Monkey See, Monkey Do

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As noted two weeks ago in Simply Bereft of the Faith, acceptance of the core principles of the disproved ideology of evolutionism is at the heart of the whole Modernist ethos that spawned conciliarism in its sordid wake. To believe at this late date, when all genuine scientific evidence has disproved evolutionism's contentions concerning what is called "macro-evolution" of one species to another, requires a gigantic leap of ideological faith. Believing in at least some version of the disproved, discredited ideology of evolutionism is, however, essential to maintaining the essential building blocks of conciliarism in place: belief in the the evolution of dogma (continuity in discontinuity, "anchoring" truth in different places at different times, recognizing the "nucleus" of truth that remains true while its particulars become obsolete) and belief in the evolution of the the liturgy (the "liturgical renewal," the "reform of the reform:).

The connection between the disproved, discredited ideology of evolutionism and conciliarism has been the subject of many articles on this site. It is relevant once again because the conciliarists are planning to have a conference next year, 2009, on the occasion of the one hundred fiftieth anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's On the Origin of the Species. There were no commemorations in the conciliar Vatican last year of the one hundredth anniversary of Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominci Gregis, issued on September 8, 1907, although there was an official commemoration of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Marxist manifesto, Populorum Progressio, issued on March 26, 1967. The anniversaries of the conciliar documents are marked with great fanfare as they represent significant milestones in what is said to be the "development of doctrine." Wait until October 16, 2008, rolls around and there are the gala thirtieth anniversary celebrations to commemorate the "election" of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Why not commemorate the work of a kindred evolutionary spirit, Charles Darwin?

The Vatican is planning a special conference in 2009 to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin’s groundbreaking theory of evolution.

First printed in November 1859, Darwin’s evolutionary theories rocked the faith of Victorian Christians and are stoutly contested today by Creationists. The Vatican has traditionally backed a more nuanced approach. Three years ago, Cardinal Paul Poupard, the then president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said Darwin’s theory of Evolution and the Old Testament book of Genesis were “perfectly compatible” if the Bible were correctly read, saying: "The fundamentalists want to give a scientific meaning to words that had no scientific aim," explaining that the real message in Genesis was that “the universe didn't make itself and had a creator."

Next year's conference will be held in Rome and organised by Poupard's former office, the Pontifical Council for Culture as well as by the University of Notre Dame and six pontifical universities. The event, claim its organisers, is a milestone in the rapprochement between science and the Church. They say it is time for the Church to look at Evolution again, “from a broader perspective”, explaining “appropriate consideration is needed more than ever before.”

Professor Gennaro Auletta, who is head of the Science and Philosophy faculty at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and the main conference organiser told Edward Pentin of Newsweek (Newsweek Blog): “We hope this will really be an example of how to hold an open discussion without overtones. We simply wish to dialogue between people whose mission is to understand a little more.”(Vatican celebrates Darwin -Times Online.)

Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals are already having quite a field day attacking what they perceive as the Catholic Church's acceptance of at least some of the principles of evolutionism. What does this matter to the conciliar revolutionaries? They have no intention of seeking to convert those fundamentalists and evangelicals, preferring instead to schmooze with the Anglicans and Lutherans and the Orthodox and and Hindus and Buddhists and adherents of the Talmud and the Koran. Why should we believe that God is capable of creating the world exactly as is related in the Book of Genesis, that He spoke but the Word and the universe and everything created was made? Why shouldn't we explore Darwin's theories a bit more? What harm has come from evolutionary thought?

Although Pope Pius XII expressed in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, a willingness to permit Catholics to explore the contentions of evolution in accord with the dictates of true science, which would in just three short years give us more information on the nature of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to demonstrate the impossibility of natural cross-species evolution, he did nevertheless warn Catholic theologians about the harm of evolutionary theory, which was most evident in the work of the proponents of the "New Theology," which was the very lifeblood of seminarian Joseph Ratzinger at the time, that he was condemning in Humani Generis:

If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.

Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.

There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.

In all this confusion of opinion it is consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.

Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.

If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.

Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an "eirenism" according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.

One of the chief goals of the conciliar revolutionaries has been to accustom Catholics yet attached to their illicit control of the structures of what purports to be the Catholic Church to constant change. A steady diet of constant change bewilders the faithful, making it very difficult for most of them to know what is truly Catholic and what is apostasy and/or sacrilege. Pope Pius XII noted in Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, how ceaseless liturgical changes confuse the faithful:

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 prayerbooks 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 tableform; 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.

The evolutionary principle is also at work in the matter of false ecumenism and inter-religious "dialogue" and "spiritual ecumenism" (or "inter-religious prayer). What was forbidden for nearly two millennia prior to the 1960s has become commonplace and accepted without hardly any protest at all. As I have stated repeatedly in recent weeks, I continue to be absolutely amazed that so few Catholics are outraged for the honor and glory of God at what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 17, 2008, when he touched with his priestly hands and received with equanimity and joy the symbols of five false religions. Does not anyone realize the objectively mortally sinful nature of these acts of apostasy committed by Ratzinger/Benedict? Does not anyone realize how greatly God loathes false religions and wants their adherents to be converted unconditionally and with urgency to the true Faith. Does not anyone realize how the esteeming of false religions is a direct violation of the First Commandment? Have we be so anesthetized by the sight Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II's ecumenical antics that we have "evolved" in mindless robots who no longer have any sense of outrage for the honor and glory of God or to do call upon others to join us in acts of reparation for these grave sins?

The Traditio website recently provided a litany of the late "pontiff's" ecumenical apostasies and sacrileges that a reader provided to me. The list is fairly exhaustive. The shame of the matter is that many of us, myself included, were so silent in the early years when some of these egregious things were occurring. Where was our sense of outrage for the honor and glory of God? Shame on those of us who did not speak out then. Shame on me!

Just consider this stupefying list of offenses against God committed by man who will be, it appears, "beatified" by the counterfeit church of conciliarism next year:

On May 4, 1980, he presided from a straw hut over an ordination ceremony and native Mess of people undulating to the rhythm of tom-toms, accompanied by accordions and guitars.
In 1981, he sat on his throne while acrobatic performers, dressed in little more than a g-string, performed in the modernistic Hall of Paul VI at the Vatican.
In February 1982, he presided over a "dance" Mess in Libreville.
On December 11, 1983, he preached in a Lutheran church at Rome.
On May 8, 1984, he presided over a Mess in Papua-New Guinea at which male and female dancers, nude from the waist up, danced; an aboriginal woman, also nude from the waist up, read the Epistle.
In September 1984, he presided over a Mess at Yellow Knife, Canada, at which a pagan Indian chief invoked the Great Spirit and presented the pope at the Offertory with an eagle feather dipped in blood. The pope put aside his religious garb and dressed in an Indian costume.
In 1985, he told 50,000 Moslems in Morocco: "We and you believe in the same God, the one God and the only God."
In August 1985, he presided over "dance" Messes in Cameroon and Garoua.
On August 8, 1985, he visited Togo and prayed in a "Sacred Forest" consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists.
In 1986, he presided over a Mess in Fiji at which the thurifer was an aboriginal dressed only in a loin-cloth; he is said to have witnessed there a pagan animal sacrifice.
In February 2, 1986, he was marked with cow dung, the "Tilac," the sign of the adorers of the pagan goddess Shiva, by a Hindu priestess at Bombay.
On June 24, 1986, he sat with Grand Rabbi Elio Toaff in the sanctuary of the Jewish synagogue at Rome while the Jewish hymn, Awaiting the Messias, was sung. He stood there while the Jews, by that hymn, implicitly denied that Christ was the Messias.
On October 27, 1986, he participated in an "oecumenical prayer meeting" at Assisi, Italy. At this meeting the Church of St. Peter was given to the Buddhists, who placed a golden statue of Buddha on top of the tabernacle on the main Novus Ordo "table" together with a banner displaying the words "I go in for Buddha's law." The Dalai Lama sat with his back to the Blessed Sacrament removed to the side, and a statue of Our Lady of Fatima was denied entrance to the church (Il Giorno of October 28, 1986). At this meeting the Church of San Giorgio was given to the American Indians, who proceeded to introduce witch-doctors "shaking their enormous feathered headcloth and invoking Manito, blessed men and women, by rubbing their heads and backs with a white-feathered fan," while Catholic religious and priests participated. (Il Messaggero of October 27, 1986)
In 1989, the Pope visited Norway and the Scandinavian nations and held an oecumenical service in the cathedral of Nidaros. (Vatican News Service VIS, of November 18, 2002)
On January 9-10, 1993, he brought together Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders for another "oecumenical prayer meeting" to pray for an end to the war with the Mohammedan Bosnians.
On February 4, 1993, he engaged in dialogues with the high priests and witch doctors of Voodoo.
In 1994, he smeared the pitch from a native tree on his face instead of incensing the Novus Ordo "table" during a beatification ceremony in Australia.
In 1995, he approved the building of the first Mohammedan minaret in Rome.
In 1995, he took part in the official Smoking Ceremony at Randwick Racecourse in Sydney, Australia.
In December 1996, when the Archbishop of Canterbury, then George Carey, and several of his brother Anglican bishops came to Rome, John Paul II gave Carey a gold pectoral cross, the same gift he offers to Catholic archbishops on their ad limina visits. He offered silver pectoral crosses to the other Anglicans. According to Catholic theology, Anglican bishops aren't really bishops at all, and hence have no business sporting the symbols of the bishop's office. Notre Dame theologian Fr. Richard McBrien has argued that John Paul II could thereby be guilty of the canonical offense of falsifying the sacrament of Holy Orders by complicity in the fiction that the Anglicans really are bishops, a potentially excommunicable offense by the pope.
September 27, 1997, on the occasion of the Eucharistic Congress in Bologna in preparation for the New Millennium, he had a special on-stage seat for a rock concert given before 250,000 spectators by rock star Bob Dylan. After he commented positively on the rock music and the junk culture represented by the concert.
On April 6, 1997, he omitted the Filioque from the Credo on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the Constantinople I Council and on oecumenical occasions. (Eastern Catholic Life)
In 1998, he gave communion, at a private Mess in the Vatican, to the late Rev. Sheila Brown, who had only shortly before been ordained an Anglican priestess and who, at that Mess, wore her "Roman" collar.
On November 23, 1998, he shared the Novus Ordo "table" of St. Peter's with bare-chested, bare-footed tribesmen from Oceania holding spears, "searching for new impulses." (Associated Press)
In 1999, he gave communion to several Lutheran bishops who were his guests during a Mess in the pope's private chapel in the Vatican. (London Tablet)
On June 1, 1999, at the end of an audience, he bowed to the Mohammedan holy book, the Koran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television. (June 4, 1999, Fides - Vatican News Service of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples)
On January 18, 2000, he allowed Rev. George Carey, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Athanasius to participate in their official capacities at the opening of the Holy Door during the 2000 Holy Year.
On January 24, 2002, he hosted yet another "oecumenical prayer meeting" at Assisi for "peace." This time the leaders included not just the usual Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, and Jews, but also leaders of "Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Jianism, Confucianism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, and followers of Tenrikyo and African tribal religions." (Associated Press)
In August 2002, during the "inculturated" liturgy at the beatification of Juan Bautista and Jacinto de los Angeles, the pope allowed an Indian woman to approach him in the sanctuary and rub him down with smoked herbs that are supposed to purify the subject and exorcise "evil spirits."
On October 6, 2002, schismatic Patriarch Teoctist of the Romanian Orthodox church arrived in Rome for the start of a weeklong visit. At a Novus Ordo service on that day, John Paul II embraced Teoctist in brotherly fashion before a crowd of 200,000 and ensured that Teoctist was seated in an exact duplicate of the papal throne. It was not the behavior of someone who believed in his own primacy. In fact, all the week's choreography seemed designed to make the two prelates seem like equally eminent heads of churches.
On February 23, 2002, he gave communion, at a private Mess in the Vatican, to the Protestant Anglican prime minister of Britain, Tony Blair. (Traditio Commentaries May 2008)

Talk about evolution. It's monkey see, monkey do insofar as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI continuing on in the legacy of his predecessor by esteeming the symbols of false religions and "blessing" their adherents on a regular basis without once telling anyone that they need to convert to save their immortal souls. There is no outrage among most Catholics, however. They have "evolved" into de facto, if not de jure, religious indifferentists who do not understand Who God is, open to believe that God can contradict Himself and "change His Mind" from one era to the next, unfazed as things condemned for nearly two millennia are embraced a part of the patrimony of the Faith.

Father Frederick Faber wrote in All for Jesus about this loss of the sense of outrage for the honor and glory of God:

Touchiness about the interests of Jesus. I use this word purposely, because it so exactly expresses my meaning, and I do not know any other word which expresses it so well. We know perfectly what it is to be touchy about our own interests, or the interests of those who are near and dear to us. We fire up at the hint of suspicion of an attack.We are always on the lookout with a watchful jealousy, as if everybody we met had a design on us. We are quick to complain and quick to discern. Sometimes, if we do not take care, we judge others censoriously, or we lose our temper and speak rudely. Now apply all this to the interests of Jesus, and you will get a very fair idea of what it is to be a saint. Yet even good people do not understand it, and condemn it as extravagance and indiscretion, simply because they do not know what it is to serve God with a service of love. A man who is thus touchy about the interests of Jesus hears of some scandal, and it makes him perfectly miserable. He broods over it, day and night; he talks querulously about it; it takes the sunshine out of his life for the time being. His friends cannot conceive why he should make so much of it, or take it so to heart. It is no affair of his, and there is no blame attaching to him in the matter. They are ready to accuse him of affectation; but they do not see that all his love is for Jesus, and that it is positive pain to him that his dear Lord's interests should be injured. They could fret for a month over being vexatiously entangled in a spiteful and unjust lawsuit; but what is that to the least hindrance thrown in the way of the interests of Jesus? Surely a man who does not see this can hardly be a Christian.

Another way in which this touchiness about the interests of Jesus is shown is in the delicate perception and keen abomination of heresy and false doctrine. The purity of the True Faith is one of the very dearest interests of Jesus; and, consequently, one who truly loves his Lord and Master is pained beyond the power of words by the expression of false doctrine, especially among Catholics. Opinions about Our Lord's ignorance, or in depreciation of His grace, or in derogation of His Mother's honor, or lowering the Sacraments, or dishonoring ever so little the prerogatives of His Vicar upon earth--these things, merely in passing conversation, sting Him so that he feels even bodily suffering from them. Unreflecting people are almost scandalized at this; yet if they heard the honor or chastity of mother or sister called in question with coarse or wanton rudeness, there is hardly any violence short of bloodshed, which would not be thought warrantable and creditable. Yet what is my mother's honor to the dignity of Jesus, or my sister's good name to the least title of our Blessed Lady's majesty? And is there not to me more of the mother's love, and of the sister's affection, in the See of Peter than in all my flesh-and-blood relations put together? I should not be bound ot die, to seal with my blood, my conviction of my mother's honor; but I should be a wretch if I shrank from dying for the lawful honor of the Holy See. Thus you will not find a single saint who has not cherished this pain of love in his heart of hearts, this inability to endure the sound of heresy or false doctrine; and where this is not, then, as sure as the sun is in the heavens, the love of Jesus is but poor and weak in the heart of man. (Father Frederick Faber, All For Jesus, written in 1854, republished by TAN Books and Publishers, pp. 27-29.)

It is, most sadly, the very men who have claimed, albeit falsely, to be Vicars of Christ who have thought nothing of the interests of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as they have promoted an anathematized notion about the nature of dogmatic truth, as they have promoted the new ecclesiology, as they have engaged in false ecumenism and treated "ministers" and "rabbis" and "mullahs" and other potentates of various false religions as being clergy members worthy of respect and whose very religions can "contribute" to the cause of world peace, as they have engaged in the forbidden practice of "inter-religious" dialogue and championed the cause of the separation of Church and State, termed an absolute falsehood by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and always promoting religious liberty, termed a heresy by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, and insanity by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832. The true popes who occupied the Holy See prior to 1958 have had their words ignored and/or contradicted by men who curry favor with the world in the name of "tolerance" and "human dignity" and "solidarity" and the "civilization of love." Oh, yes, it's monkey see, monkey two from one conciliar "pontiff" to another.

We must, for our part, recognize that we must be outraged for the interests of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother and the Holy Faith. It must not matter to us what others will think of us or what kind of "prestige" we might lose. No, we must defend the interests of the Holy Faith as they are attack by the conciliar revolutionaries who have accustomed so many Catholics to accepting novelty and innovation, both of which have always been condemned by the Catholic Church, as part of an "evolutionary" process of "progress" in the Church and the world.

We must also, of course, make reparation for our own sins and those of the whole world by offering to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary all of our prayers and sufferings and humiliations and penances and mortifications each day of our lives, being careful to pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit. Heaven awaits us if we bear the crosses of the present moment while at the same time giving thanks for these crosses, considering also these words contained in the Epistle of Saint James:

Be patient therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth: patiently bearing till he receive the early and latter rain. Be you therefore also patient, and strengthen your hearts: for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Grudge not, brethren, one against another, that you may not be judged. Behold the judge standeth before the door. Take, my brethren, for an example of suffering evil, of labour and patience, the prophets, who spoke in the name of the Lord.
Behold, we account them blessed who have endured. You have heard of the patience of Job, and you have seen the end of the Lord, that the Lord is merciful and compassionate. But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath. But let your speech be, yea, yea: no, no: that you fall not under judgment. (James 5: 7-12.)

Today is the Octave Day of the Feast of Corpus Christi. Tomorrow is the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Let us continue to rejoice in these marvelous feasts, giving thanks that we cleave to true bishops and true priests in the catacombs who make no concessions to conciliarism or to its "monkey see, monkey do" leaders, content to give to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus all that we endure for His sake as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Imamculate Heart of Mary, making sure also to enthrone our homes to these Twin Hearts of matchless love so that our little family cells can replicate Christendom itself without any stain of those things, including evolutionism, that offend the interests of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Catholic Church.

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Mary Magdalen de Pazzi, pray for us.

Saint Bede the Venerable, pray for us.


© Copyright 2008, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.