peace, which included, "asking forgiveness of the protecting spirits of regions affected by violence" and "carrying out sacrifices of reparation and purification, and thus restoring peace." This would involve slitting the throats of goats, chickens, doves, and pigeons and draining their blood from the carotid arteries according to a precise ritual prescription. In other words, the Pope invited a witch doctor to give a sermon to Catholics on world peace.

Among other "representatives of the various religions" who came to the pulpit was one Didi Talwakar, the representative of Hinduism. Talwakar declared that the "divinization of human beings gives us a sense of the worth of life. Not only am I divine in essence, but also everyone else is equally divine in essence...." Talwakar went on to exclaim: "My divine brothers and sisters, from whom much above the station of life where I am, I dare to appeal to humanity, from this august forum, in the blessed presence of His Holiness the Pope...." While Talwakar acknowledges that the Pope is a holy man, he is only one of many such holy men who lead the various religions. Didi prefers to follow another holy man: the Reverend Pandung Shastri Athawale, who heads something called the Swadyaya parivari, which teaches "the idea of acceptance of all religious traditions" and the need to "free the idea of religion from dogmatism, insularity and injunctions," Just the thing Catholics of the postconciliar period need to hear.

The spectacle of Assisi 2002 staggers the Catholic mind, and human language fails in its attempt to adequately describe the unparalleled ecclesial situation in which we now find ourselves--a situation even the Arian heretics of the fourth century would find incredible. Yet, true to form, the neo-Catholic press organs reported the event as if it were a triumph for the Catholic faith--while carefully avoiding any of the shocking images and words that would give scandal to any Catholic who has not been spiritually lobotomized by the postconciliar changes in the Church. (Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., The Great Facade, Remnant Press, 2002, pp. 83-85; 213-215).

© Copyright 2011, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.