Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!
Part Two
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Yesterday's article, Francis Says ˇViva la Revolución!, part one, focused on Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's open declaration of war against those within the structures of his false church who may be traditionally-minded to one degree or another.
Although the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate have issued a statement indicating that they will be comply completely with the provisions outlined in a letter addressed to them by the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionary named Joao Braz de Aviz, the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for Religious, the contention made in the statement that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is not "anti-Tridentine" is simply not true.
The false "pontiff" has made it clear during his daily pedantries at the Casa Santa Marta that he considers traditionally-minded Catholics to be Pharisaical, rigid, Pelagian, stubborn, static and hard-headed in their attachment to "forms" that are "outdated." Bergoglio/Francis's warfare against the Immemorial Mass of Tradition during his time as the conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina, from February 28, 1998, to March 13, 2013, is well-known and has been very well-documented. An Argentine who was familiar with this hatred wrote the following immediate after Bergoglio's "election" by his brother apostates in the Sistine Chapel on Wednesday, March 13, 2013:
Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario
Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes
doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his
work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been
irrelevant to him.
A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only
allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient
liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to
wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in
Summorum Pontificum.
Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the
unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use
of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said
that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how
confusing it is.
His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the
exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of
their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.
He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in
which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to
partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary
interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants
in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical
House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was "blessed" by Protestant ministers,
in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the
validity of the "powers" of the TV-pastors.
This election is incomprehensible: he is not a
polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his
sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against
abortion and only very weakly against homosexual "marriage" [approved
with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners
to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else
than to remain in positions of power.
It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the
Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to
continue his work.
May God help His Church.
One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility
of a conversion... and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us. (RORATE CÆLI: The Horror!A Buenos Aires journalist describes Bergoglio.)
Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is as much "pope" as was Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who used Summorum Pontificum very successfully to "pacify the spirits" of traditionally-minded Catholics attached to the structures of the conciliar church. The new pharaoh's approach is more direct than the pharaoh emeritus, and he made this very, very clear three days ago, that is, on Saturday, July 27, 2013, when he address the leadership of the Latin American "episcopal" conference in Rio de Janeiro.
Although the excerpt below has been cited in the two previous articles on this site, it is being cited again to drive home the point that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has a thorough-going revolutionary agenda based upon every shopworn canard I heard one priest/presbyter after another use in the 1970s to justify their tearing down of every vestige of Catholicism that was within their reach while disparaging those who were attached to the "past:
d) The Pelagian solution. This basically appears as a form of restorationism. In dealing with the Church’s problems, a purely
disciplinary solution is sought, through the restoration of outdated
manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer
meaningful. In Latin America it is usually to be found in small
groups, in some new religious congregations, in tendencies to doctrinal
or disciplinary “safety”. Basically it is static, although it is
capable of inversion, in a process of regression. It seeks to “recover”
the lost past. (Address of Francis the Pied-Piper of Antichrist to CELAM leadership.)
Lest anyone in the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate claim that their "pope" was speaking only of "exaggerations" or "obstinate" personalities who feel "compelled" to criticize everything, the objective truth of the matter is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believes that his "liberated" liturgical style and his unconcern for doctrinal precepts leave no room for anyone who desires to live in the "past" for the sake of "safety."
The love of God, though, requires us to defend His greater honor and glory and majesty.
The love of God requires us, terrible sinners though some of us are, to speak out in defense of the truths of the Holy Faith.
The love of God requires us to abhor sacrilegious, profane spectacles that bill themselves as "papal" liturgies that have nothing whatsoever to do with the sacerdotal, propitiatory nature of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the solemnity and reverence with which it must be offered at the hands of a true priest and heard by those in attendance.
The love of God requires us to mock those who do such scandalously sacrilegious things as to place a green jersey and a beach ball on an altar of sacrifice in one of the four major Roman basilicas, Saint Mary Major, upon which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was made Incarnate under the appearance of bread and wine in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.
Who do this?
Who else?
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis:
No one who loves God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church can remain silent in the face of outrages such as the one shown above or in the face of those that took place throughout the course of last week in Rio de Janeiro.
Alas, what took place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, last week is just part of the whole ethos of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service, which can never be "offered" "devoutly" as it is in se a syncretist abomination in the sight of God even if it is staged in Latin. After all, some "high Anglicans" who have not yet shifted their allegiance to the counterfeit church of conciliarism use Latin in their own false liturgy. The Novus Ordo service is just as offensive to God as are all other false liturgies, including that of the Anglicans for whom Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is so full of effusive praise. This travesty can never be made "reverent" and "devout" as its entire theology is based upon a rejection of "outward forms penance," which is why references to a God Who judges and punishes with eternal loss unrepentant sinners have been eliminated.
The conciliar revolutionaries were good enough to provide us with proof of this disdain for "outward signs of penance:"
The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the
use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished
treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the
style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern
theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's
discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on
the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions
to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the
history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)
Who says that outward signs of penance belong to "another age in the history of the Church"?
Not the Mother of God:
"Penance! Penance! Penance!. . . . Kiss the ground as a penance for sinners." (Our Lady's Words at Lourdes.)
"Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and
bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation
for the conversion of sinners? (May 13, 1917.)
"Then you are going to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort." (May 13, 1917.)
"Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for
sinners; for many souls go to hell, because there are none to sacrifice
themselves and pray for them." (August 19, 1917.) (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)
Outward signs of penance simply belong to the "past" insofar as Jorge
Mario Bergoglio/Francis is concerned. "Restorationists" are to be
disparaged as self-redeeming Pelagians and compared to those on what he
believes is their opposite "extreme," the ultra-progressives.
The hour is late. Great outrages against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity are being committed before our very eyes. We cannot pretend that these outrages do not exist or that nothing can be said about them because they are done by the man who is considered, albeit falsely, to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, the very Vicar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on earth. Such outrages are committed by those who have lost the Catholic Faith and thus have expelled themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by virtue of this fact.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has made it very clear in the past four months that he intends to advance the conciliar revolution with every fiber of his being. The very program that he advanced in his address to the Latin American "episcopal" conference on Sunday, July 28, 2013, includes an overthrowing of established structures and "programmatic" solutions, of a "conversion" of "pastoral" approaches and attitudes in order to make it possible for the "laity" to be more "involved" in pastoral and diocesan decision-making:
3. In practice, do we make the lay faithful sharers in the Mission? Do
we offer them the word of God and the sacraments with a clear awareness and
conviction that the Holy Spirit makes himself manifest in them?
4. Is pastoral discernment a habitual criterion, through the use of
Diocesan Councils? Do such Councils and Parish Councils, whether pastoral
or financial, provide real opportunities for lay people to participate in
pastoral consultation, organization and planning? The good functioning of
these Councils is critical. I believe that on this score, we are far behind.
5. As pastors, bishops and priests, are we conscious and convinced of
the mission of the lay faithful and do we give them the freedom to continue
discerning, in a way befitting their growth as disciples, the mission which the
Lord has entrusted to them? Do we support them and accompany them, overcoming
the temptation to manipulate them or infantilize them? Are we constantly open
to letting ourselves be challenged in our efforts to advance the good of the
Church and her mission in the world?
6. Do pastoral agents and the faithful in general feel part of the
Church, do they identify with her and bring her closer to the
baptized who are distant and alienated?
As can be appreciated, what is at stake here are attitudes. Pastoral Conversion is chiefly concerned with attitudes and reforming our
lives. A change of attitudes is necessarily something ongoing: “it is a
process”, and it can only be kept on track with the help of guidance and
discernment. It is important always to keep in mind that the compass preventing
us from going astray is that of Catholic identity, understood as membership in
the Church. (Meeting with the Coordinating Committee of CELAM at the Sumaré Study Center, Rio de Janeiro,
28 July 2013.)
All right.
Members of the laity can distribute what they is Holy Communion during the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Many so-called "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist" have their own pyxes. Some even have keys to the tabernacles of their parish churches and/or know where to secure the key for ready access to what they think is Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Real Presence. Many of these "ministers" can take what they think are consecrated hosts to hospitals, nursing homes, shut-ins, prisons and to their relatives at home.
An article about "liturgical abuses" that I wrote for The Wanderer in 1994 received criticism from the editor of a magazine called Eucharistic Minister. The man challenged my assertion in a previous article that some conciliar
parishes had several hundred "eucharistic ministers." Knowing this to be incorrect, I simply picked up the telephone and called the Church of Saint Brigid in Westbury, New York, long a stronghold of the lavender agenda in the name of "inclusion" and "diversity" (they have their man now in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, don't they?), whereupon I asked the person who answered the telephone how many "extraordinary ministers" the parish had. The receptionist promptly replied, "Around three hundred."
There was a purpose, of course, to the origination and proliferation of "Eucharistic ministers." That purpose was to do nothing other than to blur the distinction between the priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the lay faithful.
The laity have, of course, received "permission" from Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick in 1977 after the conciliar bishops (many of them were true bishops in those days) forced the issue by initiating this sacrilege without "papal" authorization, pleading with Montini/Paul The Sick that the faithful had grown used to this "new custom" and that to take it away from them would be unfair. That was good enough for Montini/Paul The Sick, thus beginning the manhandling of what has been thought to be Our Blessed Lord and Saviour's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament. Even Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II "apologized" for the "abuses" this sacrilege engendered without realizing that a sacrilege can never be accompanied by anything other than irreverence, something that is as true of the Novus Ordo in se as it is of all of its associated "abuses" it engenders.
This is what Wojtyla/John Paul II wrote about the matter in Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980:
In some countries the practice of receiving Communion in the hand has been
introduced. This practice has been requested by individual episcopal conferences
and has received approval from the Apostolic See. However, cases of a deplorable
lack of respect towards the eucharistic species have been reported, cases which
are imputable not only to the individuals guilty of such behavior but also to
the pastors of the church who have not been vigilant enough regarding the
attitude of the faithful towards the Eucharist. It also happens, on occasion,
that the free choice of those who prefer to continue the practice of receiving
the Eucharist on the tongue is not taken into account in those places where the
distribution of Communion in the hand has been authorized. It is therefore
difficult in the context of this present letter not to mention the sad phenomena
previously referred to. This is in no way meant to refer to those who, receiving
the Lord Jesus in the hand, do so with profound reverence and devotion, in those
countries where this practice has been authorized. (Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980.)
The "sad phenomena" that Wojtyla/John Paul II decried thirty-three years ago, however, was itself the natural result of his own call for a complete overhaul of the liturgy during the days of the "Second" Vatican Council:
Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the
bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local
tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture,
decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol
Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite.
This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided
me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the
quote is found.)
Yes, yes, yes. We can see what all of this "immense" reform has accomplished. Just look at what happened last week in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that needs to be more "inclusion" of the laity in the "mission" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Of course.
Why not?
It is also not uncommon for parishes in the diocesan structures of the conciliar church to have "liturgical planning committees" that require priests/presbyters that make of the clergy little more than presidential functionaries. I know personally of at least once instance where a recently installed presbyter was required to submit his Sunday "homilies" to the liturgical planning committee prior to the "weekend liturgies."
Members of the laity can proclaim the readings during the Novus Ordo service. They can stand in the sanctuary, which is the preserve of the ordained priest and those men who serve as the extension of his priestly hands, dressed occasionally in scandalously immodest attire, to serve as "leaders of song." They serve as "ministers of hospitality." Most conciliar parishes have endless other "ministers" that are organized, staffed and led by members of the laity. Some parishes even have lay administrators who bark commands at presbyters.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is very much akin to Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in that both cleave live a world of fossilized revolutionary cliches that form their entire world views and without which it is impossible for them to speak on any subject whatsoever as they use the iron force of their wills to impose their hideously false beliefs upon everyone else.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis hates the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and those who are "attached" to it as he hates the immutable Faith that finds its perfect and fitting expression therein. It is that simple, and it is a pity that those in the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate who seek to reconcile the irreconcilable seek to wrap themselves up in a blanket of sanctimonious virtue as "obedient" sons of the Catholic Church when the truth is right in front of their very eyes.
The late Monsignor Klaus Gamber, who was not a traditionalist and was in favor some liturgical reforms, explained in The Reform of the Roman Rite that it was necessary to destroy the Roman rite's ancient liturgy in order to transmit a new faith:
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 pastoral benefits that so many
idealists had hoped the new liturgy would bring about did not
materialize. Our churches emptied in spite of the new liturgy (or
because of it?), and the faithful continue to fall away from the Church
in droves.
Although our young people have been literally
seduced in to supporting the new forms of liturgical worship, they have,
in fact, become more and more alienated from the faith. They are drawn
to religious sects--Christian and non-Christian ones--because fewer and
fewer priests teach them the riches of our Catholic faith and the tenets
of Christian morality. As for older people, the radical changes made to
the traditional liturgy have taken from them the sense of security in
their religious home.
Today, many among us wonder: Is this Spring people
had hoped would emerge from the Second Vatican Council? Instead of a
genuine renewal in our Church, we have seen only novelties. Instead of
our religious life entering a period of new invigoration, as happened in
the past, what we see now is a form of Christianity that has turned
towards the world.
We are now involved in a liturgy in which God is no
longer the center of our attention. Today, the eyes of our faithful are
no longer focused on God's Son having become Man hanging on the cross,
or on the pictures of His saints, but on the human community assembled
for a commemorative meal. The assembly of people is sitting there, face
to face with the "presider," expecting from him, in accordance with the
"modern" spirit of the Church, not so much a transfer of God's grace,
but primarily some good ideas and advice on how to deal with daily life
and its challenges.
There are few people who speak of the Holy Mass as
the Sacrifice of the New Covenant which we offer to God the Father
through Jesus Christ, or of the sacramental union with Christ that we
experience when we receive Holy Communion. Today, we are dealing with
the "Eucharistic feat," and with the "holy bread," to be shared as a
sign among as a sign of our brotherhood with Jesus.
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, pp. 100-102.)
Those who seek to wrap themselves up in the mantle of "obedience" while closing their eyes to the state of things in the conciliar church as they are and as they were intended to be from its very ecclesiogenesis are doing grave disservices to the cause of Christ the King and His Holy Church in this time of apostasy and betrayal.
What I wrote Obeying The Commands of a False Church concerning the closing of Christ the King Abbey in Cullman, Alabama, in early-2011 and its subsequent surrender to the local spiritual robber barons is also applicable to those in the conciliar structures who believe that it is a "virtue" to be "obedient" to men who have shown us that they are not members of the Catholic Church, thus serving as the very enablers of men whose words and actions mock the doctrines, the liturgies and the laws of the Catholic Church while at the same time blaspheming the memories of countless millions upon millions of martyrs who died rather than to even give their the appearance of a tacit, no less explicit, approval of them.
No, the battle that we are fighting is for the integrity of the Catholic Faith as it does not matter whether the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is staged in Latin or ad orientem in conversus Domini. It is, after all, About The Faith, Not About Face, and the Catholic Faith has never seen the kind of abominations, outrages, sacrileges and offenses that have been engendered by the false doctrines, sacrilegious liturgies, scandalous pastoral practices and very profane demeanors of conciliar clergymen, including "popes" and "bishops," in the past fifty-five years.
When has a true pope of the Catholic Church ever
appeared in public as an "equal" with the leader of a false religion, no
less appeared in public as an "equal" with the leader of a false
religion in a formerly Catholic church building that was seized by the
heretics and taken for their own?
When has a true pope of the Catholic Church ever
spoken of "so much unity already exists" between Catholics and
Lutherans, as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did in a Lutheran church in Rome,
Italy, on Laetare Sunday, March 14, 2010? Is "unity' to be considered as
something less than a complete acceptance of the entirety of the
Catholic Faith and the public abjuration of all previous errors on the part of non-Catholics seeking to be received into Holy Mother Church's maternal bosom?
It is nothing other than scandalous and without any
precedent in the history of the Catholic Church for a true pope to
enter into the halls of heretics and schismatics and to encourage them
in their own "work," which is of the devil as the Anglican sect supports
the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children
and divorce and remarriage and perversity while rejecting Papal Primacy,
Papal Infallibility, Purgatory, the Marian dogmas as defined by the
teaching of the Catholic Church and the Social Reign of Christ the King.
The conciliar revolutionaries do not believe that they need to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of non-Catholics to the maternal bosom of Holy Mother Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. In this, you see, they prove themselves to be faithful only to the demons who inspire them to engage in the madness of "dialogue, dialogue, dialogue."
Our Lady hates heresy, and
she has minced no words when dealing with heretics such as Pierre
Port-Combet on March 25, 1856, the Feast of her own Annunciation:
Then the Lady said, "Where does that heretic live who cut the willow tree? Does he not want to be converted?"
Pierre [Port-Combet, who had become a Calvinist] mumbled an answer. The Lady became more serious, "Do
you think that I do not know that you are the heretic? Realize that
your end is at hand. If you do not return to the True Faith, you will be
cast into Hell! But if you change your beliefs, I shall protect you
before God. Tell people to pray that they may gain the good graces
which, God in His mercy has offered to them."
Pierre was filled with sorrow and shame and moved
away from the Lady. Suddenly realizing that he was being rude, Pierre
stepped closer to her, but she had moved away and was already near the
little hill. He ran after her begging, "Please stop and listen to me. I
want to apologize to you and I want you to help me!"
The Lady stopped and turned. By the time Pierre
caught up to her, she was floating in the air and was already
disappearing from sight. Suddenly, Pierre realized that the Most Blessed
Virgin Mary had appeared to him! He fell to his knees and cried buckets
of tears, "Jesus and Mary I promise you that I will change my life and
become a good Catholic. I am sorry for what I have done and I beg you
please, to help me change my life…"
On August 14, 1656,
Pierre became very sick. An Augustinian priest came to hear his
confession and accepted him back into the Catholic Church. Pierre
received Holy Communion the next day on the Feast of the Assumption.
After Pierre returned to the Catholic Faith, many others followed him.
His son and five daughters came back to the Catholic Church as well as
many Calvinists and Protestants. Five weeks later on September 8, 1656,
Pierre died and was buried under the miraculous willow tree, just as he
had asked. (Our Lady of the Willow Tree.)
Father Maximilian Kolbe, a Conventual Franciscan who was the founder of the Militia of the Immaculata, wanted to build up the City of Mary
Immaculate in the world. He saw a procession of anticlerical Freemasons walking
in Rome in January of 1917 and decided then and there to devote his
life's work to opposing all forms of naturalism in the promotion of the
rights of Mary our Immaculate Queen.
Father Kolbe was opposed to
Zionism.
He was opposed to Communism.
He was opposed to Nazism.
He was
opposed to liberalism.
And although Father Kolbe was opposed to Zionism,
he treated individual Jews with kindness and dignity, providing them
refuge as the Nazis were persecuting them. It was because Father Kolbe,
who gave up his life at Auschwitz so that a Jewish man with a family
would not be executed to satisfy Nazi "justice" after a prisoner had
escape from there, was an enemy of the Third Reich of Adolf Hitler and
all other forms of naturalism that he was arrested and placed in that
concentration camp. Was Father Kolbe wrong to seek the conversion of the
Jews and others prior to his arrest and subsequent execution? Well, this is forbidden, of course, by the conciliar revolutionaries.
Apart from being an opponent of forms of
naturalism,"Father Maximilian Kolbe (whose cause for
authentic canonization as a Confessor of Holy Mother Church certainly
will be reviewed once the Church Militant is restored to her full glory
after the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary) was also a firm and
vigorous opponent of the very false ecumenism that has been championed
by the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar
"popes," including that of the revolutionary Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis:
"Only until all schismatics
and Protestants profess the Catholic Creed with conviction, when all
Jews voluntarily ask for Holy Baptism – only then will the Immaculata
have reached its goals.”
“In other words” Saint Maximilian insisted, “there
is no greater enemy of the Immaculata and her Knighthood than today’s
ecumenism, which every Knight must not only fight against, but also
neutralize through diametrically opposed action and ultimately destroy.
We must realize the goal of the Militia Immaculata as quickly as
possible: that is, to conquer the whole world, and every individual soul
which exists today or will exist until the end of the world, for the
Immaculata, and through her for the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus.” (Father Karl Stehlin, Immaculata, Our Ideal, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, 2007, p. 37.)
It is the conciliar officials who are heretical, not those who reject their legitimacy, their doctrines, their liturgies, their endless harangues and their blasphemies and sacrileges.
It is the conciliar officials who are in schism from the Catholic Church, not those who recognize them to be enemies of Christ the King and the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.
There is no need to catalog yet again each of the many errors that persist in the minds of the conciliar officials, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis Hundreds upon hundreds of articles on this site have catalogued these errors. Others, to be sure, have critiqued these errors much more ably than has been done on this website. The errors are there for all who have the grace to see them and to accept the fact that it is the conciliar officials who are outside of the Catholic Church, not any of us who reject their nonexistent legitimacy.
Foreign to the Modernist mind and heart of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is the hatred of sin and heresy that should be near and dear to the heart of a true Catholic, that is near and dear to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:
The love of God brings many new instincts into the heart. Heavenly and noble as they are, they bear no resemblance to what men would call the finer and more heroic developments of character. A spiritual discernment is necessary to their right appreciation. They are so unlike the growth of earth, that they must expect to meet on earth with only suspicion, misunderstanding, and dislike. It is not easy to defend them from a controversial point of view; for our controversy is obliged to begin by begging the question, or else it would be unable so much as to state its case. The axioms of the world pass current in the world, the axioms of the gospel do not. Hence the world has its own way. It talks us down. It tries us before tribunals where our condemnation is secured beforehand. It appeals to principles which are fundamental with most men but are heresies with us. Hence its audience takes part with it against us. We are foreigners, and must pay the penalty of being so. If we are misunderstood, we had no right to reckon on any thing else, being as we are, out of our own country. We are made to be laughed at. We shall be understood in heaven. Woe to those easy-going Christians whom the world can understand, and will tolerate because it sees they have a mind to compromise!
The love of souls is one of these instincts which the love of Jesus brings into our hearts. To the world it is proselytism, there mere wish to add to a faction, one of the selfish developments of party spirit. One while the stain of lax morality is affixed to it, another while the reproach of pharisaic strictness! For what the world seems to suspect least of all in religion is consistency. But the love of souls, however apostolic, is always subordinate to love of Jesus. We love souls because of Jesus, not Jesus because of souls. Thus there are times and places when we pass from the instinct of divine love to another, from the love of souls to the hatred of heresy. This last is particularly offensive to the world. So especially opposed is it to the spirit of the world, that, even in good, believing hearts, every remnant of worldliness rises in arms against this hatred of heresy, embittering the very gentlest of characters and spoiling many a glorious work of grace. Many a convert, in whose soul God would have done grand things, goes to his grave a spiritual failure, because he would not hate heresy. The heart which feels the slightest suspicion against the hatred of heresy is not yet converted. God is far from reigning over it yet with an undivided sovereignty. The paths of higher sanctity are absolutely barred against it. In the judgment of the world, and of worldly Christians, this hatred of heresy is exaggerated, bitter, contrary to moderation, indiscreet, unreasonable, aiming at too much, bigoted, intolerant, narrow, stupid, and immoral. What can we say to defend it? Nothing which they can understand. We had, therefore, better hold our peace. If we understand God, and He understands us, it is not so very hard to go through life suspected, misunderstood and unpopular. The mild self-opinionatedness of the gentle, undiscerning good will also take the world's view and condemn us; for there is a meek-loving positiveness about timid goodness which is far from God, and the instincts of whose charity is more toward those who are less for God, while its timidity is searing enough for harsh judgment. There are conversions where three-quarters of the heart stop outside the Church and only a quarter enters, and heresy can only be hated by an undivided heart. But if it is hard, it has to be borne. A man can hardly have the full use of his senses who is bent on proving to the world, God's enemy, that a thorough-going Catholic hatred of heresy is a right frame of mind. We might as well force a blind man to judge a question of color. Divine love inspheres in us a different circle of life, motive, and principle, which is not only not that of the world, but in direct enmity with it. From a worldly point of view, the craters in the moon are more explicable things than we Christians with our supernatural instincts. From the hatred of heresy we get to another of these instincts, the horror of sacrilege. The distress caused by profane words seems to the world but an exaggerated sentimentality. The penitential spirit of reparation which pervades the whole Church is, on its view, either a superstition or an unreality. The perfect misery which an unhallowed touch of the Blessed Sacrament causes to the servants of God provokes either the world's anger or its derision. Men consider it either altogether absurd in itself, or at any rate out of all proportion; and, if otherwise they have proofs of our common sense, they are inclined to put down our unhappiness to sheer hypocrisy. The very fact that they do not believe as we believe removes us still further beyond the reach even of their charitable comprehension. If they do not believe in the very existence our sacred things, how they shall they judge the excesses of a soul to which these sacred things are far dearer than itself? (Father Frederick William Faber,
The Foot of the Cross, published originally in England in 1857 under the title of The Dolors of Mary, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 294.)
Those who do not hate heresy do not love God.
We are indeed living in a period of profound chastisement where the devil is using the lack of faith and the bad example of Catholics all across and up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide to scandalize and divide Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
We cannot be blind to the truth about the horror of our own sins, each of which wounded Our Blessed Lord and Saviour once in time and wounds the Church Militant on earth today. We must be brutally honest about our sins and the harm that they have done to our souls and to the Mystical Body of Christ, earnestly seeking to live more and more penitentially, especially in these middle days of Lent, seeking to offer up all of our prayers and penances and physical sufferings and fastings and humiliations that come our way in a spirit of reparation to God through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. We are very much responsible for the malodorous state of the Church Militant on earth and the world-at-large.
To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernism once and for all.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
