Francis: The Latest in a Long Line of Ecclesiastical Tyrants
by Thomas A. Droleskey
The social revolutions of Modernity have much in common with the liturgical, doctrinal and moral revolutions of Modernism.
Revolutionaries must first agitate the masses into
believing that the "past" was bad and that they will provide a future
that relies upon supposedly "simpler" and "purer" means to achieve
justice and equity for all.
Revolutionaries must seek to eradicate all vestiges
of the past in the name of "novelty" and "innovation" as they create
"new structures" that merely give new names to what had existed in the
past.
Revolutionaries must eliminate all opposition to
their schemes of total control as they seek to institutionalize their
schemes and to prevent them from being reversed in the future.
Revolutionaries must change even the dating of
time as they circulate new calendars to date the beginning of "real
history" from the outset of their revolution.
Although largely anecdotal and not as of yet
recounted in a systematic manner in any one place, many of us know
numerous instances in which priests and religious have been sent to
psychiatric reprogramming centers because they resisted the first wave
of the conciliar "reforms" in the middle to latter part of the 1960s.
This persecution of those deemed to be "conservative" or "rigid" has
continued in many dioceses and religious communities to this very day.
We were told some six years ago now of some very compelling stories by a consecrated religious woman who had worked as a nurse prior to entering the religious life, one of which involved a religious in the 1960s who was told by her superiors to report to a psychiatrist for "evaluation" because she would not give up her community's traditional habit.
The psychiatrist knew the consecrated religious because she had worked in the same hospital for a while as a nurse. He told to get out of the hospital immediately, that there was nothing was with her, but that she should not return to her community as there was an effort to imprison those priests and religious who resisted the conciliar changes. The psychiatrist led the religious woman, who told the story to our narrator, herself in traditional religious life, to a door where she could exit without being noticed, although she had seen many of her "disappeared" sisters sitting in wheelchairs in a doped-up state on her way into the psychiatrist's office. (For an account of the then "Archbishop" Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's persecution of religious sisters in Buenos Aires, Argentina, please see the appendix below, which has been translated from the Spanish original by a reader of this site, Mr. Juan Carlos Araneta.)
This particular story has credibility as I know of men who have been candidates for the conciliar presbyterate who have been
screened out in many dioceses and religious communities because they
have been deemed to suffer from "rigidity."
As I have recounted on other
occasions, the secular Talmudic psychologist who screened candidates
for the Diocese of Rockville Centre for many years, Dr. Leonard
Krinsky, came to some interesting conclusions following about me in May
of 1979 following a psychological evaluation of me. Dr. Krinsky, now
deceased, wrote that my concept of the priesthood as the sacerdos was preconciliar and
that my desire to live a priestly life of prayer, penance, self-denial
and mortification were "possible signs of masochism. Dr. Krinsky’s report
concluded by saying that while I was “intelligent, creative, and
had the capacity for rich, interpersonal relationships,” I “lacked
the sufficient flexibility needed to adapt to the changing circumstances
of a postconciliar vocation.”'
Yes, yes, yes. One is
supposed be "flexible" enough to adapt with ease to the changes wrought
by the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutions of
conciliarism, including the radical "simplification" of the liturgical
calendar that changed well established feast days in direct
contravention of Pope Pius XII's admonition contained in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947:
The Church is without question a living organism,
and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows,
matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and
circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be
safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of
those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival
of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics,
deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable
Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not
merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We
instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the
celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer
certain feast-days -- which have been appointed and established after
mature deliberation -- to other dates; those, finally, who delete from
the prayer books approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old
Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.
The use of the Latin language, customary in a
considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of
unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal
truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with
several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the
Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is
forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without
having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy,
as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of
the Holy See.
The same reasoning holds in the case of
some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites
and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most
certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be
esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its
significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground
that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent
liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They,
too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in
every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the
resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and
procure the sanctity of man.
Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to
return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For
research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins,
contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful
investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of
the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is
neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every
possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be
straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to
its primitive table form; were he to want black excluded as a color for
the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and
statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the
divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and
lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in
parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.
Clearly no sincere
Catholic can refuse to accept the formulation of Christian doctrine more
recently elaborated and proclaimed as dogmas by the Church, under the
inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit with abundant fruit for
souls, because it pleases him to hark back to the old formulas. No more
can any Catholic in his right senses repudiate existing legislation of
the Church to revert to prescriptions based on the earliest sources of
canon law. Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who
in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity,
discarding the new patterns introduced by disposition of divine
Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation.
This way of acting
bids fair to revive the exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism to
which the illegal Council of Pistoia gave rise. It likewise attempts to
reinstate a series of errors which were responsible for the calling of
that meeting as well as for those resulting from it, with grievous harm
to souls, and which the Church, the ever watchful guardian of the
"deposit of faith" committed to her charge by her divine Founder, had
every right and reason to condemn. For perverse designs and ventures of
this sort tend to paralyze and weaken that process of sanctification by
which the sacred liturgy directs the sons of adoption to their Heavenly
Father of their souls' salvation. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
The doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutions of conciliarism did not begin in 1962, however, at the opening of the "Second" Vatican Council on October 11, the Feast of the Divinity Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII just prior to the public outbreak of the Cuban Missile Crisis. (It appears it retrospect that it wouldn't have been a bad thing for a Third World War to have taken place at that time as the nuclear war against the Faith at the "Second" Vatican Council has done far more damage to souls than even a full-fledged nuclear war between the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and those of the Warsaw Pact!)
No, these revolutions that are being championed anew with great zeal by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis have antecedent roots going back to elements of the Renaissance and, more directly, can be traced to the Protestant Revolution, the subsequent rise of Judeo-Masonry and the anti-Theistic, anti-Incarnational revolutions of Modernity (French Revolution, Italian Risorgimento, Bismarck's Kulturkampf, the Bolshevik Revolution, the various revolutions in Mexico and Spain and, of course, the Maoist Revolution in China and the Castro Revolution in Cuba that spread its spread in the form of "liberation theology" throughout Latin America was imposed in Nicaragua after the Sandinista Revolution of 1979.
The revolution wrought by the ideology of Charles Darwin's evolutionism helped to make more possible the triumph of Georg Hegel's dialectical evolution of belief within the minds of Catholic theologians, resulting, of course, in Modernism. It is important to spend a few moments on evolutionism as its ideological pull impelled the likes of the proto-Modernists condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, and at the [First] Vatican Council on April 24, 1970, and the Modernists themselves into becoming apologists in behalf of the heresy of "evolution of dogma."
The false, disproved ideology of evolutionism has resulted in many evils, some of which may be summarized as follows:
(1) When we do not love God as He has revealed Himself through His true
Church–especially when we come to believe that “God”
is merely a concept reflective of an evolutionary process in the world,
then we make gods out of ourselves and our desires. Superstitions and
the occult, political ideologies and the exigencies of electoral politics,
bread and circuses become the “‘gods” which are worshiped.
This erodes a knowledge of the human being as an adopted child of the
Living God by virtue of Our Lord’s Redemptive Act on the wood
of the Holy Cross.
People who lack an understanding of who they are
in light of Who has created and redeemed them fall quite easily into
lives of self-seeking and pleasure. Evolutionism feeds into this worshiping
of false gods by its contention that everything in the world is subject
to a continuous process of growth and development, culminating in the
realization of the false promises of some political ideology and/or
in the ever delusional realization of the sort of “progress”
which will make human suffering impossible. This is of the essence of
the various manifestations of the New Age movement.
(2) A lack of belief in God as He has revealed Himself through His true
Church leads inexorably to all manner of blasphemies being committed
against the Holy Name, all of which are accepted as a matter of routine
and just an ordinary part of human existence. Indeed, one is thought
to be sophisticated and avant-garde if one participates actively in
entertainment fare which degrades holy things, puts into question or deny altogether articles contained in the Sacred
Deposit of Faith, and helps to destroy reverence for all things that
pertain to the salvation of souls.
Sadly, conciliar "bishops," priests/presbyters, pseudo-theologians and
male and female consecrated religious have participated in this spirit of irreverence,
especially as it relates to the revolutionary deconstruction of the
Faith into meaninglessness and of convincing the laity that Sacred Liturgy itself has to be subject to evolutionary
forces of change which need the same sort of “revolutionary
push" that Karl Marx believed had to be applied to the inevitable triumph of the
worldwide spread of communism. Our liturgy had to evolve to the point
where the Mass is no longer considered to be the unbloody re-presentation
of God the Son’s Sacrifice of Himself to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father on the wood of the Holy Cross in Spirit and in Truth.
The Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service
is, as we have discovered, merely an exercise in community togetherness
in which we “recall” the events of the past. Church architecture
must “evolve” to reflect this new consciousness, especially
by the removal of the tabernacle from the center of churches in conciliar captivity and
from their naves altogether. And we have evidence from the conciliar "popes" themselves, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, the "Petrine Ministry" must “evolve”
in a manner conducive to the very sort of pan-Christianity specifically
condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: the creation
of a “federation” of Christian sects, conferring upon those
who dissent from the Deposit of Faith a status of equality and unity
with the entirety of Apostolic Tradition and Succession.
(3) Disrespect for the sacredness of the Lord’s Day, Sunday, is
the natural result of evolutionism’s attack upon Special Creation.
If the Blessed Trinity is not honored as our First Cause and Last End
because we are simply the descendants of beasts who themselves were
the result of random biological forces at work in the world, then why
should we pay any heed to the sacredness of the day upon which Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s
Easter victory over the power of sin and eternal death was made manifest
as He burst forth from the tomb where He had lain for forty hours?
"Modern man" lives only on the natural level to satisfy his natural desires and
urges, which is why he believes that Sunday should be a day of commerce and business," something that the lords of conciliarism have helped to make more possible by making it easy for those Catholics interested in attending
the fellowship service on Saturday evenings, thus “liberating” Sundays for those
things that really matter (football, basketball, baseball, shopping,
swimming, boating, picnicking, sleeping, working at servile labor around the house).
(4) Evolutionism helped to expedite the deliberate, planned destruction
of the stability of the family, desired by Judeo-Masonry as the means
to create whole categories of people who were dependent upon the beneficence
of the state for their daily sustenance. The arrogation unto the state
of the Natural Law right of parents to educate their children as they
see fit helped to produce graduates of public high schools and universities
and colleges who were conditioned to accept relativism and positivism
and utilitarianism and religious indifferentism as givens in the life
of man and his society which were beyond question.
Why, then, should,
children honor their mother and their father when we owe our first allegiance
to the state?
Why shown grown children bear the economic burden of caring
for those who brought them into this world when the state has an entitlement
program to obviate the Fourth Commandment’s teaching about the
necessity of grown children supporting their parents when the latter
become incapable of supporting themselves?
If the only thing that matters
if our personal self-indulgence–and that there is no ultimate
authority over us (Christ the King as He rules through His true Church),
then there is no reason for children to obey their parents, for students
to obey teachers, for workers to obey the just orders of their superiors,
for citizens to conform their lives to civil laws that are in full conformity
with the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.
(5) There is little which needs to be said of evolutionism’s impact
upon the inviolability of all innocent human life from the moment of
conception through all subsequent stages until natural death.
People
who believe they are the product of blind forces will treat other human
beings with little or no respect whatsoever.
Indeed, the soulless basis
of modern life leads people into dehumanizing anyone and everyone who
poses a threat to one’s standard of living and/or poses an inconvenience
to one’s daily routine.
Thus, surgical abortion, random killings, acts
of mass murder, euthanasia, suicide, drug addiction, alcoholism, gluttony,
body piercing, tattooing, and other forms of bodily mutilation, road
rage, fits of uncontrolled anger, and physical and verbal assaults upon
those who happen to be in in the path of one’s “line of
fire” become a normal part of human society.
However, the illogic
of this schizophrenic world leads people who think they are nothing
more than beasts into expressing outrage over some incidents of violence,
which must be blamed on the objects used to inflict the violence on
others (guns, for example) or an evolutionary social forces which need
to be understood by the insights gained form psychology, sociology,
anthropology, and other pseudo-scientific disciplines. An unconcern
with living in the Divine Presence as children of the true Church leads
ultimately to the triumph of sloth, where students and workers care
not one whit about pursing excellence as befits redeemed creatures.
This is what accounts for the surliness and incompetence we find in
practically every aspect of our society. A belief in evolutionism leads
naturally to devolution of personal behavior.
(6) One of the most insidious influences of evolutionism upon human beings
is its alliance with Freudianism and other ideologies which undermine
the sanctity of marriage and the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated
sacramental marriage.
If we are beasts incapable of controlling urges
and who must be concerned principally about personal pleasure, then
it is only natural for people to seek to engage in acts against the
Sixth and Ninth Commandments that are illicit. Indeed, children, in
particular, must be encouraged in the evil of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining Holy Purity in order to violate all of the precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as
an expression of their individuality.
Contraception thus becomes something
that is beyond question. Perversity must be propagandized in all of
the means of mass communication (which means of mass communications
themselves are in control of the evolutionists and relativists and positivists
and statists and collectivists). Divorce and feminism, both of which
undermine the stability of the family and thus that of society, also
become vitally important constituent elements of the false world created
as a result of the forces which have been evolving from the time of
the Renaissance, including that of evolutionism itself.
(7) Respect for private property is also undermined by evolutionism.
It is really quite simple: if we arose as a result of forces which emerged
from some primordial “soup,” then we have no right to own
anything. The “earth” owns us, and it is therefore our obligation
to worship it as the source of our lives rather than to use it as the
good stewards God exhorts us to be in the Book of Genesis. The way is
thus paved wide open for the triumph of collectivism and statism.
If,
as Marx contended, the human being lacks a soul and is only a higher
form of animal, then he lacks an individual personality. He is thus
part of the collectivity from which he receives his consciousness of
being. His own individuality must therefore be subordinated to the demands
of the collectivity. Rather than serve God by means of employing the
good He has permitted us to enjoy as the fruits of our own labor offered
up to Him for His greater honor and glory and for the sanctification
of our own immortal souls, we work for the greater good of the collective
consciousness, to confiscate our private property to use as its leaders
see fit for the achievement of an evolutionary concept of progress and
human development.
Additionally, evolutionism helps to teach people to disregard the property rights of others in their own private lives as well as
to exculpate themselves from having to fulfill conscientiously the duties that demands of simple justice require of them in their daily work
(whether they work for themselves or for others). Human beings thus
become the slaves of the government and of large multi-national corporations,
entities that treat their slaves with contempt and indignity heaped
upon indignity. A natural result of stealing the legitimate property
of human beings is that the “rights” of irrational beasts
are exalted over those of God’s rational creatures.
(8) Truth is a fundamental casualty of evolutionism.
Evolutionism is
a lie.
It bears false witness concerning the creation of the human being
by God in the Garden of Eden and thus the necessity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christs’s
Redemptive Act on the wood of the Holy Cross. If we do not believe that
we are to be held accountable by God for what we say and how we act,
then there is no whatsoever to restrain ourselves from lying–even
in the smallest of matters–to accomplish that which we desire
for our own gain. Perjury, calumny, and detraction thus become standard
fare in a world wherein most people believe in a lie about their origins.
Obviously, words themselves can “evolve,” as noted before
with respect to Protestantism, to such an extent that their plain meaning
is subject to the interpretation and rationalization of those who have
a vested interest in creating their own individual worlds, their own
“alternative realities.” It all depends on what the meaning
of “is, is,” right?
(9) People who are unconcerned about living in such a way as to die in
a state of Sanctifying Grace busy themselves by envying the goods and
the lives and the talents of others. A Catholic is supposed to understand
that each of us is given a distinctive set of gifts. No other human
being has ever had, has now, or will ever have the distinctive set of
gifts given to us at the moment of our creation in our mothers’
wombs. God the Holy Ghost helps to build up the Church Militant on the face of this earth by the inherently unequal distribution of gifts, both spiritual and
temporal, in order to help us rely upon each other for the accomplishment
of our Last End, as well as for the fulfillment of the obligations of
our state-in-life in this vale of tears. We must never be envious of
the gifts or the lives or the good of others.
However, fallen human nature is ever ready to engage in envy, one of
the seven deadly or capital sins, even more so if it is given encouragement
to do so by those who insist that the very purpose of human existence
is to have a lavish lifestyle as the first end of life and that we are
entitled therefore to have what others have in order to be “happier”
than we are at present. This stands in direct contrast to a Catholic’s
understanding that everything we have is meant to direct us toward the
things of eternity, and that we are to be detached from the things,
people and places of this passing world, striving always to understand
that true happiness here comes from perduring in a state of sanctifying
grace, the necessary precondition for eternal happiness in the glory
of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.
Thus, it is plain to see that evolutionism feeds into fallen man’s
desire to consider himself in charge of the universe. However, it is
simply pat of man’s nature to seek to worship something that is
above himself. And if man is not going to worship the true God as He
has revealed Himself through His true Church, then he will be led by
false belief systems, including evolutionism, to revert back to the
sort of barbarism which was conquered by the Catholic missionaries of
the First Millennium in Europe and of the Second Millennium in the Americas.
Thus it is, you see, that the doctrinal, liturgical, moral and pastoral revolutions of conciliarism have helped to worsen the state of the world-at-large as attacks on the patrimony of the Holy Faith by figures of Antichrist in clerical garb make it easier for the kindred spirits in civil governments and "culture" around the world to promote Antichrist's agenda of statism and abject evil as the norms of personal existence.
It can never be stated forcefully enough, however, that the conciliar "popes" have been agents of revolutions against the Sacred Deposit of Faith and thus against God Himself and both the eternal and temporal good of souls.
Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII was well-prepared to lead the revolution into full public bloom after his "election" on October 28, 1958, nineteen days after the death of our last true Roman Pontiff thus far, Pope Pius XII, on October 9, 1958.
Although a poorly translated text of the Italian original of a book written by a lay contributor to L'Osservatore Romano, Franco Bellegrandi, and a member of the papal court in the 1960s has been available for about a decade now, it was only recently that I began to read the full text of Nikita Roncalli after a link to it had been sent to me by my longtime friend and colleague, Mr. Michael Cain, the publisher and editor of The Daily Catholic website. I thank Mr. Cain for doing so, acknowledging also the work of Mr. Hutton Gibson, who placed the translated text on his website.
As has been noted on this site before, most recently in Two For The Price Of One, part one, the mover and shaker of the conciliar revolution, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, was under suspicion of Modernism early in his priestly career:
The appointment of professor Roncalli to the chair of Ecclesiastical History at the Roman Seminary was vetoed in 1912, having been indicated of “dubious orthodoxy.”
It must be remembered, at this juncture, the clamorous and forgotten episode of an intervention of the Holy Office against professor Don Roncalli that put an abrupt end to the teaching by the future John XXIII even at the Bergamo Seminary. It had been discovered that Roncalli, in defiance of the Encyclical “Pascendi” by his co-regional Pope Sarto, Pius X, not only acted as a modernist, but corresponded with the excommunicated priest Ernesto Buonaiuti. This priest and historian of the religions was amongst the major exponents of Modernism in Italy, and was excommunicated in 1926 for his progressive activity and his open insubordination to the ecclesiastical hierarchy. To get a precise idea of Buonaiuti, and of the ideas that he professed and advertised, it would suffice to go through the following letter written by the modernist priest, in October 1906, to the historian and French sociologist Albert Houtin, also a priest, who ended up abandoning the priesthood and the Church.
A known representative of Italian Modernism, just expelled by a decision of Pius X from the Collegio Apollinare, thus wrote to his French friend: “… Here, at the very center of Medieval theocracy, I wish to fulfill a work of tenacious corrosion… There are many of us friends, here in Rome, now, determined to operate in the critical field, to prepare the ultimate fall of the whole old carcass of Medieval orthodoxy. The trouble is that the laity does not favor us for now, as it ignores, nay, it tends to shift once again toward the Vatican in order to sustain the Monarchy. But I do hope that the example set by France, the very fatality of the historical evolution will soon also give to us an anti-clerical parliament and, with it, a radical ministry. Then our hour will have come.” The letter is self explanatory, and it is the most enlightened presentation of its author. Around such a rebel gathered a group of modernist priests that put so much effort into the propagation of their theories that Pius X believed it appropriate to condemn the movement with the Encyclical “Pascendi,” promulgated in 1907, which severely condemned Modernism. The same Pope set up in the Vatican a special section, the “Sodalitium Pianum,” into whose chair he placed monsignor Benigni, in order to single out and hit, one after the other, the suspects with severe sanctions. The group of the modernists was disrupted and dispersed. Buonaiuti, with his collaborator, Turchi, left for Ireland; the other priest followers, among whom Pioli, who left the habit, Rossi, who became an Evangelical pastor, Hagan, who retired in hermitic solitude, De Stefano, who also dropped the habit, Balducci and Perella who, shifted to the secular state, went underground.
It comes as no surprise that Roncalli would come into contact with such a champion of modernism. Evidently, the “Sodalitium Pianum” had been informed and had conveyed to the Holy Office a detailed denunciation. The conviction and immediate suspension fell on the large head of the teacher from Sotto il Monte, despite the cautious defense by the bishop. That denunciation, and the consequent intervention by the Holy Office, as was the custom, were archived in a special section of the Secret Vatican Archive. In the dusty shadow of that gigantic archive, among mountains of papers perfectly recorded and organized, they lay forgotten for nearly half a century. Until one afternoon, after office hours, a heavy, slightly shuffled footstep paced those arcades and those rooms in the half-light, and stood before a metal cabinet inside of which, so many years earlier, they had been locked up. The key turned in the lock and the doors were opened. Two large hands rummaged for some time through the numbered files, full of yellowed documents. The competence of the researcher in the matter of archives soon prevailed in that ocean of documents rigorously organized.
In his large right hand ornate with the “Anello Piscatorio” (Fisherman’s ring) stopped some old rustling papers. In the high stillness of the deserted archive John XXIII examined, for a time, smiling to himself, that ancient condemnation. He then shut the doors again and, with those papers in his hand, he returned to his apartment with the ermine trimmed Camauro (white fur-trimmed red bonnet associated with Medieval popes) lowered onto his eyes, while the shadows of the night descended upon the eleven-thousand deserted rooms of the Vatican, watched by the unhurried, equal pacing of the Swiss Guards.
That night, unconsciously, John XXIII inaugurated, with that, his secret tampering in the Vatican Archives, that which would later become, with Paul VI, a pattern to the detriment of History: that of making compromising documents regarding the person of the Pontiff and his closest entourage vanish.
Having become Pope, Roncalli did not refrain from commenting, as was his style, on that misadventure of youth and would say, one day, in the course of an audience, “…For, as you can see, even a priest placed under “observation” by the Holy Office can, on occasion, become Pope!” Revealing, in the joke, his deep-rooted scorn toward the institutions of the traditional Church. (Nikita Roncalli.)
Perhaps you can see now why a bit of time was taken above to explain the explain the influences of the ideology of evolutionism upon the minds of Modernists such as the excommunicated Father Ernesto Buonaiuti, who believed in historical evolutionism and desired to eliminate the trappings of what he disparaged as Medieval "monarchy" in Holy Mother Church as Buonaiuti influenced Roncalli/John XXIII very directly and his disdain for ecclesiastical monarchy has been expressed, both symbolically and verbally, by Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis in the past five months since his "election" as the successor of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the exponent of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity."
Roncalli/John XXIII's scorn "toward the institutions of the traditional Church" has been shared by each of his five successors (Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick, Albino Luciani/John Paul I, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis). Indeed, this scorn has been on full display in the words and actions of Bergoglio/Francis, starting on the very night of his "election," Wednesday, March 13, 2013, as he refused to wear proper papal regalia and then asked for the prayers" of the people assembled in Piazza di Santo Pietro as he bowed his head. Far from being befuddled, as I thought at the time, Bergoglio/Francis showed us within a day that he knew exactly what he was doing as he is a Modernist Jesuit lay revolutionary to the very core of his being.
Franco Bellegrandi also documents the fact that the then Archbishop Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli was using his time as the Papal Nuncio in France to reconcile the Catholic Church with Judeo-Masonry, explaining that the corpulent Modernist from Bergamo, Italy, was fully aware of the Freemasonic membership of the French minister of the Knights of Malta:
Even in his [Roncalli's] new mission, success smiled at the priest from Sotto il Monte. He succeeds in his intent of not satisfying entirely the French government, without upsetting it too much. His home hosts meetings with unpredictable personalities, nurtures personal and frequent relations with exponents of the left, and makes friends with figures and ministers belonging to Freemasonry.
Of that French period is an incident, unknown to most, which raises for a moment the curtain on the alleged Roncalli membership in the Masonic sect. His most eminent highness, prince Chigi Albani della Rovere, then Great Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, had received in the Gran Magistero’s Rome office a letter from cardinal Canali, heavy as a massive boulder: Pius XII, protector of the Order, had just learned, with great pain, that the minister of the Order of Malta in Paris was a freemason. They hastened, in the Magistral palace of the Via dei Condotti, to rummage through the file of baron Marsaudon, recently appointed in place of count Pierredon, who had been retired. It was discovered, with a certain relief, that he had been made “Grand Cross of Magistral Grace” at the suggestion of his predecessor and, above all, appointed minister on recommendation by the nuncio in Paris, Roncalli.
The outcome of that first investigation was immediately reported to the Vatican, to cardinal Canali, who was heard crying:
”Poor Roncalli! I’m sorry I have to embarrass him and I hope that this would not cost him the cardinalitial galero…” The Vatican arranged in the strictest reserve that the Order send a trusted person to Paris at once, to carry out in depth the delicate discovery. The Great Magisterium was in an awkward situation. All three personages involved in the story had indeed to be treated with regard. The nuncio, for his precious contribution to the Order of Malta in the closing of certain business deals in Argentina; count Pierredon for his lengthy services, first at Bucharest, and then at Paris; Baron Marsaudon himself for his meritorious commitment in order to obtain the official recognition of the Order by the French government. After a careful and accurate selection was named “Magistral Visitor” a chaplain professed of the Order, monsignor Rossi Stockalper, who was also canonic of Santa Maria Maggiore and thus in Vatican’s hands. He left for Paris at once. He had been advised to begin his discovery with father Berteloot, of the Company of Jesus, and an expert in Masonic issues. The Jesuit, consulted in the strictest discretion, confirmed to him that baron Marsaudon not only was a Freemason, but “thirty-third level” of Masonry and life-member of the Council of the Great Lodge of the Scottish Rite. Monsignor Rossi Stockalper continued his tour. He learned very little from the archbishop of Paris monsignor Feltin, who sent him instead to his general vicar, monsignor Bohan, “who knew the baron more closely.” Here, for the envoy from Rome, was another surprise: the general vicar had pulled out of a safe and scattered over the table a series of incontrovertible documents, among which an issue of the “Journal Officiel de l'Etat francais,” published in Vichy during the (German) occupation, in which Yves Marie Marsaudon was indicated among the followers of Freemasonry; three or four copies of the Masonic magazine “Le Temple” containing a few of his articles, and an informative profile of the subject. No document existed relating to an abjuration. The Magistral Visitor, with his heart in pain, dragged on to 10, avenue President Wilson, residence of the nuncio. He asked Roncalli, tactfully, for circumstantial information about the mason-baron. The sturdy priest from Sotto il Monte, between a smile and a joke, sent the chaplain of the Order of Malta back to the secretary of the nunciature, monsignor Bruno Heim. This priest, today the “apostolic legate” in Great Britain, ended up startling the envoy from Rome, first with his clergy-man and the smoking pipe in his teeth, then with his amazing statements on Freemasonry, defined as “One of the last forces of social conservation in today’s world, and, therefore, a force of religious conservation,” and with an enthusiastic judgment on baron Marsaudon who had the merit of making the nunciature grasp the transcendent value of Freemasonry. Precisely for this his merit, the Nuncio of Paris, Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, had sustained and approved his appointment to minister of the Order of Malta in Paris. Monsignor Stockalper at that turn had remained dumbfounded, and received the ultimate blow when, protesting that Canon 2335 of the Canon Law calls for the excommunication for the affiliated to Freemasonry, he was told by his interlocutor, between a puff and another at the scented smoke of his big pipe, that “the nunciature of Paris was working in great secret to reconcile the Catholic Church with Freemasonry.” It was 1950! This episode seems to expose the connivance of Roncalli with Freemasonry. The post-conciliar Church will indeed reconcile with the secret sect. I wish to wrap up this subject, reporting a revelation made to me a while ago, by count Paolo Sella of Monteluce. This figure, an economist, politician, writer and journalist, who was a close friend of Umberto of Savoy, and who boasts a direct descent from the founder of the Italian Historical Right, senator Quintino Sella of Biella, shared with me, in the quiet of his Roman home on the slopes of Monte Mario, the evidence in his possession, of the assault by Freemasonry on the Catholic Church. I had found in his drawing room Vaticanist Gabriella di Montemayor, who had been the go-between for our encounter. Count Sella was reorganizing some
papers on the low table in front of him. The sunset burst in from Monte Mario and gilded the shelves loaded with ancient volumes with their spine of parchment, and the reddish beams of the sun, filtering through the curtains barely moved by the evening breeze, enlivened the portraits of the ancestors watching severely from the walls that learned descendant of theirs, sitting in an armchair before me. Then the count, raising his face and staring at me, began to speak: “… In September 1958, about seven or eight days before the Conclave, I was at the Sanctuary of Orope, attending one of the usual dinners at Attilio Botto’s, a Biellese industrialist who fancied gathering around him competent from various branches, to discuss the different issues. That day had been invited [by] a character I knew as a high Masonic authority in contact with the Vatican. He told me, driving me home, that “…The next Pope would not be Siri, as it was murmured in some Roman circles, because he was too authoritarian a cardinal. They would elect a Pope of conciliation. The choice has already fallen on the patriarch of Venice Roncalli. “Chosen by whom?” I rejoined surprised. “By our Masonic representatives in the Conclave,” responded placidly my kind escort. And then it escaped me:
”There are freemasons in the Conclave?” “Certainly,” was the reply, “the Church is in our hands.” I rejoined perplexed: “Who, then, is in charge in the Church?” After a brief pause, the voice of my escort uttered precisely: “No one can say where the upper echelons are. The echelons are occult."(Nikita Roncalli.)
No to Giuseppe Siri.
Si to Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, who was trying as the Papal Nuncio to France to "reconcile" the irreconcilable, that is, Judeo-Masonry, with Catholicism in complete defiance of Holy Mother Church's condemnations, including this one from Pope Leo XIII, contained in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:
Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of
belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits
and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with
those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but
also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect
for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the
Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ
and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)
Ah, it wasn't only Judeo-Masonry with which Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII sought to make a happy "reconciliation." He had even bigger fish to fry than that.
Yes, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, caring not for Pope Pius XI's specific condemnation, contained in Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937, of any cooperation with Communist regimes or Communists, used his last encyclical letter, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963, precisely to urge such collaboration, believing that Marxism had some "good" to offer mankind:
159. It is, therefore, especially to the point to make a clear distinction
between false philosophical teachings regarding the nature, origin, and destiny
of the universe and of man, and movements which have a direct bearing either on
economic and social questions, or cultural matters or on the organization of the
state, even if these movements owe their origin and inspiration to these false
tenets. While the teaching once it has been clearly set forth is no longer
subject to change, the movements, precisely because they take place in the midst
of changing conditions, are readily susceptible of change. Besides, who can deny
that those movements, in so far as they conform to the dictates of right reason
and are interpreters of the lawful aspirations of the human person, contain
elements that are positive and deserving of approval?
160. For these reasons it can at times happen that meetings for the
attainment of some practical results which previously seemed completely useless
now are either actually useful or may be looked upon as profitable for the
future. But to decide whether this moment has arrived, and also to lay down the
ways and degrees in which work in common might be possible for the achievement
of economic, social, cultural, and political ends which are honorable and
useful: these are the problems which can only be solved with the virtue of
prudence, which is the guiding light of the virtues that regulate the moral
life, both individual and social. Therefore, as far as Catholics are concerned,
this decision rests primarily with those who live and work in the specific
sectors of human society in which those problems arise, always, however, in
accordance with the principles of the natural law, with the social doctrine of
the church, and with the directives of ecclesiastical authorities. For it must
not be forgotten that the Church has the right and the duty not only to
safeguard the principles of ethics and religion, but also to intervene
authoritatively with Her children in the temporal sphere, when there is a
question of judging the application of those principles to concrete cases.[67] (Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963.)
Consider Pope Pius XI's complete condemnation of such friendship with Marxism with Roncalli's very thinly veiled and carefully phrased call for it, which is why Roncalli/John XXIII entered into the Metz Accord to prevent any criticism of Communism at the "Second" Vatican Council (see The Council of Metz and Red China: Still A Workshop For The New Ecclesiology):
See to it, Venerable Brethren, that the Faithful do not allow themselves to be deceived! Communism is intrinsically wrong, and no
one who would save Christian civilization may collaborate with it in
any undertaking whatsoever. Those who permit themselves to be deceived
into lending their aid towards the triumph of Communism in their own
country, will be the first to fall victims of their error. And the
greater the antiquity and grandeur of the Christian civilization in the
regions where Communism successfully penetrates, so much more
devastating will be the hatred displayed by the godless. (Pope Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, March 19, 1937.)
Behold a man who was deceived, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, who anointed as his successor as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism another deceived man and a deceiver in his own Modernist right, Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick, who sold out a modern Hungarian martyr, albeit a "white martyr," Josef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary:
Unlike Roncalli, clear, genuine, stalwart in his revolutionary convictions, Montini would not commit himself. He can heap his future within himself, build it piece after piece, without giving away a hint that might reveal his future plans. He can keep rancor and benevolence at bay. Even those who know him well will say that he has an arid and manipulative temperament. And unloyal.
I can admit to have followed closely some of the Montinian “misdeeds.” One example for all: the betrayal of the Primate of Hungary. Cardinal Mindszenty has learned at his expense the two faces of Paul VI. And he was greatly hurt. But he stood tall against that betrayal with all his pride and dignity of prince of the Church and Primate of Hungary. In October 1974, at Vienna, I knelt down before that great cardinal. And I wanted to write in its entirety the story of how he was betrayed, by Giovanni Battista Montini (1).
So well has the archbishop of Milan [Montini] staked out his route, under the massive shadow of the priest from Sotto il Monte [Roncalli], that when his turn came to sit on the papal throne, all of the objectives prefixed outside the Vatican, are happily achieved. The overruling of the excommunication of freemasonry, the rapprochement with the Jewish world, the acceptance of Marxism, the involvement of Christianity with Protestantism, the de-spiritualization of Christianity.
No pope “elected by the Holy Spirit” would have succeeded, in such a few years, as it happened with Roncalli and Montini, to transform the bi-millennial face of the Church and upturn the equilibriums of the world, in accordance with the design of occult forces, interested in this colossal and dramatic revolution. Montini knew that the points of that program had been firmly established. That is why, when upon John XXIII’s death he arrives in the Vatican and enters the Conclave, he will carry in his suitcase a well-pressed, elegant papal habit made by the most prestigious tailor in Rome. (Nikita Roncalli.)
Here is another account of Paul The Sick's betrayal of Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty:
The Prisoner, as it happened, was wrapped too soon because Mindszenty's story, which had seemed to be fini,
had scarcely begun. By 1956 Stalin was dead and Khrushchev was making
some unusual noises. In October the Hungarians rose in revolt.
Mindszenty had no clue of what was happening on the street; his guards
told him that the rabble outside the prison was shouting for his blood. A
few days later he was released and indeed a mob of locals set upon him.
But instead of ripping his flesh they grabbed at the liberated hero to
kiss his clothes. When he returned to Budapest the deposed Reds quivered
over this ghost who would not stay buried, but in a radio broadcast he
counseled against revenge. The Soviets were not so forgiving, and tanks
rumbled to crush this unpleasant incident. A marked man, Mindszenty
sought asylum in the American embassy as his last resort. Now a second
long Purgatory had begun. Pius spoke out repeatedly against this latest
example of Soviet terror but the West, heedless of its own liberation
rhetoric, was deaf.
When The Prisoner was released, the Church
was still the implacable foe of communism. Frail Pius stood as a
Colossus against both right and left totalitarianism. When Pius departed
this world there ensued a moral void in the Vatican that has never been
filled. By the early 1960s both the Western governments and the Novus
Ordo popes decided that accommodation with the Communists was preferable
to the archaic notions of Pius and Mindszenty. John XXIII and successor
Paul VI welcomed a breath of fresh air into the Church, and that odor
included cooperation with the Reds. The new Ostpolitik,
managed by Paul's Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, hadn't room for
Christian warriors of Mindszenty's stamp. The position of the Hungarian
government was strengthened when Casaroli entered negotiations with the
appalling regime of Janos Kadar. As the Cold War thawed, the freeze was
put on Mindszenty. The American government made it understood that he
was no longer welcome at the embassy. Worse still, Paul sent a
functionary to persuade Mindszenty to leave, but only after signing a
document full of stipulations that favored the Reds and essentially
blaming himself for his ordeal. The confession that the Communists could
not torture out of him was being forced on him by the Pope!
Driven from his native land against his wishes,
Mindszenty celebrated Mass in Rome with Paul on October 23, 1971. The
Pope told him, "You are and remain archbishop of Esztergom and primate
of Hungary." It was the Judas kiss. For two years Mindszenty traveled, a
living testament to truth, a man who had been scourged, humiliated,
imprisoned and finally banished for the Church's sake. In the fall of
1973, as he prepared to publish his Memoirs, revealing the
entire story to the world, he suffered the final betrayal. Paul, fearful
that the truth would upset the new spirit of coexistence with the
Marxists, "asked" Mindszenty to resign his office. When Mindszenty
refused, Paul declared his See vacant, handing the Communists a smashing
victory.
If Mindszenty's story is that of the rise and fall
of the West's resistance to communism it is also the chronicle of
Catholicism's self-emasculation. In the 1950s a man such as Mindszenty
could be portrayed as a hero of Western culture even though both
American and English history is rife with hatred toward the Church. When
the political mood changed to one of coexistence and detente rather than containment, Mindszenty became an albatross to the appeasers
and so the Pilates of government were desperate to wash their hands of
him. Still, politicians are not expected to act on principle, and
therefore the Church's role in Mindszenty's agony is far more damning.
Since movies, for good or
ill, have a pervasive influence on American culture, perhaps a serious
film that told Mindszenty's whole story could have some effect on the
somnolent Catholics in the West. Guilty of Treason and The Prisoner are artifacts of their day. An updated film that follows the prelate
through his embassy exile and his pathetic end would be a
heart-wrenching drama. But knowing what we know now, the Communists,
despicable as they are, would no longer be the primary villains. (Shooting the Cardinal: Film and Betrayal in the Mindszenty Case)
According to Franco Bellegrandi, who met with Cardinal Mindszenty in Vienna, Austria, on October 18, 1974, His Eminence was very direct as to where the true Church was located in this time of apostasy and betrayal:
Then, commenting on the encyclical “Pacem in Terris,” the Russian columnist wrote that John XXIII“...puts forward for the first time in an official document the issue of a possible cooperation between Catholics and non-Catholics toward the achievement of a scope that is of interest to all humanity. He writes explicitly that the reconciliation, which only yesterday was or seemed impossible, is necessary today or could become so tomorrow. . .
Certainly the desired “reconciliation” has turned out to be unexpectedly advantageous to the Marxists. It has alienated, on the other hand, a considerable mass of believers who no longer recognize their own Church in the post-Conciliar Church. I carry in my memory and in my heart the words spoken to me by Cardinal Mindszenty in Vienna on October 18, 1974. I had asked the Primate of Hungary, twice nailed onto the cross of his martyrdom, first by the fierce fury of the Marxist bailiffs, subsequently by the cold callousness of Papa Montini: “Which is the True Church, that official one that now, in the world, fraternizes with Marxist atheism, or else the one abandoned by Rome because it remained faithful to Tradition.” The old Magyar bishop had directly replied to me, “The one abandoned by Rome.” (Nikita Roncalli.)
When, then, do so many priests and presbyters who remain attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism seek to assuage themselves with self-satisfied expressions, sometimes made on their own websites and blogs for all the world to see, of how "obedient" they have been to their superiors?
Franco Bellegrandi had the same question and minced no words about their cowardly careerism:
In four years the Vatican II Ecumenical Council reached and easily surpassed its three fundamental objectives: the Liturgical reform in the Protestant sense, the dialogue with the representatives of Dialectic and
Historical Materialism, and the yielding on Religious Freedom in a Masonic key.
With meditated impartiality, we must give Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli credit for his “technically” flawless job. The liquidation in less than five years of two thousand years of history. What is puzzling, is the guilty blind acceptance with which most of the clergy has suffered, when not an active participant, the action of John XXIII first, and Paul VI’s afterwards, in the liquidation of the ancient structure of the Church.
I know personally that many bishops were and are against
it. All these gentlemen, who hold at heart the fate of the Church, shared with their close relations their dissent for the action of the Council. Inconceivably, however, none of
them has voiced their concern, taking a stand. They have hidden behind the all too easy alibi of obedience. But what obedience? when the very Council which they, with their guilty silence sustained, dismantled the import of that vain term, hitting and annihilating, day after day, hierarchy and
authority, in the name of a “collegiality” elevated to system? They feared and do fear the loss of their status and their prebends, and thus tighten their lips and ignore that two thousand years of Church are crying out their treason. One would holler in the livid faces of these pusillanimous or opportunist parades, the words of St. Thomas Aquinas, clear and resounding as trumpet’s blares: “Illa virtus dicitur naturaliter prior quam obedientia, UT PATET DE FIDE” [(If there be any virtue, whose object is prior to the precept)
That virtue is said to be naturally prior to obedience. AS IS EVIDENT CONCERNING FAITH.] (Summa Theologica 11-11 question 104 art. 3); “Quandoque praecepta praelatorum sunt contra Deum. Ergo non in omnibus, praelatis est obediendum” [Whenever the commands of prelates are against God. Therefore not in all things must prelates be obeyed.] (11-11 question 104 art. 5) and “Praelati sunt imitandi non omnibus, sed in his, quae sunt secundum regulam Christi” [Prelates are not to be copied in all matters. But in these which are according to the prescription of Christ.] (Comment on the Epistle of St. Paul 2 to the Tess. 3,14).
But they preferred the comfortable unexceptionable obedience, which is a flagrant disobedience to their duty of priests, of spreading and defending the Faith. And they did, and do, keep silent. ... The Conciliar reforms have contributed to demolish the Church, to ruin priesthood, to destroy the sacrifice and the sacraments, to wipe out religious life, to spread Naturalistic and Teilhardian teachings in the universities, in the seminars, in the catechesis, teachings derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, so many times condemned by the Supreme Magisterium of the Church. (Nikita Roncalli.)
It is only by the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross that are sent to us through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, that those of us who have embraced the truth about the state of the Church Militant on the face of this earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal have done so and can abide in it without wavering, without compromise and without abandoning our own Via Dolorosa for the sake of the "fellowship" and respect of estranged family members, friends, benefactors, colleagues or neighbors. This is why we must keep ever close to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially, if possible, by means of Eucharistic piety and by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
Saint John Eudes, whose feast was celebrated yesterday, Monday, August 19, 2013, helped to establish devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus some thirty
years before the revelations that Our Lord gave to Sister Margaret Mary
Alacoque. He also promoted devotion to the Holy Heart of Mary. His own
priestly heart was such that he stressed the importance of priests to
have the very Hearts of Jesus and Mary in the confessional, exhorting
sinners to amend their lives, to be sure, but doing so with an
understanding of the frailties of fallen human nature and the manner in
which Our Lord wants His Mercy to be extended to the souls for whom He
shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the
Holy Cross. Saint John Eudes will help us to trust in the tender Mercies
of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary during these times of apostasy and
betrayal, especially as we pray the Holy Rosary to which he was so
personally devoted.
Perhaps
we can, in honor of Saint John Eudes, recite this salutation of
his to Our Lady, who is meant to reign as the Queen of all men and all
nations here on earth:
Hail Mary! Daughter of God the Father.
Hail Mary! Mother of God the Son.
Hail Mary! Spouse of God the Holy Ghost.
Hail Mary! Temple of the Most Blessed Trinity.
Hail Mary! Pure Lily of the Effulgent Trinity. God.
Hail Mary!! Celestial Rose of the ineffable Love of God.
Hail Mary! Virgin pure and humble, of whom the King of Heaven willed to be born and with thy milk to be nourished.
Hail Mary! Virgin of Virgins.
Hail Mary! Queen of Martyrs, whose soul a sword transfixed.
Hail Mary! Lady most blessed: Unto whom all power in Heaven and earth is given.
Hail Mary! My Queen and my Mother! My Life, my sweetness and my Hope.
Hail Mary! Mother most Amiable.
Hail Mary! Mother most Admirable.
Hail Mary! Mother of Divine Love.
Hail Mary! IMMACULATE! Conceived without sin!
Hail Mary Full of Grace. The Lord is with Thee! Blessed art Thou amongst Women and Blessed is the Fruit of Thy Womb, Jesus!
Blessed be thy Spouse, St. Joseph.
Blessed be thy Father, St. Joachim.
Blessed be thy Mother, St. Anne.
Blessed be thy Guardian, St. John.
Blessed be thy Holy Angel, St. Gabriel.
Glory be to God the Father, who chose thee.
Glory be to God the Son, who loved thee.
Glory be to God the Holy Ghost, who espoused thee.
O Glorious Virgin Mary, may all men love and praise thee.
Holy Mary, Mother of God! Pray for us and bless us, now, and at death in the Name of Jesus, thy Divine Son
Today, Tuesday, August 20, 2013, is the Feast of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, the great devotee of Our Lady's who was also a firm opponent of heresy, something that should distinguish the life of all who call themselves truly devoted, no less consecrated to, the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Unlike those who remain "obedient" to men who are not officials of the Catholic Church because they have expelled themselves from her maternal bosom by virtue of adhering to and daring to express publicly one condemned proposition after another, Saint Bernard of Clairvaux taught us to eschew human respect in order to be attached to love of God alone.
Blessed Humbeline, the
sister of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, explained to her husband
Guy, who was about to give her permission to enter the religious life,
how we must love God completely in this passing vale of tears:
"Guy, dear," she pressed, "it seems incredible. I
know; but that is because we think so superficially. Now tell me: Were
you not more ready and without fear to face your uncle after you had
done some heroic deed in battle, after you had risked your life and
sacrificed safety than you were after some escapade or boyish prank?
Bring the principle to the touchstone of everyday life and you'll see
its force. When did you face your uncle most gladly?"
"After I had sacrificed, as you say." came the thoughtful reply. "That is certainly true in the case of any knight."
"Then don't you see the parallel?"
"I do, Humbeline; more clearly than ever before.
And I see that I have sacrificed very little for God. I can believe that
religious souls such as Elizabeth de Forez and your brothers, if not
completely without fear, are certainly more ready to face God than any
of us in the world. It is most reasonable."
"And you have touched the real reason, Guy. It is giving to God!
I am growing more convinced that life has only one purpose: that God
gave us everything simply that we might freely give everything back to
Him again. Daddy's death at Clairvaux last year taught me that most
forcefully. I saw then that happiness here and hereafter is to be found
in God alone."
"Do you mean that the world should be one large monastery?"
"Never!--But I do mean that everyone in the world
should live as the inmates of the monastery; that is, fully
God-conscious, God-centered, God-absorbed! My sister-in-law [Elizabeth
de Forez, whom Saint Bernard convinced to enter religious life] has more
happiness here than any hundred society women, and she is more sure of
happiness hereafter than ay thousand of them. And why? Because she has
made the total sacrifice and the unconditional surrender. She has given
her all!" (Father M. Raymond, O.C.S.O., The Family That Overtook Christ: The Amazing Story of the Family of Bernard of Clairvaux, Boston, Massachusetts: Saint Paul Books and Media, 1986, pp. 278-279.)
As noted above, we need the help of Our Lady, to whom Saint Bernard of
Clairvaux was so devoted,
all times in order to surrender ourselves to God as He has revealed
Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church:
In dangers, in doubts, in difficulties, think of
Mary, call upon Mary. Let not her name depart from your lips, never
suffer it to leave your heart. And that you may more surely obtain the
assistance of her prayer, neglect not to walk in her footsteps. With her
for guide, you shall never go astray; while invoking her, you shall
never lose heart; so long as she is in your mind, you are safe from
deception; while she holds your hand, you cannot fall; under her
protection you have nothing to fear; if she walks before you, you shall
not grow weary; if she shows you favor, you shall reach the goal.
Let us suffer well and with gratitude and with joy in
this time of apostasy and betrayal as the consecrated slaves of Our
Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and
Immaculate Heart. Heaven awaits us if we walk our own little Via
Dolorosa without complaint
Isn't the possession of the glory of the
Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost
for all eternity in Heaven worth bearing with the sufferings of the
present time?
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
