Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
September 20, 2013

 

Francis: Apostle of Antichrist

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

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.)

 

Part one of this commentary, which was published late last evening, Eastern Daylight Saving Time, focused on four sections of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's interview with "Father" Antonio Spadoro, S.J., the editor-in-chief of La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal, on behalf of America magazine and other Jesuit publications. The concluding part of this commentary will focus on other parts of the interview, including those that have generated the most headlines in secular newspapers around the world.

V. Francis the Conciliar Ecclesiogist

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis stressed the "experiential" aspects of "knowing" God and even Our Lady herself near the beginning of the published interview, serving as an apologist for conciliarism while at the same time attempting to turn Saint Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Society of Jesus, and Father Peter Faber, S.J., one of Saint Ignatius's early successors as the Father General of the Society of Jesus, into witnesses in behalf of his false religion, conciliarism:

 

I ask Pope Francis what it means exactly for him to “think with the church,” a notion St. Ignatius writes about in the Spiritual Exercises. He replies using an image.

“The image of the church I like is that of the holy, faithful people of God. This is the definition I often use, and then there is that image from the Second Vatican Council’s ‘Dogmatic Constitution on the Church’ (No. 12). Belonging to a people has a strong theological value. In the history of salvation, God has saved a people. There is no full identity without belonging to a people. No one is saved alone, as an isolated individual, but God attracts us looking at the complex web of relationships that take place in the human community. God enters into this dynamic, this participation in the web of human relationships.

“The people itself constitutes a subject. And the church is the people of God on the journey through history, with joys and sorrows. Thinking with the church, therefore, is my way of being a part of this people. And all the faithful, considered as a whole, are infallible in matters of belief, and the people display this infallibilitas in credendo, this infallibility in believing, through a supernatural sense of the faith of all the people walking together. This is what I understand today as the ‘thinking with the church’ of which St. Ignatius speaks. When the dialogue among the people and the bishops and the pope goes down this road and is genuine, then it is assisted by the Holy Spirit. So this thinking with the church does not concern theologians only. (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

Holy Mother Church is not defined by the Modernism found in Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.

The Catholic Church is a Divinely-founded, visible, hierarchical perfect society endowed by God Himself with the Four Marks of being One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. She has been endowed by her Divine Founder, Mystical Bridegroom and Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with the charism of infallibly protecting and transmitting His Sacred Deposit of Faith and of being the instrument through which the Treasury of Grace is channeled into the souls of the men by means of the Sacraments He Himself instituted for our sanctification and salvation.

Here is a definition of the Catholic Church as founded in The Sources of Catholic Dogma:

The Church is a society instituted by Christ: a people one in faith, end, and things conducing to the end; subject to one and the same power, a society divine in origin, by end and things proximately serving, insofar as it pertains to its end, are human members, constituting one mystical body under Christ the head. The end of the Church is to pour forth salvation procured through Christ and the same time the benefits emanating therefrom upon all men of all ages; and especially to protect the doctrine of Christ by a living and authentic teaching authority and to propagate it complete and uncorrupted. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Systematic Index, p. 12.)

 

The "people" must submit to Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. Ours is a hierarchical church, not a "democratic" church.

Furthermore, human beings choose for themselves where they are going to spend eternity. This choice is theirs to make, part of the free will that God gives to His rational creatures to choose for or against Him. It is a sign of His fundamental love for the free will with which He has endowed us to let us choose against Him until the point we die, whereupon He will not impose Himself upon us at death, permitting the suffer the fate of eternal hellfire and the loss of His own Beatific Vision for persisting in our sins and not approaching Him with sincere, contrite hearts.

Individual men are judged by God at the moment of their own Particular Judgments by the state of their own immortal souls at the moment of their death, not the state of anyone else's soul, although we will be held to account for how our thoughts, words and actions contributed to or  impeded the salvation of the souls with whom we come in contact, especially those related to them and/or over whom they may have exercised authority.

Ultimately, however, individual human beings choose where it is they will spend eternity, and not all too infrequently those who have chosen for Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church have done while rejecting "relationships" with their own flesh and blood as they have proved themselves attached to a pure love of Him alone to the point of shedding their very blood, something that, to draw from the example of the saints whose feast we celebrate today, Saint Eustace, his wife and two sons did early in the Second Century A.D. So have millions upon millions of others during the past nearly two millennia.

Hermits have not lived in "relationships" with others. They were not "saved" by "relationships" with others. They were saved by dying in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church while they adhered to everything she taught as part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Some of these hermits, such as Saint Anthony of the Desert, have been raised to the altars of Holy Mother Church.

God does not "attract us" through a "complex web of relationships." He calls us in the Baptismal font to Himself, infusing into our souls the Supernatural Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, thereby indwelling in our immortal souls by means of Sanctifying Grace until such time as we choose to expel Him therefrom by means of the commission of just one Mortal Sin.

It is frequently the case that persistent sinners are called back unto Him through the preaching of saints such as Saint John Mary Vianney or Saint Vincent Ferrer, O.P., or Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, C.SS.R., to name just a few, or by the exhortations of others.

This is without question.

However, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis does not believe, as shall be demonstrated later, that it is necessary for men to remonstrate with each other. He is contending that God "attract us" and "saves us" exclusively through a "complex web of relationships." This is false.

Moreover, the belief that the "holy, faithful people of God" have sort of a "collective infallibility" is also false in the sense that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis wants us to understand this as part of the "revelation" given unto what he thinks is the Catholic Church at the "Second" Vatican Council as the sensus fidei thinks with the Mind of Christ as He has discharged It in His Mystical Bride, the Catholic Church, and seeks none of the novelties or false compassion that are near and near to his, Bergoglio/Francis, darkened, Modernist heart. 

The [First] Vatican Council taught the following concerning union of Catholics with the hierarchy of Holy Mother Church, which does not reside in the "people" at all:

  • In order, then, that
    • the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that,
    • by the union of the clergy,
    • the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of
      • faith and
      • communion,
    • he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and
    • instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and
    • their visible foundation.
  • Upon the strength of this foundation was to be built the eternal temple, and the church whose topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon the firmness of this foundation [41] .
  • And since the gates of hell trying, if they can, to overthrow the church, make their assault with a hatred that increases day by day against its divinely laid foundation,
    • we judge it necessary,
      • with the approbation of the sacred council, and
      • for the protection, defence and growth of the catholic flock,
    • to propound the doctrine concerning the
      1. institution,
      2. permanence and
      3. nature
    • of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
    • upon which the strength and coherence of the whole church depends.
  • This doctrine is to be believed and held by all the faithful in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church.
  • Furthermore, we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock. (Vatican Council, July 18, 1870.)

Anyone who believes that the multitude of "believers" within the confines of the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is held together in unity of faith and communion ought to take a look at the tragic sense of betrayal that many "conservative" or "orthodox" Catholics have at this time over Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's dismissal of their work in opposition to abortion, contraception and "gay marriage, subjects that will be examined below.

Writing in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, Pope Leo XIII reminded us that there cannot be disagreements among the faithful as to what constitutes the Holy Faith of of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

 

6. But He, indeed, Who made this one Church, also gave it unity, that is, He made it such that all who are to belong to it must be united by the closest bonds, so as to form one society, one kingdom, one body - "one body and one spirit as you are called in one hope of your calling (Eph. iv., 4). Jesus Christ, when His death was nigh at hand, declared His will in this matter, and solemnly offered it up, thus addressing His Father: "Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in Me...that they also may be one in Us...that they may be made perfect in one" John xvii., 20-21 23). Yea, He commanded that this unity should be so closely knit and so perfect amongst His followers that it might, in some measure, shadow forth the union between Himself and His Father: "I pray that they all may be one as Thou Father in Me and I in Thee" (Ibid. 21).

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

Anyone who contends that there is "agreement and union of minds" within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is, to put is charitably, insane, yes, stark-raving mad. No such "agreement and union of minds" exists even among "ultra-progressive" revolutionaries within the ranks of conciliarism.

The infallibility of Holy Mother Church on matters of Faith and Moral appertains to the Successor of Saint Peter and to the bishops who are communion with him. It does belong to the "faithful," who are governed by them.

The faithful do not "walk on journey" with the Catholic Church to discover "meaning" and "truth" as it applies to the concrete "historical" circumstances of their own daily lives. The faithful are to believe what is taught and to attempt to cooperate with the Sanctifying Graces administered unto them in the Sacraments they receive.

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is a Modernist, applying this concept of the "people" even to Our Lady herself

 

“This is how it is with Mary: If you want to know who she is, you ask theologians; if you want to know how to love her, you have to ask the people. In turn, Mary loved Jesus with the heart of the people, as we read in the Magnificat. We should not even think, therefore, that ‘thinking with the church’ means only thinking with the hierarchy of the church.” (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

Blasphemy.

Heresy.

First, Our Lady loved her Divine Son perfectly with her own Immaculate Heart that was preserved from all stain of Original or Actual Sin from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception.

Second, Catholics are indeed required to think with the mind of Church.

Perhaps catching himself in something that he realizes might arouse a bit of a criticism from those of us who are "restorationists," Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis attempted to backtrack just a little bit in his interview with Antonio Spadoro on the "infallibility of the people" comment, demonstrating that he speaks on his admission based upon the random thoughts that pop into his Modernist skull:

After a brief pause, Pope Francis emphasizes the following point, in order to avoid misunderstandings: “And, of course, we must be very careful not to think that this infallibilitas of all the faithful I am talking about in the light of Vatican II is a form of populism. No; it is the experience of ‘holy mother the hierarchical church,’ as St. Ignatius called it, the church as the people of God, pastors and people together. The church is the totality of God’s people.

“I see the sanctity of God’s people, this daily sanctity,” the pope continues. “There is a ‘holy middle class,’ which we can all be part of, the holiness Malègue wrote about.” The pope is referring to Joseph Malègue, a French writer (1876–1940), particularly to the unfinished trilogy Black Stones: The Middle Classes of Salvation.

“I see the holiness,” the pope continues, “in the patience of the people of God: a woman who is raising children, a man who works to bring home the bread, the sick, the elderly priests who have so many wounds but have a smile on their faces because they served the Lord, the sisters who work hard and live a hidden sanctity. This is for me the common sanctity. I often associate sanctity with patience: not only patience as hypomoné [the New Testament Greek word], taking charge of the events and circumstances of life, but also as a constancy in going forward, day by day. This is the sanctity of the militant church also mentioned by St. Ignatius. This was the sanctity of my parents: my dad, my mom, my grandmother Rosa who loved ​​me so much. In my breviary I have the last will of my grandmother Rosa, and I read it often. For me it is like a prayer. She is a saint who has suffered so much, also spiritually, and yet always went forward with courage.

“This church with which we should be thinking is the home of all, not a small chapel that can hold only a small group of selected people. We must not reduce the bosom of the universal church to a nest protecting our mediocrity. And the church is Mother; the church is fruitful. It must be. You see, when I perceive negative behavior in ministers of the church or in consecrated men or women, the first thing that comes to mind is: ‘Here’s an unfruitful bachelor’ or ‘Here’s a spinster.’ They are neither fathers nor mothers, in the sense that they have not been able to give spiritual life. Instead, for example, when I read the life of the Salesian missionaries who went to Patagonia, I read a story of the fullness of life, of fruitfulness.

“Another example from recent days that I saw got the attention of newspapers: the phone call I made to a young man who wrote me a letter. I called him because that letter was so beautiful, so simple. For me this was an act of generativity. I realized that he was a young man who is growing, that he saw in me a father, and that the letter tells something of his life to that father. The father cannot say, ‘I do not care.’ This type of fruitfulness is so good for me.” (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

 

Where was this alleged "sanctity" on display?

At Word Youth Day 2013 with its display of immodesty, indecency, blasphemy and sacrilege?

Where?

In the life the pro-abortion Dilma Rousseff, the President of Brazil, or in Evo Morales, the pro-abortion President of Bolivia.

Where, exactly, is those "alleged" of the "sanctity of the people"?

True sanctity is very rare. Very rare indeed. Yet Bergoglio/Francis would have us believe that such sanctity is everywhere to found within and without the confines of his false church.

By the way, perhaps it is useful to point out that the author cited by Bergoglio/Francis about the "sanctity of the people," the late Joseph Malègue, was a favorite of a certain Giovanni Montini, who is better known to readers of this site as Paul The Sick.

And, once again, those who sought to indemnify Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis a few weeks ago when reports in secular newspapers indicated that he was telephone some of those who had written him by saying that their "pope" could not possibly have reaffirmed a young French man in his "homosexuality" by saying "it does not matter" now have to reckon with the fact that Bergoglio/Francis did not disown the characterization of that phone call when he had the opportunity to do so. (For a review, please see Francis, The Out-Of-Control And Uncontrollable Antipope, part one.

Oh, and just by the way, you understand, the people are only one with their pastors when they adhere to everything contained in the Deposit of Faith. The "people" have no governing role in the Catholic Church, and they are to teach only what is taught to them, something that Pope Leo XIII expressed very simply in Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

16. No one, however, must entertain the notion that private individuals are prevented from taking some active part in this duty of teaching, especially those on whom God has bestowed gifts of mind with the strong wish of rendering themselves useful. These, so often as circumstances demand, may take upon themselves, not, indeed, the office of the pastor, but the task of communicating to others what they have themselves received, becoming, as it were, living echoes of their masters in the faith. Such co-operation on the part of the laity has seemed to the Fathers of the Vatican Council so opportune and fruitful of good that they thought well to invite it. "All faithful Christians, but those chiefly who are in a prominent position, or engaged in teaching, we entreat, by the compassion of Jesus Christ, and enjoin by the authority of the same God and Savior, that they bring aid to ward off and eliminate these errors from holy Church, and contribute their zealous help in spreading abroad the light of undefiled faith.''[16] Let each one, therefore, bear in mind that he both can and should, so far as may be, preach the Catholic faith by the authority of his example, and by open and constant profession of the obligations it imposes. In respect, consequently, to the duties that bind us to God and the Church, it should be borne earnestly in mind that in propagating Christian truth and warding off errors the zeal of the laity should, as far as possible, be brought actively into play.

17. The faithful would not, however, so completely and advantageously satisfy these duties as is fitting they should were they to enter the field as isolated champions of the faith. Jesus Christ, indeed, has clearly intimated that the hostility and hatred of men, which He first and foremost experienced, would be shown in like degree toward the work founded by Him, so that many would be barred from profiting by the salvation for which all are indebted to His loving kindness. Wherefore, He willed not only to train disciples in His doctrine, but to unite them into one society, and closely conjoin them in one body, "which is the Church,''[17] whereof He would be the head. The life of Jesus Christ pervades, therefore, the entire framework of this body, cherishes and nourishes its every member, uniting each with each, and making all work together to the same end, albeit the action of each be not the same.[18] Hence it follows that not only is the Church a perfect society far excelling every other, but it is enjoined by her Founder that for the salvation of mankind she is to contend "as an army drawn up in battle array.''[19] The organization and constitution of Christian society can in no wise be changed, neither can any one of its members live as he may choose, nor elect that mode of fighting which best pleases him. For, in effect, he scatters and gathers not who gathers not with the Church and with Jesus Christ, and all who fight not jointly with him and with the Church are in very truth contending against God.[20]

18. To bring about such a union of minds and uniformity of action -- not without reason so greatly feared by the enemies of Catholicism -- the main point is that a perfect harmony of opinion should prevail; in which intent we find Paul the Apostle exhorting the Corinthians with earnest zeal and solemn weight of words: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you: but that you be perfectly in the same mind, and in the same judgment.''[21]

19. The wisdom of this precept is readily apprehended. In truth, thought is the principle of action, and hence there cannot exist agreement of will, or similarity of action, if people all think differently one from the other.  (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

Catholics are called to be "living echoes" of what has been taught them from time immemorial, not to follow the likes of the random, Modernism thoughts of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

VI. Francis the Conciliar Apologist

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's answer to the question that Antonio Spadoro posed to him about the chief accomplishment of the "Second" Vatican Council reveals yet again that he is a completely unreconstructed conciliar revolutionary, a man who is just as committed to the propagation of his revolution just as fervently as was Martin Luther, John Calvin, Maximilian Robespierre, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Elias Plutarco Calles and, among so many others, Fidel Castro:

“What did ​​the Second Vatican Council accomplish?” I ask.

“Vatican II was a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture,” says the pope. “Vatican II produced a renewal movement that simply comes from the same Gospel. Its fruits are enormous. Just recall the liturgy. The work of liturgical reform has been a service to the people as a re-reading of the Gospel from a concrete historical situation. Yes, there are hermeneutics of continuity and discontinuity, but one thing is clear: the dynamic of reading the Gospel, actualizing its message for today—which was typical of Vatican II—is absolutely irreversible. Then there are particular issues, like the liturgy according to the Vetus Ordo. I think the decision of Pope Benedict [his decision of July 7, 2007, to allow a wider use of the Tridentine Mass] was prudent and motivated by the desire to help people who have this sensitivity. What is worrying, though, is the risk of the ideologization of the Vetus Ordo, its exploitation.” (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

 

This a mother lode of conciliar propaganda. A motherlode, to be sure.

It was almost precisely ten years ago now that the young daughter of friend of ours told us that she was being taught at Christendom College, at which she had just enrolled but later left, it was necessary to "read the Fathers and the Doctors of the Church in light of the 'Second' Vatican Council." No, I am not making this up. 

Indeed, as can be seen from the just-quoted comments made by Bergoglio/Francis to Antonio Spadoro that Christendom College is being completely faithful to his own view of what the "Second" Vatican Council represented: "a re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture," something that was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople and condemned more proximately by pope after pope in the Nineteenth Twentieth Centuries and codified by Pope Saint Pius X in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Sixth Ecumenical: Constantinople III).

They [the Modernists] exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (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. . . . 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. (Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

 

It is because Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis hates these "empirical formulations" whose expressions he does not believe were guided infallibly by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, that he must warn against the "dangers" posed by the "Vetus Ordo (the "original" or "former" ordo) that is otherwise known as the "usus antiquior" or, more commonly, as the "extraordinary form" of the Roman Rite in the conciliar structures as he sees it as a direct threat to the "re-reading of the Gospel in light of contemporary culture.

A true revolutionary to the core of his being, Jorge Mario Bergoglio hates that which is seen in any way as impediment to the furtherance of the outermost reaches of his revolution, which is designed to take the "holy, faithful people of God" on a "journey" that can wind up in only one place: Hell.

The late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist, was honest enough to explain that the destruction of the Roman Rite had to be undertaken by the conciliarists because it represented a Faith they wanted to eradicated in Its entirety:

 

 

Not only is the Novus Ordo Missae of 1969 a change of the liturgical rite, but that change also involved a rearrangement of the liturgical year, including changes in the assignment of feast days for the saints. To add or drop one or the other of these feast days, as had been done before, certainly does not constitute a change of the rite, per se. But the countless innovations introduced as part of liturgical reform have left hardly any of the traditional liturgical forms intact . . .

At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old and until now the heart of the Church, was destroyed. A closer examination reveals that the Roman rite was not perfect, and that some elements of value had atrophied over the centuries. Yet, through all the periods of the unrest that again and again shook the Church to her foundations, the Roman rite always remained the rock, the secure home of faith and piety. . . .

Was all this really done because of a pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the traditional rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the "Tridentime Mass" impossible--because it no loner reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?

Indeed, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the prohibition of the traditional rite was announced at the same time as the introduction of the new liturgical texts; and that a dispensation to continue celebrating the Mass according to the traditional rite was granted only to older priests.

Obviously, the reformers wanted a completely new liturgy, a liturgy that differed from the traditional one in spirit as well as in form; and in no way a liturgy that represented what the Council Fathers had envisioned, i.e., a liturgy that would meet the pastoral needs of the faithful.

Liturgy and faith are interdependent. That is why a new rite was created, a rite that in many ways reflects the bias of the new (modernist) theology. The traditional liturgy simply could not be allowed to exist in its established form because it was permeated with the truths of the traditional faith and the ancient forms of piety. For this reason alone, much was abolished and new rites, prayers and hymns were introduced, as were the new readings from Scripture, which conveniently left out those passages that did not square with the teachings of modern theology--for example, references to a God who judges and punishes.

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

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

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

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

Yes, the destruction of the Roman Rite was made to lead to the "wholesale destruction of the faith on which it was created," and only the willfully blind can at this late date deny that this destruction has taken place.

VII. Francis the Moralist

The destruction of a liturgy that reminds men of their sins and of a God Who judges is an imperative for Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, who protests fervently that "now" is not the "time" to speak on moral issues even though the sins of men that cry out to Heaven for vengeance worsen the state of the world and of the Church Militant on earth while enslaving those who commit them unrepentantly into lives of misery as they seek reaffirmation in their essential "goodness" by demanding that everyone accept them "just as they are."

Well, such unrepentant sinners have a "pope" after their own hearts.

The answer that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis gave concerning moral issues that is being hailed by those in the secular media as an "answer to prayers" and a "breath of fresh air" will be broken up into various parts for the sake of providing brief (I promise--it is 3:20 a.m., Eastern Daylight Saving Time) commentaries:

 

“The church sometimes has locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules. The most important thing is the first proclamation: Jesus Christ has saved you. And the ministers of the church must be ministers of mercy above all. The confessor, for example, is always in danger of being either too much of a rigorist or too lax. Neither is merciful, because neither of them really takes responsibility for the person. The rigorist washes his hands so that he leaves it to the commandment. The loose minister washes his hands by simply saying, ‘This is not a sin’ or something like that. In pastoral ministry we must accompany people, and we must heal their wounds.

“How are we treating the people of God? I dream of a church that is a mother and shepherdess. The church’s ministers must be merciful, take responsibility for the people and accompany them like the good Samaritan, who washes, cleans and raises up his neighbor. This is pure Gospel. God is greater than sin. The structural and organizational reforms are secondary—that is, they come afterward. The first reform must be the attitude. The ministers of the Gospel must be people who can warm the hearts of the people, who walk through the dark night with them, who know how to dialogue and to descend themselves into their people’s night, into the darkness, but without getting lost. The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials. The bishops, particularly, must be able to support the movements of God among their people with patience, so that no one is left behind. But they must also be able to accompany the flock that has a flair for finding new paths. (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the master of false dichotomies, demonstrating yet again the true workings of a Sophist who, much like the Sophists of ancient Athens in the Fifth Century before Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, use caricature, sloganeering and rank demagoguery to argue in behalf of their untruths.

There is no dichotomy between a confessor explaining to a penitent that he must keep the Ten Commandments and encouraging him to do so by cooperating with the graces won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross to amend their lives as they supplicate the Most Blessed Virgin Mary for assistance to use the graces she sends them for this purpose.

Priests are not called to "warm the hearts of the people." They are called to act in the mode of the Good Shepherd Himself, Who said the following to His friend Saint Mary Magdalene when she was caught in the sin of adultery: "Go, and now sin no more" (John 8: 11.)

Pope Saint Gregory the Great explained the uselessness of shepherds who refuse to discipline or correct their wayward sheep:

The Lord reproaches them through the prophet: They are dumb dogs that cannot bark. On another occasion he complains: You did not advance against the foe or set up a wall in front of the house of Israel, so that you might stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord. To advance against the foe involves a bold resistance to the powers of this world in defense of the flock. To stand fast in battle on the day of the Lord means to oppose the wicked enemy out of love for what is right.


When a pastor has been afraid to assert what is right, has he not turned his back and fled by remaining silent? Whereas if he intervenes on behalf of the flock, he sets up a wall against the enemy in front of the house of Israel. Therefore, the Lord again says to his unfaithful people: Your prophets saw false and foolish visions and did not point out your wickedness, that you might repent of your sins. The name of the prophet is sometimes given in the sacred writings to teachers who both declare the present to be fleeting and reveal what is to come. The word of God accuses them of seeing false visions because they are afraid to reproach men for their faults and thereby lull the evildoer with an empty promise of safety. Because they fear reproach, they keep silent and fail to point out the sinner’s wrongdoing.


The word of reproach is a key that unlocks a door, because reproach reveals a fault of which the evildoer is himself often unaware. That is why Paul says of the bishop: He must be able to encourage men in sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. For the same reason God tells us through Malachi: The lips of the priest are to preserve knowledge, and men shall look to him for the law, for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts. Finally, that is also the reason why the Lord warns us through Isaiah: Cry out and be not still; raise your voice in a trumpet call.


Anyone ordained a priest undertakes the task of preaching, so that with a loud cry he may go on ahead of the terrible judge who follows. If, then, a priest does not know how to preach, what kind of cry can such a dumb herald utter? It was to bring this home that the Holy Ghost descended in the form of tongues on the first pastors, for he causes those whom he has filled, to speak out spontaneously. (For two different translations, see: The Book of Pastoral Rule and That the ruler should be discreet in keeping silence, profitable in speech.)

 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis does not believe this in the slightest.

There is a reason why he does not believe this in the slightest.

He is not a Catholic.

He is not a member of the Catholic Church.

He is not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter (see Mr. John Lane's Concerning A SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism, Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty and Why SSPX Priest Fr. Raphael Trytek became a Sedevacantist).

The following passage from the section on Catholic morality only amplifies this point yet again:

“Instead of being just a church that welcomes and receives by keeping the doors open, let us try also to be a church that finds new roads, that is able to step outside itself and go to those who do not attend Mass, to those who have quit or are indifferent. The ones who quit sometimes do it for reasons that, if properly understood and assessed, can lead to a return. But that takes audacity and courage.”

I mention to Pope Francis that there are Christians who live in situations that are irregular for the church or in complex situations that represent open wounds. I mention the divorced and remarried, same-sex couples and other difficult situations. What kind of pastoral work can we do in these cases? What kinds of tools can we use?

“We need to proclaim the Gospel on every street corner,” the pope says, “preaching the good news of the kingdom and healing, even with our preaching, every kind of disease and wound. In Buenos Aires I used to receive letters from homosexual persons who are ‘socially wounded’ because they tell me that they feel like the church has always condemned them. But the church does not want to do this. During the return flight from Rio de Janeiro I said that if a homosexual person is of good will and is in search of God, I am no one to judge. By saying this, I said what the catechism says. Religion has the right to express its opinion in the service of the people, but God in creation has set us free: it is not possible to interfere spiritually in the life of a person.

A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality. I replied with another question: ‘Tell me: when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love, or reject and condemn this person?’ We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being. In life, God accompanies persons, and we must accompany them, starting from their situation. It is necessary to accompany them with mercy. When that happens, the Holy Spirit inspires the priest to say the right thing. (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

Difficult situations?

Difficult situations?

"Same-sex" "couples"?

To  use euphemisms to mask the horror of personal sin and/or to use the terminology of the homosexual collective is to offend God and to make a mockery of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour's Agony in the Garden wherein He saw in His mind's eye the sins of every human being from the beginning to the end of time, and this is what caused Him to sweat droplets of His Most Precious Blood as He feared in His Sacred Humanity in coming into direct contact with antithesis of His Sacred Divinity, sin itself.

John Henry Cardinal Newman, whose writing on the Passion and Death of Our Divine Redeemer is most inspirational no matter some elements in his other works over which scholars debate to this day, wrote the following about the horror of personal sin that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis does not believe requires pastors to denounce sin firmly while promising mercy to those sinners intent on reforming their lives:

And now, my brethren, what was it He had to bear, when He thus opened upon His soul the torrent of this predestinated pain? Alas! He had to bear what is well known to us, what is familiar to us, but what to Him was woe unutterable. He had to bear that which is so easy a thing to us, so natural, so welcome, that we cannot conceive of it as of a great endurance, but which to Him had the scent and the poison of death—He had, my dear brethren, to bear the weight of sin; He had to bear your sins; He had to bear the sins of the whole world. Sin is an easy thing to us; we think little of it; we do not understand how the Creator can think much of it; we cannot bring our imagination to believe that it deserves retribution, and, when even in this world punishments follow upon it, we explain them away or turn our minds from them. But consider what sin is in itself; it is rebellion against God; it is a traitor's act who aims at the overthrow and death of His sovereign; it is that, if I may use a strong expression, which, could the Divine Governor of the world cease to be, would be sufficient to bring it about. Sin is the mortal enemy of the All-holy, so that He and it cannot be together; and as the All-holy drives it from His presence into the outer darkness, so, if God could be less than God, it is sin that would have power to make Him less. And here observe, my brethren, that when once Almighty Love, by taking flesh, entered this created system, and submitted Himself to its laws, then forthwith this antagonist of good and truth, taking advantage of the opportunity, flew at that flesh which He had taken, and fixed on it, and was its death. The envy of the Pharisees, the treachery of Judas, and the madness of the people, were but the instrument or the expression of the enmity which sin felt towards Eternal Purity as soon as, in infinite mercy towards men, He put Himself within its reach. Sin could not touch His Divine Majesty; but it could assail Him in that way in which He allowed Himself to be assailed, that is, through the medium of His humanity. And in the issue, in the death of God incarnate, you are but taught, my brethren, what sin is in itself, and what it was which then was falling, in its hour and in its strength, upon His human nature, when He allowed that nature to be so filled with horror and dismay at the very anticipation. (Newman Reader.)

 

Insofar as Bergoglio/Francis's comment that religion has "an opinion to offer" but "cannot interfere spiritually in the life of a person" is to reduce the true Faith to but an opinion, not Revealed Truth, and to place the primacy of the individual above all, including the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. It also obliterates the Spiritual Works of Mercy that, I suppose, need to be enumerated yet again, especially for those who are accessing this site for the first time and are now "ready" to look at material they might have in the past dismissed as "schismatic" or "extreme":

  • To instruct the ignorant.
  • To counsel the doubtful.
  • To admonish sinners.
  • To bear wrongs patiently;
  • To forgive offences willingly;
  • To comfort the afflicted;
  • To pray for the living and the dead.

The next passage from Bergoglio/Francis's interview with Antonio Spadoro show his demagoguery and apostasy at work as he draws upon pure, rank sentimentality to dismiss the horror of sin and the reality that no person can be truly "happy" while living in a state of sin from his mind filled with random revolutionary thoughts:

 

“This is also the great benefit of confession as a sacrament: evaluating case by case and discerning what is the best thing to do for a person who seeks God and grace. The confessional is not a torture chamber, but the place in which the Lord’s mercy motivates us to do better. I also consider the situation of a woman with a failed marriage in her past and who also had an abortion. Then this woman remarries, and she is now happy and has five children. That abortion in her past weighs heavily on her conscience and she sincerely regrets it. She would like to move forward in her Christian life. What is the confessor to do?  (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

What is the confessor to do?

He is to tell her that no one can be happy if he is sinning against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, explaining to her that it might be necessary for her to live chastely with her bigamous spouse for the sake of the children or to leave him altogether. The love of God comes before all else. And while the sin of abortion, which carries with it an automatic sentence of excommunication, can be forgiven by a priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance if he has reserved delegation to do so (something that is supplied in this time of papal vacancy), no priest can give Absolution for any sin unless the penitent is resolved to amend his life in its entirety, which includes sins committed by bigamous and adulterous couples. A good confessor does not assuage the conscience of the putative penitent mentioned by Bergoglio/Francis by telling her that she can just carry on with her "happy" life as long as she is "sorry."

The section below, however, is the one the one that has made the most headlines, and it will explored in greater depth in part three (yes, my friend Mark Stabinski was indeed correct when he wrote to me yesterday that he was sure that my commentary on the Bergoglio-Spadoro interview would require several parts; it does!) tomorrow or Sunday. Suffice it for the moment, however, to note that there is little more than can be said about the passage below that I have not said in many other articles, including in Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three and Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part four:

 

 

“We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time. (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

No, there is no need to speak about the daily carnage of the preborn by chemical or surgical means.

No, there is no need to speak with any urgency about the undermining of the family and thus of the stability of society itself by means of contraception on the promotion of the sin of Sodom under cover of the civil law and all throughout what passes for popular culture.

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, you see, there are "fundamental" teachings," thus making it incumbent, as he sees things in his own twisted way, for the "church's pastoral ministry" not to "be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently" as he does not believe that all "moral teachings of the church" are "equivalent:"

 

 

The dogmatic and moral teachings of the church are not all equivalent. The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus. We have to find a new balance; otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel. The proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow. (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

This is what Pope Pius XI wrote concerning false dichotomies about "fundamental" or "essential" doctrines and those deemed to be "non-fundamental or non-essential that were being made by the ecumenists of his day:

 

Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction. For this reason it is that all who are truly Christ's believe, for example, the Conception of the Mother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as they believe the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, according to the sense in which it was defined by the Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. Are these truths not equally certain, or not equally to be believed, because the Church has solemnly sanctioned and defined them, some in one age and some in another, even in those times immediately before our own? Has not God revealed them all? For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. But in the use of this extraordinary teaching authority no newly invented matter is brought in, nor is anything new added to the number of those truths which are at least implicitly contained in the deposit of Revelation, divinely handed down to the Church: only those which are made clear which perhaps may still seem obscure to some, or that which some have previously called into question is declared to be of faith. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Following the sins against the first three Commandments, which are sins against God Himself, the sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance must be denounced in order to exhort sinners to repentance and to force them to face the gravity of their sins while holding out to them the promise of God's ineffable Mercy if they have a contrite heart and have a firm purpose of amending their lives.

Alas, it is because the conciliar "popes" sin wantonly, openly and repeatedly against the first three Commandments that they accept with great ease of mind sins against the Fifth, Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

What Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has done by speaking to Antonio Spadoro as he has on Catholic morality is to undermine the work of every Catholic in the conciliar structures who has fought within his or her parish or within his or her parish or school or chancery office against silence about contraception, abortion and agenda of the homosexual collective.

At the same time, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has "canonized" the "consistent ethic of life" (seamless garment) that was championed by that friend of the lavender movement, the late Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin, and countless other "bishops," priests/presbyters and religious in the conciliar structures, including Roger "Cardinal" Mahony, the disgraced Rembert George Weakland, Howard Hubbard, Joseph Fiorenza, Michael Sheehan, George Niederauer and endless numbers of others.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is validating  the work of the National Catholic Reporter, which has long championed the cause of a "pope" such as he has shown himself to be.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has made the work of "conservative" Catholic newspapers and websites irrelevant.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has made the work of lay-run "canon law" organizations, several of which have petitioned the conciliar-occupied Vatican to penalize pro-abortion Catholics in public life, completely moot. Those who run these organizations are trolling for dollars under false pretenses as they have no "friend in the Vatican" to support them.

By what stretch of logic can anyone still fighting in the jungles of Mindanao seek to continue fighting delegations from their local parishes participating with parish banners in the local "gay pride parade"?

By what stretch of logic can anyone still fighting in the jungles of Mindanao write to their local chancery office or to "Rome" to complain about some presbyter's speaking highly of the "gay lifestyle"?

By what stretch of logic does anyone think that notorious havens of the homosexual collective such as Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, California, Saint Brigid's in Westbury, New York, Saint Francis Xavier Church and Saint Paul the Apostle Church in the Borough of Manhattan in the City of New York, New York, and, among so many others, Saint Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, will be in any way "disciplined" for "running" with their "pope's" seal of approval upon their "work" of "inclusivity"?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is being used by Antichrist to "welcome back" to the conciliar fold those who have been as "hurt" by the bad old "no church" as he has been. It is my belief that the heretic's new interview will result in a swarm of unrepentant sinners into conciliar churches and, at the same time, embolden the anti-life, anti-family forces of statism in the world even more than have been in the past, resulting ultimately, I believe, in an active state-sponsored persecution of Catholic "restorationists" that will carry with it the full and enthusiastic support and cooperation of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his conciliar "bishops."

We must be ready to suffer as much as our martyrs in the past have suffered. We must give up all, including close relatives and friends, if necessary, to remain faithful to the Catholic Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

Today, Friday, September 19, 2013, is the Feast of Saint Eustace and his Companions (his wife and two sons) and the Vigil of Saint Matthew the Apostle.

Saint Eustace, also known as Saint Eustachius and Saint Placidus, is someone to whom those of us who are estranged from family members and former friends and associates because of the wreckage wrought by the conciliar revolutionaries such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and/or by the mere state of the barbarous world in which we live that has descended rapidly into barbarism as a result of the loss of Sanctifying and Actual Graces that had once flowed so readily from Altars of Sacrifice in every Catholic Church in the world should be very devoted. Consider, yes, once again, the remarkable story of a Roman commander who was separated from his wife and two sons for many years, not being reunited with them until shortly before they were martyred together for the Holy Faith because they refused to offer any kind of recognition to the false idols of Rome, quite a contrast to conciliarism:

 

 

It was one evening during these celebrations, that word was brought to the city that the army of Placidus had arrived, and was already on the Appian Way. A new impulse was given to the rejoicings, and a new triumph and procession were prepared for the victorious army. There is nothing so calculated to excite a people's enthusiasm as the return of its armies from a triumphant campaign. Those who remember the day on which the heroes of the Crimea landed on the shores of England can well picture the veteran armies of Rome entering the capital in triumph. According to custom the Emperor went out to meet the general, and embraced him. As the evening was far advanced, and the sun was already sinking beneath the blue Mediterranean, the Emperor gave orders that the army should encamp outside the walls for the night, in order to enter the city in triumph next morning. Placidus and his family returned with the Emperor to the Palatine, and were entertained at a sumptuous banquet. He gave the Emperor the history of his campaign, and spoke until a late hour of his battles, his conquests, the bravery of his two sons, and the extraordinary discover of his wife and family.

Loud, shrill and cheerful were the trumpet blasts that roused the sleeping army on the following morning. The cup of joy for these poor creatures was full to the brim. They knew of no greater reward for years of hardship and trial, for the scars and wounds which disabled them for life, than the shouts of a brutal and barbarous mob, who hailed them along the road of triumph.

As they poured in through the gates, each of them received a laurel crown, whose freshness and beauty contrasted deeply with the sunburnt features and tattered garments of the veterans. Round their necks and about their persons they carried a profusion of tinsel trinkets, which they took from the conquered people as ornaments for their wives and children. These were waggons drawn by oxen laded with spoils, that made the massive pavements of the Appian Way creak; armour, gold and brass ornaments, wild animals in cages, and everything that could show the habits and manners of the conquered people. The general, together with his wife and two sons, was in a gilt chariot, drawn by four white horses, in the rear of his army. None of the pride and flush of drunken joy that characterised the pagan conqueror was to be seen in the meek countenance of Placidus. All this rejoicing and gorgeous display was to him and his Christian family the funeral pomp that led them to their tomb. The king who, on this death-bed, had himself invested with his crown and royal robes to meet death as a monarch, was a picture of Placidus led in triumph to martyrdom--a tale of emptiness and instability of human greatness, often told in the vicissitudes of history! He was silent and collected; not even the deafening peals of applause from crowds of idle spectators, who made his name ring through the palaces and tombs that bend over the streets from the Capena gate to the Forum, induced him to look up with the smile of joyful approbation. He was well aware that in a few moments his belief in Christianity would be declared, for he could not sacrifice to the gods.

Whilst the procession was moving along, a murmur passed through the crowd. They asked one another where were the victims?--where the captive chiefs?--where the salves usually dragged at the chariot wheels of the conqueror?--where the wailing matrons and daughters of the conquered race to sound the mournful music of triumph? Arrived at the Forum, the procession halted as usual, and the executioners and keepers of the Mamertine prison looked in vain for their victims; it was the first time in the annals of triumph that axes had not bee steeped in the blood of heroes, whose only crime was that they fought bravely for their homes and their countries. They knew nothing of the sublime morality that can forgive an enemy. Placidus pardoned the moment he had conquered, and instead of dragging helpless victims from their country and family, to be immolated to the demons of Rome, he left his name in the traces of his march in love and benediction.

But now the process arrived at the entrance to the Temple of Jupiter. The priests were waiting in their robes, and snow-white oxen, with gilded horns and crowns of flowers, were held by the altar. Immense faggots were blazing in the heart of the temple to consume the victims, and fragrant incense was burning in golden vessels. Placidus and his family descended from their chariot and stepped on one side; they refused to enter; they would not sacrifice.

If an earthquake had shaken the temple to its foundations, or a sudden eclipse had darkened the sun, there could not have been given a greater shock or surprise to the assembled thousands. The news ran like fire in a train of powder through the vast crowd. A deep heavy murmur, like the swell of the troubled deep breaking on its boundaries, rose from the multitudes in the Forum. Indignation and fury were the passions that swayed the mob. The demon of paganism reigned in their hearts; pity, justice and liberty were virtues unknown. From shouts of applause with which they hailed Placidus as the conqueror, the glory of the Empire, and the beloved of the martial god, they know hooted him with groans and hisses; and loudly from the gilded temples of the Capitol were echoed the terrible cries of "Death to the Christians!"--"Away with the Christians!" But the hour of another and grander triumph had come for our hero. Let us hurry through the dark picture of cruelty and ingratitude that closed his career on this side of the grave, to usher in the triumph that was to last for ever.

The noble general and his family were brought before the Emperor. Was Adrian glad to have Placidus brought before him as a criminal? Doubtless he looked with a jealous eye on the glory, popularity and real triumph of one who, a few months before, was his equal as a commander of the army, and his acknowledged superior in skill and attainments, whilst his own triumph was but a mockery--the borrowed plumes of a deceased hero, whose panegyric he reluctantly preached from the chariot of triumph. Moreover, weak-minded and servile, he must have rejoiced in an opportunity of pandering to the depraved taste of a cruel and brutal mob, who were accustomed to look on all authority as usurpation and oppression, and who hated Christianity with satanic virulence. Like Trajan, he determined to prove his piety towards the gods by the public execution of the greatest man in the Empire. He received the old chief in the Temple of Apollo, and in a prepared speech, pretended what he never felt--sympathy for his folly. When asked by the haughty Adrian why he would not sacrifice to the gods, Placidus answered, bravely and fearlessly, "I am a Christian, and adore only the true God."

"Whence comes this infatuation?" asked the Emperor, quickly. "Why lose all the glory of the triumph, and bring the grey hairs to shame? Dost thou not know that I have the power to put thee to a miserable death?"

Placidus meekly replied: "My body is in your power, but my soul belongs to Him who created it. Never shall I forget the mercy He has down me in calling me to the knowledge of Himself, and I rejoice to be able to suffer for Him. You may command me to lead your legions against the enemies of the Empire, but never will I offer sacrifice to any other god than the One great and powerful God who created all thins, stretched out the heavens in their glory, decked the earth in its beauty, and created man to serve Him; He alone is worthy of sacrifice; all other gods are but demons who deceive men."

So also answered his wife and two sons. They bantered the Emperor himself for his folly in worshipping senseless pieces of marble and wood. In vain did Adrian try promises and threats, and all the silly arguments which were used in the defense of paganism. The faithful family were inflexible; the eloquence of Placidus was simple, but powerful and earnest; and the palpable defeat of Adrian in his attempt to reason with one gifted with the eloquence promised to those dragged before earthly tribunals, roused his pride and his cruelty, and the desire of revenge. the Coliseum stood but a few paces from them; the games were going on; the criminals and slaves of the Empire were the daily victims of its amusements. The condemnation of Placidus would be a stroke of policy to enhance the prosperity of his reign; it was the fullest gratification of the cruel passions of jealousy and revenge which the demon had stirred up in his heart; he ordered the Christian general and his family to be exposed to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre. [Father A. J. O'Reilly, The Martyrs of the Coliseum, pp. 105-109.]

"...But never will I offer sacrifice to any other god than the One great and powerful God who created all thins, stretched out the heavens in their glory, decked the earth in its beauty, and created man to serve Him; He alone is worthy of sacrifice; all other gods are but demons who deceive men."

We must never offer any sacrifice to any "god" than the One great and powerful God Who is to be worshiped according to the rites He prescribed by the Catholic Church in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, refusing to participate in the great deception that is the evil of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis worries is being threatened by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Summorum Pontificial, July 7, 2007, that was issued to "pacify the spirits" of traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures precisely to keep them silent in the face of conciliarism's multiple defections from the Holy Faith.

Father A. J. O'Reilly described the scene as Saint Eustace and wife and sons were at the point of their martyrdom:  

 

No nation could be sunk more deeply in idolatry, sensuality and vices than the great Empire whose capital has been considered the Babylon of impiety spoken of in The Apocalypse. "Our wrestling," says St. Paul, "is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places" (Eph. vi. 12). It was not in an amphitheatre stained with the blood of wild beasts and gladiators, and filled with an exited and unfeeling crowd, that the voice of pity or reason could be heard; the impatient clamours of the multitude denounced the Christians as the enemies of the gods and men, and the public condemnation of the Christian general had already rung loudly and repeatedly through the benches of the Coliseum. The coming of the Emperor was announced, the buzz of conversation was hushed, and all eyes were turned towards the entrance on the side of the Esquiline, which was specially reserved for the royal cortege. As soon as he entered the amphitheatre, all rose; the lictors lowered their fasces, and the senators and vestals bowed profoundly. Shouts of "great," "immortal, "divine," resounded from every seat. The crowd of spectators was nothing more than an assembly of miscreant slaves, who trembled at the beck of their rulers. Although the spectators of the Coliseum frequently hated the Emperor as an oppressor and a tyrant, yet, i the wild frenzy of fear, they cried out with lying tongues that he alone was great and powerful. He carried a sceptre of ivory, surrounded with a golden eagle, and a slave followed, bearing over his head a crown of solid gold and precious stones. As soon as he was seated, the shrill blast of a trumpet called for silence and the commencement of the games. After the process of the unfortunate wretches who were to take part in the cruel sport of that day's programme and the sham fight of the gladiators, it was usual to commence with sports of agility and skill, but on this day the order was changed. The crowd called for the condemnation of the Christians, and the Emperor gave the order that Placidus and his family be exposed to the wild beasts.  [Father A. J. O'Reilly, The Martyrs of the Coliseum, p. 111.]

We should not fear anything in this world, not from the civil state and not from the counterfeit church of conciliarism--and not from our family members and'/or former friends and associates as we pray for happy reconciliation with them if not in this life then in eternity before the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

We must be prepared for martyrdom, both figuratively and literally, in order to remain steadfast apostles of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, trusting that our few acts of reparation, offered in love to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, will help to plant a few seeds for the end of this era of chastisement and the resurrection of the Church Militant on earth.

There is great peace to be had when one recognizes that the Catholic Church is responsible for nothing of the outrages committed by its counterfeit ape, conciliarism. The jaws of Hell have not prevailed against the Church. We must simply do our part as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to practice True Devotion to Mary as we endeavor to fulfill as best we can Our Lady's Fatima Message in our daily lives.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

 

Our Lady of La Salette, 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.

Saint Eustace and his Companions, pray for us.

Saint Januarius, pray for us.

Saint Matthew the Apostle, pray for us.

Appendix

A List of All Previous Articles About Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis That Have Been Published on this Website

Francis, The Talking Apostate, Francis The Lay Pope, Francis The Head Citizen Of The One World Ecumenical Church, Francis The Jansenist,Francis The Ostensibly Pious, Francis The Pagan, Francis The Feminist, Francis The Hun, Francis The Deceiver, Francis The Logician, Francis The Manichean, Francis The Blind, Francis The Illusionist, part one, Francis The Illusionist, part two, Francis The Illusionist, part three, Francis The Flexible, Francis The Insidious Little Pest, Jorge Mario Bergoglio And His Friend, Justin Welby, Francis And Other Judases Abound In Holy Week, Francis And The Commissars, Francis The Revolutionary And His Dollies, Please Help Francis The Ecumenist, Do Not Permit Yourselves To Be Snookered, Another Day In The Life Of An Antichrist, No Matter A Difference In Style, One In Modernist Mind and Heart, One Heretic Speaks, Another Listens, Modernism Repackaged as Newness, Standing Firm In Defense Of Gallicanism, "You, Sir, Are A Pharisee!", So Much For Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus Imperat, Francis Takes Us To Ding Dong School Of Apostasy, Phoning It In, Don't Worry, Jorge, We Don't Take You Seriously As A Catholic In The Slightest, So Much For The Sandro Magister "Photo Op" Theory, Francis Do-Right, Francis The Liturgist, Francis At The Improv, Relax, Jorge, You're Not The Pope, Francis The Obsessed, Francis The Anti-Campion, Two For The Price Of One, part one, Two For The Price Of One, part two, Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part one, Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part two, Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part three, Where Does One Begin? part one, Where Does One Begin? part two, Where Does One Begin? part three, Dispensing With The Last Pretenses Of Catholicism, Francis The Anti-Apostle, Francis The Syncretist, Francis The Sillonist, Francis The Apostate: From Revolution To Anarchy, Francis The Pied Piper of Antichrist, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part one, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part two, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three, Francis The Self-Caricaturist, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part four, Recruited By Antichrist To Be His Apologist, part two ,Recruited By Antichrist To Be His Apologists, part three, Francis and Barry's Religion of Peace,  Francis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrants,  Francis The Insane Dreamer, Rebel And Miscreant, Francis Really, Really Means It, Boys and Girls, Conciliarism's Weapons of Mass Destruction, Conciliarism's Weapons Of Mass Destruction, part two, Conciliarism's Weapons of Mass Destruction, part three, Francis The Impure, Francis The Slayer of Straw Men, Francis, The Out-Of-Control And Uncontrollable Antipope, part one, Francis, The Out-of-Control and Uncontrollable Antipope, part two, What More Time Needs To Be Wasted On This Horrible Man?, Francis The Possessed, "Who Today Will Presume To Say She Is Widowed?", Everything's Just Fine, Jorge, Huh?, Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part one.

 



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