Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us

                 April 13, 2013


Francis and The Commissars

by Thomas A. Droleskey

From the left: Unidentified Soviet military official (possibly Defense Minister Andrei Grechko), Soviet President Nikolai Podgorny, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) Leonid Brezhnev, Soviet Premier Alexi Kosygin, Future CPSU Party Leader Konstantin Chernenko. May 1, 1973.

The social revolutions of Modernity have much in common with the liturgical, doctrinal and moral revolutions of Modernism.

Revolutionaries must first agitate the masses into believing that the "past" was bad and that they will provide a future that relies upon supposedly "simpler" and "purer" means to achieve justice and equity for all.

Revolutionaries must seek to eradicate all vestiges of the past in the name of "novelty" and "innovation" as they create "new structures" that merely give new names to what had existed in the past.

Revolutionaries must eliminate all opposition to their schemes of total control as they seek to institutionalize their schemes and to prevent them from being reversed in the future.

Revolutionaries must change even the dating of time as they circulate new calendars to date the beginning of "real history" from the outset of their revolution.

The conciliar revolutionaries have convinced most Catholics in the world that the "preconciliar past" was bad, that both Faith and Worship had become fossilized, that the need for external acts of penance belonged to a different era in the history of the Church, that everything in Catholicism was subject to change and adjustment according to various pastoral circumstances, something that the conciliar revolutionaries have told us in their very own words:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)

Although largely anecdotal and not as of yet recounted in a systematic manner in any one place, many of us know numerous instances in which priests and religious have been sent to psychiatric reprogramming centers because they resisted the first wave of the conciliar "reforms" in the middle to latter part of the 1960s. This persecution of those deemed to be "conservative" or "rigid" has continued in many dioceses and religious communities to this very day. 

Candidates for the conciliar presbyterate have been screened out in many dioceses and religious communities because they have been deemed to suffer from "rigidity." As I have recounted on other occasions, the secular Talmudic psychologist who screened candidates for the Diocese of Rockville Centre for many years, Dr. Leonard Krinsky, came to some interesting conclusions following about me in May of 1979 following a psychological evaluation of me. Dr. Krinsky, now deceased, wrote that my concept of the priesthood as the sacerdos was preconciliar and that my desire to live a priestly life of prayer, penance, self-denial and mortification were "possible signs of masochism. Dr. Krinsky’s report concluded by saying that while I was “intelligent, creative, and had the capacity for rich, interpersonal relationships,” I “lacked the sufficient flexibility needed to adapt to the changing circumstances of a postconciliar vocation.”'

Yes, yes, yes. One is supposed be "flexible" enough to adapt with ease to the changes wrought by the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutions of conciliarism, including the radical "simplification" of the liturgical calendar that changed well established feast days in direct contravention of Pope Pius XII's admonition contained in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:

The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation -- to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayer books approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

Clearly no sincere Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.

This way of acting bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the "deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly Father of their souls' salvation. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

Senor Jorge Bergoglio, who is now engaged in a masquerade part as "Pope Francis" after forty-three years of his masquerade as a "bishop" and fourteen years engaging in a masquerade party as a "priest" and twenty years as a "bishop," has shown himself very "flexible" on matters of Faith, Worship, Morals and pastoral praxis. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has even been "flexible" enough to endorse "civil unions" (see Francis And OtherJudases Abound In Holy Week). Although some have tried to assert that "Archbishop" Bergoglio did not truly support "civil unions," the truth is otherwise, something noted by National Catholic Reporter columnist and reporter John Allen, Jr., who had to journeyed to Argentina to question sources personally:

In March 19, The New York Times reported that when Argentina was gearing up for a bitter national debate on gay marriage in 2009 and 2010, Bergoglio quietly favored a compromise solution that would have included civil unions for same-sex couples.

One source for that story was an Argentine journalist named Sergio Rubin, co-author with Francesca Ambrogetti of an interview book with Bergoglio titled El Jesuita. (I met Ambrogetti while I was in Buenos Aires. She told me the full version of how it took years for the notoriously media-averse Bergoglio to agree to the interview.)

Rubin's version of events was swiftly denied by Miguel Woites, director of the Argentinian Catholic Information Agency, a news outlet linked to the Buenos Aires archdiocese. Woites insisted Bergoglio would "never" have favored any legal recognition of same-sex unions and said the Times report was a "complete error."

On this score, I was told by three sources in Argentina that the Times basically got it right: Bergoglio did, in fact, favor civil unions.

That was confirmed on background by two senior officials of the bishops' conference in Argentina, both of whom worked with Bergoglio and took part in the behind-the-scenes discussions as the conference tried to shape its position.

"Bergoglio supported civil unions," one of those officials told me.

Mariano de Vedia, a veteran journalist for La Nación, has covered church/state issues in Argentina for years and said he could confirm Bergoglio's position had been correctly described in the Times account.

Guillermo Villarreal, a Catholic journalist in Argentina, said it was well known at the time that Bergoglio's moderate position was opposed by Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer of La Plata, the leader of the hawks. The difference was not over whether to oppose gay marriage, but how ferociously to do so and whether there was room for a compromise on civil unions.

Villareal described the standoff over gay marriage as the only vote Bergoglio ever lost during his six years as president of the conference.

Behind the scenes, sources say Bergoglio tried to avoid fireworks on the gay marriage issue. One young Catholic told me, for instance, he had wanted to organize a public recitation of the rosary on the eve of the vote outside the legislature, knowing that supporters of gay marriage would also be there and the prayer would be a provocation. He wrote to Bergoglio seeking advice, he said, and Bergoglio called him directly, suggesting they pray at home instead.

Oesterheld suggested Bergoglio went along with the harder line espoused by the majority of the bishops' conference even if it wasn't his own instinct.

"At that time, there were different views within the bishops' conference on how open the church should be [to compromise solutions]," Oesterheld said. "The cardinal went along with what the majority wanted. He didn't impose his own views. He never publicly expressed his own feelings on the matter, because he didn't want to seem to be undercutting the common position of the bishops." (Hard questions about Francis in Argentina and a lesson from Chile.)


Support for "civil unions" is becoming very mainslime stuff in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Very mainslime:

A leading cardinal has said that same-sex relationships should be respected and recognised in law amid signs of a change in church thinking on the subject.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, made the remarks in a lecture at the National Gallery evening titled "Christianity: Alien Presence or Foundation of the West?" on Monday. "There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection. Yes, but please keep it away from the notion of marriage. Because the definition of marriage is the stable union between a man and a woman open to life," Cardinal Schönborn said. "We should be clear about terms and respect the needs of people living in a partnership together. They deserve respect," he added. Two other cardinals, Colombian Ruben Salazar and Theodore McCarrick have recently suggested the Church should not oppose same-sex civil unions. (Three Cardinals open to civil partnerships.)

Christoph Schonborn's support for perversity is very well-known:

That's right, "Pope" Benedict XVI has been completely silent in the wake of comments over the years made by the likes of the late Carlo "Cardinal" Martini, who died on August 31, 2012, Christoph "Cardinal" Schonborn, the conciliar "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, and Geoffrey Robinson, a retired auxiliary "bishop" in Sydney, Australia, concerning the necessity of overlooking sinful acts in favor of the "quality of relationships." What's the good about using conciliarspeak to oppose in the weakest terms imaginable "gay marriage" when the conciliar "bishops" favor "ministries" to sinners to reaffirm them in basing their own self-identification on an "orientation" toward the commission of the sin of Sodom? (See Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure Update.)

This is getting pretty old hat in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose apostate "bishops" have long recruited, protected, enabled and promoted men who were either inclined to or had as a matter fact engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and the Ninth Commandments.

 Everything is "up for grabs" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and the group of eight conciliar revolutionaries Jorge Mario Bergoglio has chosen to "advise" him on the governance of this false church indicates that his "Petrine Ministry" is very much akin to the office of prime minister or premier in a parliamentary system of government. And it should be noted the revolutionaries" named by Bergoglio/Francis are very "soft" have a track record of being very "respectful" of those who commit sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Very respectful. Very tolerant.

Here is the dishonor roll of what some are calling Bergoglio's "G8" but who are better referred to as his "commissars" or "politburo" as they evoke nothing other than the memory of the Soviet officials who reviewed the May Day Parade atop the Kremlin Wall in Red Square forty years ago, May 1, 1973:

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis has appointed a Group of Eight cardinals to advise him in the governance of the Universal Church. In a communique issued Saturday the Secretariat of State announced that the Holy Father decided to set up the Council following on from discussions that emerged during the General Congregations in the lead up to the Conclave which elected him the 265th Successor to St Peter.

The group of Cardinals will be coordinated by Card. Oscar Andrés Maradiaga Rodríguez and is drawn from across the Universal Church. It will also help Pope Francis revise the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia Pastor bonus.

The group is composed of :

Card. Giuseppe Bertello, President of the Governatorate of Vatican City State; Card. Francisco Javier Errazuriz Ossa, Archbishop emeritus of Santiago del Cile (Chile);

Card. Oswald Gracias, Archbishop of Bombay (India); Card. Reinhard Marx, Archbishop of München und Freising (Germany);

Card. Laurent Monswengo Pasinya, Archbishop of Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo);Card. Sean Patrick O’Malley. O.F.M. Cap., Archbishop of Boston (U.S.A.);

Card. George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney (Australia);Card. Oscar Andrés Maradiaga Rodríguez S.D.B., Archbishop of Tegucigalpa (Honduras); Mons. Marcello Semeraro, Bishop of Albano, Council secretary.

The first meeting of the Council will take place October 1-3, 2013. Pope Francis however is already in contact with all of the above mentioned Cardinals.

Briefing press Saturday the Holy See Press Office Director, Fr. Federico Lombardi, noted that the communiqué comes exactly one month since Pope’ Francis election to the Pontificate and shows that the Holy Father “listens attentively” to the suggestions of the College of Cardinals – his closest collaborators.

He also noted that the Group will have no legislative power and that its main function is to “help” and “advise” the Pope. Fr. Lombardi added that the Group will not in any way interfere in the normal functions of the Roman Curia, which helps the Pope in the daily governance of the Church. (Senor Bergoglio appoints Group of Eight Apostates to advise on Curia reform.)

Who are these Conciliar Commissars?

For the sake of brevity--and this writer's own need for sleep, a bit of information about three of the "cardinals" would be useful.

For some information about George Pell, see Apostates Reprimanding Apostates, Trying To Stop The Waltz, One World Plus One Church Equals Novus Ordo Secolorum, More Scourgings for Our Lord From the One World Church, Ratzinger's Revolution Unravels, part two. Here is but one excerpt to give you a little idea of Father Pell's Modernism:

In comments that may shock some staunch Catholics, Cardinal George Pell has described the biblical story of Adam and Eve as a myth.

He appeared alongside renowned evolutionary biologist and atheist, Professor Richard Dawkins, on the ABC's Q&A program last night.

Cardinal Pell said the existence of Adam and Eve was not a matter of science but rather a mythological account.

"It's a very sophisticated mythology to try to explain the evil and the suffering in the world," he said.

"It's a religious story told for religious purposes." (Pell says Adam and Eve didn't exist.)


No Adam and Eve, Father Pell?

This is standard fare in what passes for Scriptural exegesis among Modernists. Unfortunately for George Pell, his Modernism has been condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 15, 1950.)


What about the "chairman" of the "cardinals" chosen to advise Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis?

Well, this comment about Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez was found on the Rorate Caeli website after the announcement of this "cabinet" or "privy council" as made on Saturday, April 13, 2013, the Feast of Saint Hermenegild:

I attended a mass while passing through New Orleans in 2004 celebrated by Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, and it was a large part of the end of my attempts to bring the indult to Mexico. I wrote him a letter afterward, but I cannot find it yet in my files. I never got an answer. The topic of his sermon was 'The Church on the March,' and its revolutionary gestures (I cannot speak to the content, not having my notes) and the conduct of the concelebrating priests and of the faithful attending was shocking. I had been collecting signatures on a petition to take to the bishop in Tepic, but had been growing more and more anxious about what could happen to the traditional mass, celebrated by such ministers, and eventually I abandoned the effort, although FSSP as readers here know entered Guadalajara, although the traditional mass was and is already there through SSPX. Maradiaga is a good looking man and had a great following among the women, who conducted themselves shamefully in that mass. I won't go into details. Readers here will remember being the only person on their knees at consecrations in great cathedrals--this was like that, with beautiful women in various states of exposed bosoms, undone hair, the people chattering, walking about visiting, talking on cell phones, kids playing in the aisles, and huge red banners snapping with revolutionary-sounding slogans. And the celebrant urging it all on with smiles and cheers.

So Madriaga is a frightening addition, for me. I will keep it in prayer and attention, and if I don't put it into words to God, out of courtesy to our bishops, our shepherds, still my heart will cry out, protect us, save us, protect us from this! (Bergoglio establishes committee to counsel him in the Government of the universal Church and to study reform of the Roman Curia.)

No, it's not very encouraging for those who are still clinging on to the myth that the conciliar "popes" are indeed true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter.

What more needs to be written about Sean O'Malley than has been written before in No Crime Is Worse Than Deicide, Another Victim of Americanism; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Behold The Free Rein Given to Error; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Unfortunate Enough to Be A Baby; Beacon of Social Justice?; Spotlight On The Ordinary; What's Good For Teddy Is Good For Benny; Sean O'Malley: Coward and Hypocrite: More Rationalizations and Distortions?

What are these "cardinals" going to do?

They are going to help Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis to further institutionalize the conciliar "novelty" of "episcopal collegiality" that has done so very much to destroy the notion of the papacy as a "monarchy" and that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter acts as a monarch as the Vicar on earth of Christ the King Himself, He who does not govern us "collegially" whatsoever.

They are going to further institutionalize the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of the "Second" Vatican Council" and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes."

Who says this?

Well, the notorious Walter "Cardinal" Kasper (see Forever Prowling the World Seeking the Ruin of Souls, part 1 and Forever Prowling the World Seeking The Ruin of Souls, part 2) understands the "mind" of "Pope Francis" very well:

Pope Francis has ushered in a new phase in the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, shifting the focus of the Catholic church from the concerns of the industrialized North that dominated debates of the past 50 years to the "problems of the Southern Hemisphere," according to a senior churchman.

German Cardinal Walter Kasper's comments in an article in Friday's edition of L'Osservatore Romano seemed to signal a return to a positive view of the impact of the council, away from the more pessimistic interpretation that often prevailed under Francis' predecessor, Benedict XVI.

Kasper stressed that since the first day of his pontificate, Francis "has given what I would call his prophetic interpretation of the council, and has inaugurated a new phase of its reception. He has changed the agenda: at the top are the problems of the Southern Hemisphere."

Francis, an Argentine Jesuit who was known as Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio until his election a month ago, has called for a "poor church, for the poor."

Francis' election and his priorities reflect a profound shift in church geography, said Kasper, a prelate who was for years the Vatican's top official for dialogue with other Christians before his retirement.

At the beginning of the last century, only a quarter of Catholics lived outside Europe; today only a quarter live in Europe and more than two-thirds of Catholics live in the Southern Hemisphere, where the church is growing," Kasper wrote in the Vatican's semi-official daily.

The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) revolutionized Catholic life with the acceptance of religious liberty, ecumenism and freedom of conscience among other reforms.

The council generally adopted a more positive and open attitude toward the world than the church had ever taken, but its reception has been deeply divisive. Conservative Catholics say that the church's crisis of the past decades is a consequence of Vatican II's modernizing reforms, which included sidelining the ancient Mass in Latin and introducing a new rite in local languages.

But for Kasper, the "progressives," those who pushed for reforms in the council "were the true conservatives, those who wanted to renew ancient tradition."

Yet in the years following the council, he said, as some progressives rejected any link with church tradition and demanded further reforms, such as optional celibacy and women priests, Catholics didn't experience a new "springtime of the church" as was expected.

Today's church "has a wintery look, and shows clear signs of crisis," Kasper said.

But the cardinal rejects critics' claims that the council was "the greatest calamity in recent history."

Quoting a seminal 2005 speech by Pope Benedict -- who often clashed with Kasper -- Kasper says the council must not be interpreted as a "break" with tradition but as a "reform" and "renewal" in continuity with the church's past.

According to Kasper, this could now lead, under Pope Francis, to translating the council's statements into "practical consequences" that could rekindle its "innovative impulse." (Senior apostate says Francis will bring new life to Vatican II.)


"Innovative impulse"?

Innovation is from the devil.

Just look, however, at all of the "innovations" that Bergoglio/Francis has instituted in the past thirty-four days. Yes, just thirty-four days!

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis told us just yesterday in a "homily" that he gave at Casa Santa Marta on the occasion of the eighty-sixth birthday of His Apostateness, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus, that that those who want to "go back" to the time before the "Second" Vatican Council are "stubborn." That's right, stubborn:

Vatican City (AsiaNews) - Vatican II "was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit," and yet, 50 years later, there is no "Church continuity". There are "stubborn" members who even want to turn back and "tame the Holy Spirit." Pope Francis took the opportunity to speak about the Council 50 years since it opened, inspired by the passage in the Acts of the Apostles that tells the story of Stephen who, before he was stoned, described as "stubborn" those who oppose the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Father spoke during the Mass he celebrated this morning in the chapel of Santa Marta (pictured), dedicated to Benedict XVI, who turns 86 today, so that "the Lord may be with him, comfort him and give him much consolation." Francis personally extended his good wishes to Benedict XVI with whom he spoke by phone.

Vatican Radio reported that, during the homily, when he commented Stephen's words and remembered Jesus' rebuke to the disciples of Emmaus, "Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!", the Pope said that "always, even among us, there is resistance to the Holy Spirit."

"To put it plainly, the Holy Spirit gives us trouble. Because it moves us, makes us walk, impels the Church to go forward. And we are like Peter at the Transfiguration, 'Ah, how nice to be this way, all together!' . . . As long as it does not bother us. We want the Holy Spirit to doze off . . . we want to tame the Holy Spirit. That is wrong. Because He is God and He is the wind that comes and goes and one does not know from where. It is God's power; it is what gives us consolation and strength to go on. But, going ahead! This bothers us. Comfort is better."

"Today," the pope went on to say, "it seems that we are all happy" for the presence of the Holy Spirit, but that "is not true. Such temptation is still topical. Case in point, let us think about the Council."

"The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit. Consider Pope John. He looked like a good parish priest; he was obedient to the Holy Spirit and he did it. But after 50 years, have we have done everything the Holy Spirit told us in the Council? In the continuity of growth of the Church that was the Council? No. We celebrate this anniversary, we make a monument, as long as it does not bother us. We do not want to change. What is more, some people want to go back. This is stubbornness, this is what we call, trying to tame the Holy Spirit, this is what we call becoming foolish and slow of heart."

"The same thing happens even in our personal lives, "the pope added. In fact, "the Spirit moves us to take a more evangelical way," but we resist. The final exhortation is "Do not resist the Holy Spirit. The Spirit sets us free, with Jesus' freedom, with the freedom of God's children."

"Do not resist the Holy Spirit. This is the grace I wish we would all ask for from the Lord: to be docile towards the Holy Spirit, that Spirit that comes from us and makes us go forward on the path of holiness, the beautiful holiness of the Church, the grace of docility towards the Holy Spirit." ("Stubborn" are those who would turn back from Vatican II, Senor Bergoglio says.)


It is you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who have blasphemed God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable. This is nothing other than a denial of the very nature of God Himself and of the very Divine Constitution of the Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. And this, you see, is one of the reasons that I wrote Francis The Pagan eight days ago.

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be correct, God the Holy Ghost either did not direct the council fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty general councils to formulate dogmas that condemn the apostasies, blasphemies, sacrileges and innovations of conciliarism or He "decided" after over nineteen hundred years to jettison the direction given in the past. Neither is possible.

It is very clear that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively in His Catholic Church.

If Jorge Mario Bergoglio did truly believe in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His true Church he would then accept, for example, the following declarations concerning adherents of the Talmud with whom he has consorted freely and at whose temples of false worship he has engaged in some of the most abominable practices imaginable that make a mockery of the First and Second Commandments:

It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ's passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation. . . . .

It [the Holy Roman Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Cantate Domino,, February 4, 1442.)

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, being a true conciliar revolutionary, accepts none of this.

He accepts none of the Catholic Church's condemnations of religious liberty, separation of Church and State, false ecumenism and Modernist Scriptural exegesis. Neither do any of his eight commissars that constitute his new politburo.

Yes, there will be no "turning back" from the "Second" Vatican Council.

There will be no "turning back" from the new ecclesiology.

There will be no "turning back" from episcopal collegiality.

There will be no "turning back" from the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, not even from "clown liturgies" in which "Archbishop" Bergoglio presided over personally.

There will be no "turning back" from the egalitarianism represented by having women in the sanctuary during the Novus Ordo liturgical service and as represented by members of the laity "reading" from a lectern while the presider is siting and as represented by the laity being able to distribute what purports to be Holy Communion.

There will be no "turning back" from what purports to be Holy Communion in the hand or under both kinds.

There will be no "turning back" from the Cranmer table or from the removal of altar rails.

There will be no "turning back" from the promotion of religious liberty and separation of Church and State and false ecumenism.

There will be no "turning back" from letting the "spirit" move the conciliar revolutionaries into greater "innovation in continuity."

"Stubborn," Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

"Stubborn," you say, Jorge the Ostensibly Pious?

No, it's called fidelity to the unchanging, immutable truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

Permit me, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to introduce you to the followings that prove you to be the one who is stubbornly proud in your infidelity and apostasy:

  • For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
    • not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
    • but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
  • Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)

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

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

You are the one who is stubborn in infidelity and apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Pope Saint Pius X, quoting Pope Gregory IX, described you perfectly, Jorge Mario Bergoglio:


The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

You, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have engaged in profane novelties.

You, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have permitted yourself to be "blessed" by Protestant "ministers," whose god is none other than the devil.

It is you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, whose bladder is puffed up with the spirit of vanity as you dare to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers and twist the meaning of sacred text while leading men away by all manner of strange doctrines.

The "spirit" that has moved the "Second" Vatican Council and the magisterium of the conciliar "popes" is evil.

However, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that anyone who adheres to the "past" is "stubborn" or "hard-headed" and is guilty of the terrible crime of "triumphalism:"

Pope Francis said “a great temptation” that lurks in the Christian life is triumphalism. “It is a temptation that even the Apostles had,” he said. Peter had it when he solemnly assured that he would not deny Jesus. The people also experienced it after the multiplication of the loaves.

“Triumphalism,” the Pope asserted, “is not of the Lord. The Lord came to Earth humbly; he lived his life for 30 years; he grew up like a normal child; he experienced the trial of work and the trial of the Cross. Then, in the end, he resurrected.”

“The Lord teaches that in life not everything is magical, that triumphalism is not Christian,” the Pope said. The life of the Christian consists of a normality that is lived daily with Christ.

“This is the grace for which we must ask: perseverance. Perseverance in our walk with the Lord, everyday, until the end,” he stated.

“That the Lord may save us from fantasies of triumphalism,” he concluded. “Triumphalism is not Christian, it is not of the Lord. The daily journey in the presence of God, this is the way of the Lord.” (Francis the Pagan: triumphalism is a temptation of Christians, report of a "homily" given at Casa Santa Marta on Friday, April 12, 2013.)

What is "triumphalism"?

The  Catholic Church teaching that it is the one and only true religion.

Popes who believe that they are monarchs and govern as such.

Teaching that civil leaders have an obligation 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.

Teaching that false religions have no right from God to propagate their falsehoods and that each is from the devil.

"Little things" like that, you know?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostate.

So was his predecessor.

So was his predecessor's predecessor.

So was his predecessor's predecessor's predecessor.

So was his predecessor's predecessor's predecessors's predecessor.

So was his predecessor's predecessor's predecessor's predecessor's predecessor, the man he praised so much yesterday, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII.

Apostates An apostate. And yet Bishop Bernard Fellay, while finally concluding that his long dance with the conciliar revolutionaries is going nowhere (see Superior General's Letter to Friends & Benefactors), something that will be the subject of tomorrow's commentary, still believes that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter!

The evidence is clear.

You don't believe it?

See Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now for one summary of Bergoglio's predecessor's acts of apostasy, blasphemy and sacrilege.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his Commissars are revolutionaries.

They are apostates, each and every single one of them.

They are outside of the pale of the Catholic Church.

We need the help of the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, our Good Saint Joseph, to keep us faithful to the Catholic Church during this time of apostasy and betrayal no matter what may befall us in human terms. We are lost without the help of Our Lady and her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph. We need the intercession of this time of our figurative exile in Egypt, asking him to bring us out of this exile individually by means of helping us to save our souls and collectively by helping us to plant seeds for the resurrection of the Church Militant on earth.

Lead us out of exile, Good Saint Joseph. Help us to offer us this time in our spiritual Egypt as the consecrated slaves of His foster-Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through Sorrowful and Immaculate of Mary, thy Most Chaste Spouse.

Help us, Good Saint Joseph, to find our way of our earth exile into Heaven, where we can worship Father, Son and Holy Ghost together with you and Our Lady and all of the angels and saints.

Help us, Good Saint Joseph, to find our way to an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise by lifting high the Cross your Divine foster-Son at every moment of our lives, storming Heaven by our faithful recitation of your Most Chaste Spouse's Most Holy Rosary.

Good Saint Joseph, help us in our hour of exile. Good Saint Joseph, we love you.

Help us to love you as your Divine foster-Son, Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and your Most Chaste Spouse, the Blessed Virgin Mary, did.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, we love you! Save souls. Jesus, Mary and Joseph, pray for us now and in death's agony. Amen.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

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

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Andrew the Apostle, 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.

Pope Saint Anicetus, pray for us. .

See also: A Litany of Saints

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?



© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.