Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
April 22, 2009

They Like It!

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Remember the Life cereal: Mikey likes it! commercial from thirty-seven years ago? Take a look.

The actors who starred in this commercial were brothers in real life, the Gilchrist brothers. Each is, urban legends to the contrary notwithstanding, still alive at this writing. The premise of the advertisement for the Life brand of cereal manufactured by Quaker Oats company, which is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Pepisco, was that "Mikey's older brothers, skeptical of a cereal without sugar, would use him, "Mikey," as a human guinea pig to determine whether they would eat the cereal themselves. The two brothers are shocked to find that "Mikey," who "hates everything," actually likes the cereal without sugar. "He likes it! Hey, Mikey!" the two brothers exclaim in disbelief.

This old commercial came to mind four days ago when I received an e-mail from Father Michael Oswalt, whose courageous departure from the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism was chronicled three weeks ago today in Embracing The Faith No Matter the Consequences. Father Oswalt has given me permission publish his observations after having visited relatives to explain to him why he had made the break from the new religion of the false church of conciliarism:

I've been on the road visiting relatives which I probably won't have time to do in the future. It is amazing how most, if not all, have made their peace with the conciliar church. They recognize that, in effect, it is a new church, a new religion that it is different than before. However, their rationale is that they like it. Most of my conversations are casual and I don't press them or browbeat or anything like that, but it really is an eye opener for me, which in the long run is good to see; however, my prayers for conversion will intensify. 


"They like it!" As a friend of ours in Rhode Island is wont to say, "Now that's a statement for you." "They like it!"

The apostate ethos of conciliarism that has produced so many blasphemies and sacrileges against the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Holy Trinity has reduced what passes for Catholicism in the minds of most baptized Catholics to the level of subjectivism, which is, after all, one of the foundational building-blocks of Modernism. Just as Modernists seek to make of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ an "empty vessel" into which to pour their own apostasies, so is it the case that the Modernists--both in the time of Pope Saint Pius X and today--seek to falsify Tradition so as to make the Faith prisoner to a variety of subjective and thus never-ending interpretations and adaptations.

Pope Saint Pius X explained this in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907

Thus, they will not allow that Christ ever uttered those things which do not seem to be within the capacity of the multitudes that listened to Him. Hence they delete from His real history and transfer to faith all the allegories found in His discourses. We may peradventure inquire on what principle they make these divisions? Their reply is that they argue from the character of the man, from his condition of life, from his education, from the complexus of the circumstances under which the facts took place; in short, if We understand them aright, on a principle which in the last analysis is merely .subjective. Their method is to put themselves into the position and person of Christ, and then to attribute to Him what they would have done under like circumstances. In this way, absolutely a priori and acting on philosophical principles which they hold but which they profess to ignore, they proclaim that Christ, according to what they call His real history, was not God and never did anything divine, and that as man He did and said only what they, judging from the time in which He lived, consider that He ought to have said or done. . . .

If we pass on from the moral to the intellectual causes of Modernism, the first and the chief which presents itself is ignorance. Yes, these very Modernists who seek to be esteemed as Doctors of the Church, who speak so loftily of modern philosophy and show such contempt for scholasticism, have embraced the one with all its false glamour, precisely because their ignorance of the other has left them without the means of being able to recognize confusion of thought and to refute sophistry. Their whole system, containing as it does errors so many and so great, has been born of the union between faith and false philosophy.

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that their passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''


Who rejects Scholasticism, the official philosophy of the Catholic Church? None other than the chief subjectivist himself, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

"By contrast, I had difficulties in penetrating the thought of Thomas Aquinas, whose crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made"  (The Memories of a Destructive Mind: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger's Milestones.)


Joseph Ratzinger did not "like" the "thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas" because he believed the saint's "crystal-clear logic seemed to be too closed in on itself, too impersonal and ready-made." No Catholic is "free" to reject the official philosophy of the Catholic Church because he does not "like" it. For Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, you see, subjectivism trumps the official declarations of the Catholic Church, such as the Pope Leo XIII's review in Aeterni Patris, August 4, 1879, of the papal statements on Scholasticism:

But, furthermore, Our predecessors in the Roman pontificate have celebrated the wisdom of Thomas Aquinas by exceptional tributes of praise and the most ample testimonials. Clement VI in the bull 'In Ordine;' Nicholas V in his brief to the friars of the Order of Preachers, 1451; Benedict XIII in the bull 'Pretiosus,' and others bear witness that the universal Church borrows luster from his admirable teaching; while St. Pius V declares in the bull 'Mirabilis' that heresies, confounded and convicted by the same teaching, were dissipated, and the whole world daily freed from fatal errors; others, such as Clement XII in the bull 'Verbo Dei,' affirm that most fruitful blessings have spread abroad from his writings over the whole Church, and that he is worthy of the honor which is bestowed on the greatest Doctors of the Church, on Gregory and Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome; while others have not hesitated to propose St. Thomas for the exemplar and master of the universities and great centers of learning whom they may follow with unfaltering feet. On which point the words of Blessed Urban V to the University of Toulouse are worthy of recall: 'It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same.' Innocent XII, followed the example of Urban in the case of the University of Louvain, in the letter in the form of a brief addressed to that university on February 6, 1694, and Benedict XIV in the letter in the form of a brief addressed on August 26, 1752, to the Dionysian College in Granada; while to these judgments of great Pontiffs on Thomas Aquinas comes the crowning testimony of Innocent VI: 'is teaching above that of others, the canonical writings alone excepted, enjoys such a precision of language, an order of matters, a truth of conclusions, that those who hold to it are never found swerving from the path of truth, and he who dare assail it will always be suspected of error.'

The ecumenical councils, also, where blossoms the flower of all earthly wisdom, have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor. In the Councils of Lyons, Vienna, Florence, and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers, contending against the errors of the Greeks, of heretics and rationalists, with invincible force and with the happiest results. But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic Doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of conclave to lay upon the altar, together with sacred Scripture and the decrees of the supreme Pontiffs, the 'Summa' of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.


What does a subjectivist do when he doesn't "like" declarations that run contrary to his personal "tastes"? He must manufacture out of thin air a rhetorical device ("the hermeneutic of continuity and discontinuity") that has no foundation in the writings of the Church Fathers and has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church in no uncertain terms (see A Reference Resource: Ratzinger's War Against Catholicism).

Conciliarists, including Ratzinger/Benedict, did not "like" the Catholic Church's condemnations of Modernist principles. What did they do? Ignored various anathematized propositions by claiming that dogmatic truth, given the "limitations" of language and the changing circumstances in which men live, can never be adequately or accurately expressed at any one time, that "modifications" need to be made from time to time. In other words, one can dispense with dogmatic definitions made under the direct inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, if one does not "like" them because of alleged "changes" in the "circumstances" of "modern" man.

The proto-ecumenists of the early Twentieth Century did not "like" the fact that the Catholic Church called for the unconditional return of non-Catholics to her maternal bosom, plotting amongst themselves to promote the "spiritual ecumenism" of Abbe Paul Couturier, a disciple of Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., the nature of whose work was condemned by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and ran counter to The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion, who was praised by Karol Wojtyla (in footnote fifty of Ut Unum Sint, May 25, 1995) and by Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in Cologne, Germany, on August 19, 2005 (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne, the meeting in which Ratzinger/Benedict rejected the "ecumenism of the return" that had been called for, by among others, Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894, and Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928).

The liturgical revolutionaries did not "like" the Immemorial Mass of Tradition, which gives such honor and glory to God as an alter Christus perpetuates in an unbloody manner the Sacrifice of Christ the King to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Father in Spirit and in Truth on the wood of the Holy Cross. The subjectivist hatred for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition is such that the front-line revolutionaries who planned the abomination that is the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service boasted of their plans to create a "Mass" stripped of Catholic elements that would be "liked" by Protestants:

We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants." (Annibale Bugnini, L'Osservatore Romano, March 19, 1965.)

Let it be candidly said: the Roman Rite which we have known hitherto no longer exists. It is destroyed. (Father Joseph Gelineau, who worked with Annibale Bugnini's Consilium, Quoted and footnoted in the work of a Father John Mole, who believed that the Mass of the Roman Rite had been "truncated," not destroyed. Assault on the Roman Rite)

Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense. (Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, 1965, Quoted and footnoted in Assault on the Roman Rite. This has also been noted on this site in the past, having been provided me by a reader who had access to the 1980 French book in which the quote is found.)

"[T]he intention of Pope Paul VI with regard to what is commonly called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such a way that it should coincide with the Protestant liturgy.... [T]here was with Pope Paul VI an ecumenical intention to remove, or at least to correct, or at least to relax, what was too Catholic in the traditional sense, in the Mass, and I, repeat, to get the Catholic Mass closer to the Calvinist mass" (Dec. 19, 1993), Apropos, #17, pp. 8f; quoted in Christian Order, October, 1994. (Jean Guitton, a close friend of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI.)

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (General Instruction to the Roman Missal, Paragraph 15. Here is an admission that the texts of ancient tradition were being changed so that they "would be more in accord with the language of modern theology." What is modern theology, you ask? Modernism, thank you. How can anyone claim that tradition was preserved when the revolutionaries admit that they changed it in light of "modern theology" and the "actual state of the Church's discipline," no less to disparage, as I have noted in other articles and in my own G.I.R.M. Warfare, practices of "outward penance" that are said, quite arrogantly, "to belong to a different age in the history of the Church"?)


Yes, it was the hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was used as the means to destroy the simple and pure Faith in the souls of so many hundreds of millions of Catholics worldwide in the wake of the "Second" Vatican Council and its sordid aftermath. The liturgical and doctrinal revolutionaries of conciliarism used subjectivism to convince people to "like" the new, false church of conciliarism and its lax disciplinary laws (only two days of fast, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, a law that has been "adopted" now by the Society of Saint Pius X as it folds completely under the control of the false "pontiff" they have "recognized" and "resisted up until now).

The laity have grown to "like" being in the sanctuary of their local parish churches during what purports to be Holy Mass to serve as lectors or "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist."

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that the presbyter faces them during the Novus Ordo service.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that they can dress casually and even immodestly for the Novus Ordo service, that the women among them need not wear their chapel veils as a humble sign of submission to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and that they can serve at the altar as the extension of the hands of the presbyter.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that the prayers of the Novus Ordo service no longer remind them of a God Who judges their souls and that they could lose their souls for all eternity in Hell.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion in their non-consecrated hands.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion under both kinds.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that they can receive what purports, albeit falsely, to receive Holy Communion standing.

The laity have grown to "like" the concept of a God Who can teach one thing consistently for nearly two millennia and then "relax" his rules to give them a "break."

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that they don't have to evangelize their Protestant and Jewish and Mohammedan friends and neighbors.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that the conciliar "pontiffs" and their "bishops" esteem the symbols of false religions and engage regularly in inter-religious "prayer" services.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that their parishes hold inter-faith "prayer services" and Passover "seders," events that disgust Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The laity have grown to "like" the "Luminous Mysteries" and altered Stations of the Cross.

The laity have grown to "like" that fact that they can participate actively in the rot of popular culture without being warned from the pulpit that they are risking the salvation of their immortal souls by exposing themselves to the near occasions of sin.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that the art and architecture of many church buildings in conciliar captivity are reflective of "modern" tastes and "modern" theology.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that many of their "bishops" and "presbyters" are "tolerant" and "charitable" towards those who are actively and unrepentantly steeped in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that "religious education" in the conciliar structures stresses the "love" of God rather than the rote memorization of articles contained in the Baltimore Catechism.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that they can applaud vigorously and laugh uproariously in the context of the Novus Ordo service.

The laity have grown to "like" the fact that they have more "freedom," at least in a de facto sense, to "question" the truths of the Faith.

The laity have grown to "like" Scripture "study" programs that explain away the miracles, if not the Sacred Divinity, of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

The laity have grown to "like" the Novus Ordo "Rite of Christian Burial" with its white vestments and the words of reassurance that their loved ones who never darkened a church after childhood are in Heaven and were "model" Christians during life.

The laity have grown to "like" the Novus Ordo service in the vernacular as belief in the Real Presence has waned.

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" their clown liturgies and their "rock" liturgies and their "folk" liturgies and their liturgical dances.

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" their "World Youth Days" with all of their abominations and sacrileges.

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" the incorporation of pagan rituals into what passes for the "Mass" and what are called "para-liturgies."

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" "face-to-face" "confession" in the "reconciliation room."

Many, although far from all, of the laity have grown to "like" their Saturday afternoon or evening Novus Ordo services that permit them to keep Sunday, the Lord's Day, "free" for what really matters (sleep, baseball, football, soccer, shopping, .etc.).

Those of the laity who are involved in various movements ("Catholic" Charismatic Renewal, Opus Dei, Focolare, Cursillo, the Sant'Egidio Community, the Shalom Catholic Community, the Chemin Neuf Community, the International Community of Faith and Light, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation, the Emmanuel Community, the Seguimi Lay Group of Human-Christian Promotion, and. among many, many others, the Neocatechumenal Way) have grown to "like" the "papal" approbations given to their false "spiritualities" that convince them of their "unique" "calling" in what they believe to be, albeit falsely, the Catholic Church.

Many presbyters have grown to "like" the fact that they are the "stars of the show" in the Novus Ordo service who bask in the warmth of human respect because they do not have to preach "uncomfortable" truths or force their parishioners to dress modestly in order to receive what passes for Holy Communion (while other presbyters have made their "peace" with changes they don't "like" by saying, "I'm just following orders").

The laity have grown to "like" the ease and the comfort and convenience of what some of them, including some of Father Michael Oswalt's relatives, understand is essentially a new religion, if not a new religion in its entirety.

Father Michael Oswalt, of course, is being threatened with all manner of unjust "canonical" sanctions by the conciliar authorities in the Diocese of Rockford even though he denies not one article of the Catholic Faith. Catholic pro-aborts remain in perfectly good "canonical" standing in the new religion of conciliarism. Presbyters who even go beyond the apostasies of conciliarism by denying articles contained in the Deposit of Faith that the conciliar church still teaches are permitted to remain in "canonical" good standing in the new religion of conciliarism, including those who teach in conciliar schools, universities and colleges. Even "bishops" who do so remain in "canonical" good standing as they retain their "offices" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

What will happen, pray tell, to the Chairman of the conciliar "bishops'" conference in the Federal Republic of Germany, Robert Zollitsch, the "archbishop" of Freiburg, who has denied that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died to make expiation for our sins?

The Chairman of the German Bishops' Conference and archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch, believes that Christ’s crucifixion is just a psychological support for those who suffer.

On Holy Saturday, the archbishop denied the Expiatory Death of Christ in an interview with the German TV station 'Hessischer Rundfunk'.

Christ "did not die for the sins of the people as if God had needed a sacrificial offering or something like a scapegoat" - the archbishop said.

According to him the dying Christ simply expressed "solidarity" with the suffering of the people even to death.

This way, Christ showed, the archbishop said, that even suffering and pain have been taken up by God.

According to Zollitsch "this is the great perspective, the tremendous solidarity," that Christ went so far that he suffered all "with" me.

The journalist asked Zollitsch: "You would now no longer describe it in such a way that God gave his own son, because we humans were so sinful? You would no longer describe it like this?"

To this question Zollitsch replied with a clear "no".

He stated that God has given "his own son in solidarity with us unto his last agony” to show that: You mean so much to me that I go with you, and I am totally with you in every situation."

The archbishop seems to row back a tiny way when he says that one’s own sins were responsible that Christ "has become so involved with me". But he does not elaborate farther.

"Christ has become involved with me out of solidarity – out of free will" – the archbishop repeated in the interview.

According to Zollitsch Christ has "participated in carrying my debt, including the evil I have caused, in order to take this up into the world of God and hence to show also to me the way out of sin, guilt and from death to life."  (Gloria.tv: Chairman of German Bishops’ Conference denies Christ's Expiatory Death)


What will happen to "Archbishop" Zollitsch? How can a man, appointed by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II in 2003, rise to such prominence in what purports to be, albeit falsely, the Catholic Church without anyone in "Rome" bothering to care about what he believes? Will "Archbishop" Zollitsch be subjected by his brother conciliar "bishops" in Germany to the scorn and revulsion that greeted Bishop Richard Williamson's interview that was aired on Swedish television on January 21, 2009? No, large numbers of people in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have grown used to outrageous denials of the Faith as nothing out of the ordinary, simply indicative of "opinions" that one is free to hold in these "modern" times.

"Archbishop" Zollitsch is far from alone in his blasphemous, heretical beliefs. Consider this report from The Irish Catholic:

Christ didn't die for my sins, I didn't do anything,'' said Gay Byrne in the final episode of his special Holy Week programme Passion Players. ''We're all agreeing with you now Gay, God did not die for your sins,'' said Mark Patrick Hederman, Abbot of Glenstal, in a panel discussion on the person of Jesus.

Gay asked then why did he come, what did he do and what was his mission? ''He came to give us divine life, to offer us the possibility of being paid up members of the blessed Trinity which means that in fact the life we are leading at the moment is stage two of a very exciting possibility that in stage three we are about to live forever with Him as divine beings. Now I consider that to be a very good reason why God would come on earth and I look forward to it myself,'' said the Abbot.

Gay quoted Richard Dawkin's description of the Christian Faith that God sent his son to die for our sins and that it was the only way God could be appeased, which Mark Patrick Hederman described as a charicature by Dawkins of Christianity.

''I was taught that every time I commit a sin as a child that it drove another nail into Jesus's hand and I used to say to myself I wish he hadn't bothered.

''This is one theory which existed certainly of why the world was sinful and how it was reconstructed but I don't think there is any theologian today who actually believes that caricature. God came on earth mostly actually to find out what it means to be human, that is my most beautiful view of what the incarnation meant.''

Gay asked, ''But why did he have to die and in such a bad way?'' The Abbot replied: ''In my view he did not have to die in such a dreadful way and that unfortunately was the way we treated him. He did not have to die in any particular way. He had to offer us divine life, we have the opportunity and the privilege of refusing or accepting that offer.'' (Christ didn't die for your sins, Gaybo': Abbot | The Irish Catholic).


Robert Zollitsch and Mark Patrick Hederman are among the many who hold official capacities in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who feel free to go beyond even the approved apostasies of conciliarism to deny articles contained in the Deposit of Faith because they know full well that "Rome" will do nothing to them. The laity, after all, have grown to "like" the "freedom" that the conciliar church provides for discussion, even if this "freedom" involves denying the truth that the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity became Man in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost to pay back in His Sacred Humanity the debt of our sins that was owed to Him in His Infinity as God.

Even though Robert Zollitsch and Mark Patrick Hederman feel free to go beyond the approved apostasies of conciliarism, one should never lose sight of the fact that those who deny the Faith in just one thing defect from It in Its entirety. It is precisely because the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI do not "like" how the true God of Revelation had directed His Holy Church in the centuries prior to the "Second" Vatican Council that they engineered a revolution that attacks the very nature of God and His Revelation, a revolution that has led most Catholics in the world to "like" things that have been condemned repeatedly and consistently by the authority of the Catholic Church prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958.

Those who are not convinced that the counterfeit church of conciliarism represents a new religion, one that is made by men to be "liked" by all men, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, should consider the fact that Holy Mother Church is as spotless as the Blessed Virgin Mary, the very fairest flower of our race. It is not possible for the Catholic Church to have generated and sustained outrages and apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges and abominations that have their preternatural origins in no other place than Hell itself.

As I wrote two weeks ago today on Spy Wednesday:

Our Lady is the archetype of Holy Mother Church. She is without stain of sin or the least trace of error of any kind. So is Holy Mother Church. Holy Mother Church takes refuge in the arms of Our Lady in her Basilica in Rome today, Saint Mary Major. Holy Mother Church rushes into the arms of the Blessed Mother to make reparation for the infidelity of the traitor Judas Iscariot and to plead for her children to be faithful always unto the point of their dying breaths. Holy Mother Church can no more give us error or blasphemy or sacrilege or be a participate in various apostasies than can the Blessed Virgin Mary. What more proof do we need that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a Judas "church" filled with modern-day Judases, for whom we must pray but with whom we must have no association in the slightest at any time for any reason whatsoever?


The fact that so many Catholics yet attached to the structures of the counterfeit church conciliarism "like" their new religion should teach us to flee from everything to do with teachings and practices that have been condemned time and time again by the authority of the Catholic Church, cleaving only to those true bishops and true priests who make no concessions to--or countenance in the slightest to--the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its false shepherds who free free to spit on Our Lord during the Paschal Triduum.

The bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, is that God does not "like" the apostasies and novelties and blasphemies and errors of conciliarism that are "liked" by so many of His creatures, who have made "golden calves," if you will, of their Novus Ordo "likes" to such an an extent that anyone who speaks to them about the teaching of the Catholic Church might as well be a visitor from another planet.

God will not be mocked, however. We must defend His greater honor and majesty and glory, as Saint Alphonsus de Liguori made clear:

Be attentive. Brethren, if we wish to save our souls, we must overcome human respect, and bear the little confusion which may arise from the scoffs of the enemies of the cross of Jesus Christ. "For there is a shame that bringeth sin, and there is a shame that bringeth glory and grace"-Eccl., iv. 25. If we do not suffer this confusion with patience, it will lead us into the pit of sin; but, if we submit to it for God's sake, it will obtain for us the divine grace here, and great glory hereafter. "As," says St. Gregory, "bashfulness is laudable in evil, so it is reprehensible in good"--hom. x., in  Ezech.

But some of you will say: I attend to my own affairs; I wish to save my soul; why should I be persecuted? But there is no remedy; it is impossible to serve God, and not be persecuted. "The wicked loathe them that are in the right way"--Prov., xxix. 27. Sinners cannot bear the sight of the man who lives according to the Gospel, because his life is a continual censure on their disorderly conduct; and therefore they say: "Let us lie in wait for the just; because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law"--Wis., ii. 12. The proud man, who seeks revenge for every insult he receives, would wish that all should avenge the offences that may be offered to him. The avaricious, who grow rich by injustice, wish that all should imitate their fraudulent practices. The drunkard wishes to see others indulge like himself, in intoxication. The immoral, who boast of their impurities, and can scarcely utter a word which does not savour of  obscenity, desire that all should act and speak as they do; and those who do not imitate their conduct, they regard as mean, clownish, and intractable--as men without honour and without education. "They are of the world; therefore of the world they speak"--I. John., iv. 5. Worldlings can speak no other language than that of the world. Oh! how great is their poverty and blindness! Sin has blinded them, and therefore they speak profanely. "These things they thought, and were deceived; for their own malice blinded them"--Wis., ii, 21. . . .

Wicked friends come to you and say: "What extravagancies are those in which you indulge? Why do you not act like others? Say to them in answer: My conduct is not opposed to that of all men; there are others who lead a holy life. They are indeed few; but I will follow their example; for the Gospel says: "Many are called, but few are chosen"--Matt., xx. 16. "If", says St. John Climacus, "you wish to be saved with the few, live like the few". But, they will add, do you not see that all murmur against you. and condemn your manner of living? Let your answer be: It is enough for me, that God does not censure my conduct. Is it not better to obey God than to obey men? Such was the answer of St. Peter and St. John to the Jewish priests: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge yet"--Acts, iv. 19. If they ask you how you can bear an insult? or who, after submitting to it, can you appear among your equals? answer them by saying, that you are a Christian, and that it is enough for you to appear well in the eyes of God. Such should be your answer to all these satellites of Satan: you must despise all their maxims and reproaches. And when it is necessary to reprove those who make little of God's law, you must take courage and correct them publicly. "Then that sin, reprove before all"--I. Tim., v. 20. And when there is question of the divine honour, we should not be frightened by the dignity of the man who offends God; let us say to him openly: This is sinful; it cannot be done. Let us imitate the Baptist, who reproved King Herod for living his brother's wife and said to him: "It is not lawful for thee to have her"--Matt., xiv. 4. Men indeed shall regard us as fools, and turn us into derision; but, on the day of judgment they shall acknowledge that they have been foolish, and we have shall have the glory of being numbered among the saints. They shall say: "These are they whom we had some time in derision. . . . . We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honour. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints"--Wis., v. 3, 4, 5. (Sixth Sunday After Easter: On Human Respect.)

As we turn to Our Lady by means of her Most Holy Rosary, we must intensify our intentions to pray that more and more presbyters in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism will have the courage and the humility of Michael Oswalt in coming to recognize and reject a false religion for what it is and making a firm determination to serve souls in the Catholic catacombs under true bishops who have maintained the Faith and who have "brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men" the teaching of the Word Who was made Flesh and dwelt amongst us so that He could die on the wood of the Cross for our sins to make it possible for us to realize an unending Easter Sunday of glory in Paradise.

What are we waiting for? Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.


Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


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.

Saints Soter and Caius, pray for us.

See also: A Litany of Saints

© Copyright 2009, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.