Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
                              June 1, 2013


Francis At The Improv

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Embarrassed by the imprecision with which Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has used to speak extemporaneously at his morning gabfests as he takes the world his daily Ding Dong School Of Apostasy, officials in the Occupy Vatican Movement have taken to explaining why the currently governing "Petrine Minister" does not want his daily "homilies" published verbatim:

Vatican City, May 30, 2013 / 09:50 am (CNA/EWTN News).- The Vatican is not publishing the full text of the Pope’s daily homilies because it wants to avoid giving them a level of authority that is not intended.

We must insist on the fact that, in all of the Pope’s activities, the difference between different situations and celebrations, as well as the different levels of authority of his words, must be understood and respected,” Vatican press office director Father Federico Lombardi said May 30.

He explained that while the full text of Pope Francis’ public events is made available, the daily homilies are only summarized because of “the character of the situation, and the spontaneity and familiarity of the Pope’s remarks.”

Pope Francis, he added, wants to retain the familiar atmosphere that characterizes the daily Mass, which is typically attended by a small number of the faithful. “For that reason,” Fr. Lombardi said, the Pope has specifically requested that the live video and audio not be broadcast.

Another contributing factor to the decision is the fact that the pontiff is not a native Italian speaker, the press director said.

The demand from the public for the full version of the Pope’s daily homilies in the chapel of Saint Martha’s House has been high.

So, in order to respect both the circumstances and the requests from the public, the Vatican decided to have its news outlets attend and summarize the essentials of the homily.

After “careful consideration,” Fr. Lombardi said in his May 30 statement, “it seems the best way to make the richness of the Pope’s homilies accessible to a wide audience, without altering the nature of his remarks, is to publish a detailed summary, rich in direct quotations that reflect the genuine flavor of the Pope’s expressions.”

“L’Osservatore Romano undertakes this responsibility every day. Vatican Radio, on account of the nature of the medium, offers a shorter synthesis, including some of the original sound, while CTV offers a video clip corresponding to one of the audio inserts published by Vatican Radio,” he explained. (Vatican explains availability of Super Duper Apostate's daily Ding Dong School Lessons.)


In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis cannot be trusted to stay within the counterfeit church of conciliarism's accepted confines of Modernism, which is why his daily "homilies" have to be "polished up" by the Keystone Kops who work out of "Father" Federico Lombardi's "spin room" in the Vatican press office before they are sent out for public consumption. 

The mere fact that "Father" Lombardi has seen fit to issue yet another statement to explain why verbatim transcripts of his brother Jesuit's Ding Dong School lessons is yet another proof of how the man who is thought by most people in the world, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, has been diminished into nothing other than that a garden variety conciliar presbyter who is prone to say whatever comes into his mind and try to make it fit somehow into the context of what he thinks is the Catholic Faith. 

This is all kind of reminiscent of the time I heard a presbyter, now around seventy-one years of age and installed in 1970, say from the pulpit during his "homily" at a staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service in 1982 after he had viewed the motion picture Gandhi, "I think that Christ was a very Gandhi-like figure." A thirteen-year old student who was in one of the religious education programs that I was teaching on different nights at the time said to me, "I think that Father [name of presbyter] is making up his homilies as he is walking across the street to the church." Well. what was true of the blaspheming presbyter thirty-one years ago is true also every day now at the Casa Santa Marta, which has become home to the ostentatiously "humble" Francis at the Improv.

True popes did not preach every day. They measured their words very carefully.

Not even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II did so when I served as his "lector" at his daily staging of the Novus Ordo liturgical service in his private chapel in the Apostolic Palace on Wednesday, May 26, 1993. Wojtyla/John Paul II simply staged the Novus Ordo service, doing so without facing the people, which I thought at the time was a sign of an imminent "restoration" when it was, of course, no such thing. And as far as I know--and I could be wrong on this point, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did not blather on and on and on every day at his supposedly "reverent" staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo facing the altar.

Ah, but what Wojytyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did do, however, was to prepare the way for Francis at the Improv and hence the necessity for Federico Lombardi's Toody and Muldoon operation in the Press Office of the Holy See by publishing "unofficial" books that contained various errors that fell outside, well, at least for the time being, of the accepted parameters of the Modernist "faith" of conciliarism. "Clarification" after "clarification" has been issued to reassure Catholics that something in a "pope's" "unofficial" writing that is considered to be "personal speculation" is not binding on them.

This insanity has led defenders of all things conciliar, eager to avoid the conclusion that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a false ape of the Catholic Church that has been headed by five successive apostates, to take repeated and a most sorry refuge in the preposterous contention that the "private" views of the conciliar "popes" that are clearly contrary to the Catholic Faith do not carry any significance for their membership in the Church, less yet for their legitimacy to serve in the capacities that they claim to have had.

As I wrote a little in late-2010, no true pope of the Catholic Church has ever written in a "private" capacity prior to Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's doing so in Crossing the Threshold of Hope.

There is a reason for this: a true pope is not a "private" person. He is the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth. He speaks for Our Lord as he governs Holy Mother Church and teaches only that which has been revealed by the One Whose Vicar he is, nothing more, nothing less.

A true pope does not have the luxury to be a private person or to publish "private" views, no less views that are contrary to the defined teaching of the Catholic Church.

Our true popes have understood that most Catholics do not make distinctions readily. It is part of the sensus Catholicus to render unto a true pope our loyalty, respect and submission as sons and daughters of Holy Mother Church, indeed, as his spiritual sons and daughters. A true pope would never want to confuse Catholics with a bifurcation between "official" and "unofficial" words and deeds. This refuge is illusory as it conflicts with the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, something that will be demonstrated later in this article.

Suffice it to say for the moment, however, that the "novelty" of "papal" books and pronouncements that are not considered part of the Magisterium of Holy Mother and the "novelty" of "unofficial" pronouncements by such bodies as the "International Theological Commission" and the "Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue Between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church" have muddied the waters of what is the distinction between the "official" teaching of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, much of which is apostate in its own right, and the "unofficial" teaching that, we are told, binds no one in particular.


Defenders of all things conciliar tell us repeatedly that the "unofficial" teaching binds no one in particular. However, the false "pontiff," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict referred on many occasions in the nearly eight years of his false "pontificate" to the "unofficial" nature of the teaching in his own "unofficial" pronouncements and the teachings in his books.

The "unofficial" and supposedly "private" views of the conciliar "pontiffs" have proved to be a very potent and perverse "catechetical" tool, if you will, to convince Catholics and non-Catholics alike that what appears to be the Catholic Church has "changed" her teaching. This is especially so when one considers the fact that most Catholics do not follow anything the conciliar "popes" do or say, meaning that whatever snippets news they hear or read represents the "official" teaching of the Catholic Church. Don't kid yourselves. Very few people, relatively speaking,  pay attention even to the "conservative" websites and blogs, no less to those that purport represent a supposedly "traditional" viewpoint, and thus they what they hear on the news or read in print, whether online or in what the ancients called newsprint, is what they believe is taught by the Catholic Church.

What, then, do you think that those relatively people think when they hear that a putative "pope's" daily "homily" does not represent the official teaching of the Catholic Church and that a spokesman, "Father" Thomas Rosica, has had to see fit to correct the "pope" when he strays from conciliar orthodoxy as happened recently:

The Vatican has issued a new statement running counter to Pope Francis‘ recent suggestion that good deeds can earn atheists entrance to heaven.

The Rev. Thomas Rosica, a Vatican spokesman, said in what was described as an “explanatory note” that those who know about the Catholic Church “cannot be saved [if they] refuse to enter her or remain in her,” United Press International reported.

Father Rosica also added, UPI reported: Those “who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ and His church, but sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, try to do his will as it is known through the dictates of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.”

Some see Father Rosica’s statements as running contrary to what Pope Francis said on May 22.

Then, the pope said that redemption was available to all — “not just Catholics,” but “even the atheists. Everyone,” UPI reported. He then went on to speak of doing good to others, talking specifically to atheists when he added: “But do good — we will meet one another there [in heaven].” UPI reported.

After the Vatican issued its “explanatory note,” noted British scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins wrote on Twitter: “Atheists go to heaven? Nope. Sorry world, infallible pope got it wrong. Vatican steps in with alacrity.”

And author Neal Donald Walsch, who wrote “Conversations With God,” said to UPI that “it was regrettable that the hidden hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church chose to officially retract the recent statement on eternal damnation bravely made by its new leader, Pope Francis.” (Not so fast: Vatican says Pope Francis got it wrong, atheists do go to hell.)


Francis Do-Right discussed the issues raised by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's May 15, 2013, "homily" in great detail. No matter what the false "pontiff" is supposed to have "really" meant in his May 15, 2013, "homily," the plain reality is that most of those who read the press reports came away with the impression that the man they believe to be the "pope" was saying that it did not matter what atheists believed as long as they "did good." Those who specifically reject Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through the Catholic Church, outside of which there can be no true personal or social order, are not to be "admired" for "doing good."

Yet it is that despite the "Father" Rosica's recent "clarification" of the reigning Petrine Ministers comments made nineteen days ago now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis does show great respect for atheists and their nonexistent ability to help produce "peace" in the world.

Witness the fact that Bergoglio/Francis discussed "the integral development of the person" with the atheist who is the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, the singularly most secularized nation in all of South America that had blazed a path in behalf of what Pope Saint Pius X termed the "separation of Church and State" that is, of course, one of the essential building rocks of conciliarism:

On the morning of Saturday, June 1, the Pope Francis received in audience Mr José Alberto Mujica Cordano, President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay. The president subsequently met with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Secretary of State, accompanied by Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States.

The cordial discussions provided an opportunity for an exchange of information and reflections on the socio-political situation of the country and its role in the region. In this perspective issues of common interest were discussed, including the integral development of the person, and respect for human rights, justice, and social peace. The discussions also touched upon the contributions made by the Catholic Church in the public debate on these issues, and its contributions to international peace, as well as its service to the whole society, especially in the areas education and charity. (Pope Francis receives president of Uruguay.)


Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano is an atheist. He is a socialist. He is a former "guerilla fighter." In the crazy-quilt world of conciliarism, such a man can speak with a putative "pope" on issues of "common interest" such as "the integral development of the person, and respect for human rights, justice, and social peace."

There is a slight problem with this. No man who is committed to the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn knows anything about "human rights, justice, and social peace," noting that no one except those in state hospitals knows anything about "the integral development of the person" as the only kind of "development" that pleases the Most Blessed Trinity is our growth in personal sanctity on a daily basis, something that Pope Pius XI noted very clearly in his condemnation of Nazism in Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:

Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers.   . No doubt "the Spirit breatheth where he will" (John iii. 8): "of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs" (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)


Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano does not believe in this. Indeed, he is an agent of social disorder as he personally signed a bill in law "decriminalizing" the slaughter of an innocent baby in his mother's womb by surgical means within the first twelve to fourteen weeks of his life:

In a historic move this week, Uruguayan President José Mujica has signed into law a bill that waives criminal penalties for abortion in the first 12 weeks of gestation, with certain procedural requirements, and in the first 14 weeks of gestation in the cases of rape.

The law marks a significant development in realizing women’s human rights and preventing unsafe, clandestine abortions in the region.

“This bill is an important step forward to prevent the life-threatening risks of clandestine abortion,” said Amanda Klasing, women’s rights researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Uruguay’s neighbors should take note of this progress. As sensitive an issue as abortion is, governments can and should pass laws that save women’s lives.”

Latin American countries have some of the most restrictive abortion policies in the world. Several countries, such as Chile, El Salvador, and Nicaragua have absolute bans on abortion with no exceptions whatsoever. These highly restrictive laws fuel unsafe, clandestine abortions, putting women’s lives at risk. The United Nation’s World Health Organization estimates that approximately 13 percent of maternal deaths in the region are from unsafe abortion.

Mujica had promised he would sign the bill passed by the Senate to waive penalties for abortion with few restrictions in December 2011. However, it took until September 2012 for the bill to pass through the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of Uruguay’s legislature. The lower house made significant changes to the Senate bill, adding procedural requirements that must be met for women to access abortions. The bill passed by a margin of just one vote, with 50 deputies in favor and 49 against. In October, Uruguay’s senate ratified the Chamber of Deputies’ version of the bill, clearing the way for the president’s signature. The final version retains abortion as a crime under the criminal code, but waives penalties.

The law requires women seeking abortions to inform a doctor of the circumstances of the conception and the economic, social, or family hardships which would prevent her from continuing the pregnancy. The same or next day, the doctor is required to consult an interdisciplinary team of at least three professionals, including at least one gynecologist, one mental health professional, and one specialist in social support. The interdisciplinary team must meet with the woman to inform her about the law, the process of abortion, and any inherent risks of the procedure. It will also inform her of alternatives to abortion and offer psycho-social support and information.

After the woman meets with the team, the law requires a five-day reflection period before she can reassert her choice to continue with the abortion. Upon her informed consent, a doctor can perform the procedure. The decision to have the abortion remains solely with the woman. These requirements do not apply for victims of rape or incest. The only requirement in those cases is the filing of a criminal complaint.

While the new law represents an advance in the region, the procedural provisions – in particular the mandatory five-day reflection period and consultation with the panel – could amount to an arbitrary barrier to accessing abortion services. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health has found that legal restrictions can make legal abortions inaccessible. Examples of abortion restrictions that the Rapporteur criticized in a 2011 report include: “requirements of counselling and mandatory waiting periods for women seeking to terminate a pregnancy” and “requirements that abortions be approved by more than one health-care provider.”

Uruguay’s Ministry of Public Health is now charged with developing regulations to implement the law. These regulations should ensure that any woman who seeks an abortion within the legal time frame is not denied the procedure as a result of delays caused by the law’s procedural requirements. Civil society organizations should have the opportunity to participate in developing these regulations.

“Having taken this positive step, Uruguay should now ensure that in practice women seeking this essential medical service can do so without arbitrary interference,” Klasing said. (Uruguay: New Abortion Law Breaks Ground for Women's Rights.)


It is not a good thing when the pro-contraception, pro-death, pro-perversity "Human Rights Watch" praises legislation dealing with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law. Yet it is that the very atheist, Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano, with whom Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis spoke to about the "integral development of the human person and respect for human rights, justice, and social "peace" supports evils that defy the immutable laws of God and can do nothing but foment His wrath and social disorder.

Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano also supports "rights" for those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as he signed a "marriage equality" bill on May 3, 2013, that had been passed by the General Assembly of Uruguay (Chamber of Deputies and Chamber of Senators) on April 11, 2013. Some advocate of "the integral development of the person" and of "social justice."

Did Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis refuse to be photographed with the president of the country that borders on his own native land, Argentina for fear of scandalizing the faithful?


Once again, So Much For The Sandro Magister "Photo Op" Theory.

Here is a question for "Father" Thomas Rosica: What if Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis really, really, really thinks that hideous creatures such as Jose Alberto Mujica Cordano can "do good" as they show themselves to be doing nothing other than evil?

Then again, "Father" Thomas Rosica is the last one to be "clarifying" the "unofficial" comments of the conciliar "pontiff" as he is a heretic in his own sorry right:



Fr. Rosica: “What I think this resignation [of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI] has done is to take us one step further now about examining the role of the papacy, the collegiality that is necessary for the papacy; that is the pope who works in conjunction with and dialogues with the bishops of the world. The papacy is not some kind of a myth that’s way out there and making this almost a super human role. For example why didn't people get all upset when Archbishop Rowan Williams stepped down after leading brilliantly the Anglican Communion through some turbulent times? He did his work and now to know that Rowan Williams a great theologian a friend of Benedict has gone to Magdalene College to continue research and writing. He did his work, so somehow what Benedict has done to us is put the church in a new trajectory into understanding the role of Peter. The leadership of the papacy requires somebody who can connect with people somebody who has health somebody who can move around and not be afraid of long flights. Somebody who’s got energy and stamina; it’s really a respect for life what he’s done.”

Mansbridge: “Does it also need someone that connects with this generation….that the Church has to move forward into a whole new era?”

Father Rosica: Oh sure…a leader, that figurehead this first among equals in the person of the pope is absolutely essential. He is a symbol. He represents who we are. And so, for the past two papacies especially the last part of John Paul’s papacy and this papacy, we got to know an older man, an elderly person; John Paul certainly dying before our very eyes almost the last ten years and Benedict who came in elderly and who goes out now weak and that’s very important because we respect elders, in our culture we respect elders… (As found on Vox Cantoris, Motumania website.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis clearly agrees with "Father" Rosica as he, Bergoglio/Francis, refuses to use the title of "pope," having signed his name as merely "Francesco" in the official yearbook, Annuario Pontificio, published by the Vatican while his predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, calls himself the "pope emeritus:"

Francis has possibly de-emphasized a number of the formal titles normally taken by the leader of the Roman Catholic church, choosing instead to list himself first by the basic title "Bishop of Rome" in the Vatican's annual directory.


The directory, known as the Annuario Pontificio​, lists the Vatican's official information regarding church leaders and dioceses throughout the world. Release of the 2013 edition was delayed following Pope Benedict XVI's resignation in February and Francis' election in March.

VATICAN CITY, May 23, 2013 – With a delay of two months with respect to the traditional timetable, the 2013 edition has finally been published of the Annuario Pontificio, the voluminous publication that constitutes a sort of who's who of the Holy See and of the whole Catholic Church, at least in its hierarchical component.

This delay with respect to the canonical timing is without a doubt due to the unexpected resignation of Benedict XVI, announced on February 11, and to the subsequent conclave that saw the election of the new pope on March 13.

Last year, in fact, as is the tradition, Benedict XVI received a preview of the 2012 edition of the Annuario on March 10. While this year, Pope Francis had it in his hands only on March 13.

Apart from the timing, the new Annuario is not lacking in those surprises which characterize the current pontificate.

The main one concerns precisely the title with which Pope Francis has chosen to define himself.

From the beginning of the pontificate, he has chosen to call himself almost exclusively “bishop of Rome.” And this preference has been fully reflected in the initial part of the new Annuario, the pages of which, as usual, are numbered with figures followed by an asterisk (*) and include the historical list of popes and the composition of the college of cardinals.

On page 23 of the last edition, Benedict XVI was indicated not only as “bishop of Rome," but also as “Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of Vatican City-State, Servant of the Servants of God.”

This year, however, on the same page is found only the wording, on two lines, "Francis / bishop of Rome," while all of the other titles, together with the usual brief biographical notes, are on the following page, 24*, which in 2012 was left blank.

The new pope has therefore not given up any of the classical titles that belong to him, but has wanted to put them visibly in second place.

And at the same time, he has not wished to reintroduce for himself the title of “patriarch of the West” that pope Joseph Ratzinger had already eliminated at the beginning of his pontificate, provoking discontent in Orthodoxy, seeing that it is precisely the title that the Orientals are disposed to concede to the bishop of Rome.

This year, moreover, on the opposite side of the page with the coat of arms of the reigning pope are not depicted, as was done before, the two sides of the official medal of the pontificate.

Furthermore, beneath the photo-portrait of the pontiff is now his signature with only the name “Francesco” in Italian, while with pope Ratzinger the signature was in Latin and with the specifically papal title: “Benedictus PP XVI".

There was also the curiosity of seeing what treatment would be given to the figure, unprecedented for the Annuario, of a pontiff who has resigned the position. The answer is found right at the beginning of the main body of the Annuario, on page 1, where Benedict XVI is called “supreme pontiff emeritus.”

This makes official the term equivalent to “pope emeritus” that had already been used in the telegram from the college of cardinals of March 5 and in the statement from the press office of May 2 in which the news was given of the reentry of Ratzinger into the Vatican.

And this in spite of the fact that an effort was made on various sides to demonstrate the greater congruity of the use of the title of “bishop emeritus of Rome,” if for no other reason than to avoid the impression that there could be “two popes” in the Church, with the resulting disorientation of the faithful.

One of the contributions in this direction, among others, was a scholarly article in “La Civiltà Cattolica" by Jesuit Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda, an illustrious canonist, advisor to the former Holy Office, and former rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University.

More recently this was done in a more direct way, with a letter to “Corriere della Sera," by Fr. Dario Vitali, a professor of ecclesiology - but not a Jesuit - also at the Gregorian. (The identity cards of the last two Universal Public Faces of Apostasy.)


No matter the appearance of Catholicism that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis may give on some occasions, he is a complete Modernist who has been on a thoroughly relentless mission to propagandize in behalf of the conciliar revolution by means of his words, his very style of address and by the symbols he refuse of the papacy that he refuses to use in order as he speaks of his "simplicity" and emphasizes his "mission" as the alleged Bishop of Rome.

It was in the latter capacity that Bergoglio/Francis conducted himself on Trinity Sunday, May 26, 2013, as he preached and then distributed what purported to be Holy Communion at an outdoor staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service at the parish of Saint Elizabeth and Zachary in Rome. This gave rise to even more confusion, leaving aside the "blessing" that he had the poor non-First Communicans give him at the end of the travesty, as Bergoglio/Francis said the following after having referenced the two presbyters who came with him from the Vatican for the service:


They are the Pope's secretaries. But the Pope is in the Vatican: today, the Bishop of Rome is here! Both are very good. (This part of the following video, The Newest Universal Public Face of Apostasy visits a Roman parish, begins at the two minute, thirty-one second time marker.)

One can see that Bergoglio/Francis pointed to the Vatican in the far-off distance when he said "the Pope is in the Vatican."

Now, this can mean one of several things.

It could mean that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believes he is "pope" only in the Vatican and that he is the "Bishop of Rome" outside of the Vatican Walls when visiting Roman parishes.

It could mean that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who resides within the Vatican Walls once again, is "pope" and that he is only the "Bishop of Rome."

It could mean that the ever "humble" Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis was trying convey the fact that he is a simple "pastor" of his flock and not a "monarch" to be considered as anyone of great importance.

This is the kind of imprecision with which those who do not have the Catholic Faith in all of Its Holy Integrity leave with Catholics and non-Catholics alike, and to try to determine what is "official" and what is "unofficial" within the conciliar structures is just another exercise of madness in this time of apostasy and betrayal.

One thing is quite certain, however: whether "official" or "unofficial," "papal" or merely "episcopal," Jorge Mario Bergoglio has gone to great lengths in the past eighty-two days to beat up on nonexistent strawmen within the conciliar structures who want to "turn back" the "Second" Vatican Council, referring to such strawmen as representing a "triumphalistic church," the "no church" and a church that is "closed in on itself," confident of "having all the answers."

Consider just a few examples:


"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.)

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.)

"Christian triumphalism  passes through human failure. Letting oneself be tempted by other kinds of triumphalism, by a worldly brand of triumphalism, means giving in to the temptation of conceiving a “Christianity without a cross”.   Pope Francis' reflection at the Mass he celebrated this morning, Wednesday 29 May, in the Chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, was centred on humility.

Today’s Gospel (Mk 10:32-45) says: the disciples “were on the road, going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them. Determined”. Reflecting on the restive sentiments seething in the hearts of the  “dismayed” and “fearful” disciples, the Holy Father highlighted the conduct of the Lord who revealed the truth to them. The Son of man will be handed over to  the chief priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death and kill him; but on the third day he will rise.

 The disciples underwent the same temptation that Jesus had faced in the wilderness, “when the devil” challenged him to work “a miracle”, the Pope said. Such as throwing himself down from the temple and saving himself in such a way that all might see it and be redeemed.

Today, the Pope said, we risk succumbing to the “temptation of a Christianity without a cross”. And “there is another temptation”: that of “a Christianity with the cross but without Jesus”; the Pope explained that this was the “temptation of triumphalism”. “We want triumph now”, he said, “without going to the cross, a worldly triumph, a reasonable triumph”.

Triumphalism in the Church halts the Church. The triumphalism of us Christians halts Christians. A triumphalist Church is a half-way Church”. A Church content with being “well organized and with... everything lovely and  efficient”, but which denied the martyrs would be “a Church which thought only of  triumphs and successes; which did not have Jesus’ rule of triumph through failure. Human failure, the failure of the cross. And this is a temptation to us all”. (The triumphalism of Christians.)

How many Catholics have ever heard of the word "triumphalism" or know that it has been used to disparage the Catholic Church as the sole repository of Divine Revelation and that her visible head, the Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth, must reign monarchically over her?

How many Catholics know that the word "triumphalism" has been used to disparage the glories of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that had been taught in all of its essential parts by Christ the King Himself in the forty days between Easter Sunday and Ascension Thursday?

How many Catholics know that the word "triumphalism" has been used to disparage the art and architecture in Catholic churches that befit the greater honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity and that serve as external symbols to help us to lift up our minds and hearts to Him in a recollected manner when assisting at the unbloody re-presentation or perpetual of the Sacrifice of the Holy Cross offered to God the Father by His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Son in Spirit and in Truth on Good Friday?

Whether Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis or the Toodys and Muldoons in "Father" Federico Lombardi's damage control office on the Via della Concilazione outside of the Vatican Walls consider his weekday "homilies" to be "official," they do very much represent the official teaching and spirit of the "Second" Vatican Council that simply reeks of utter contempt and hatred for all that preceded the "Catholic enlightenment" represented by that false council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes."

Enough of Francis at the Improv.

The Holy Faith has doing to do with innovations and improvisations.

Catholics must be faithful to everything that has been handed down to us by the Apostles without a shadow of change or alteration.

Simply put, it is that simple.

The Mystical Body of Christ here on earth will know its resurrection one day. For the moment, though, she is in the tomb. We must keep close to Our Lady as it will be the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart that will make possible this resurrection and thus the vanquishing of conciliarism and its offenses once and for all, making sure to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints


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