Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
September 27, 2013


To Be Blind To The Truth At This Point Is Irresponsible

by Thomas A. Droleskey

To be blind to the truth about the state of the Church Militant on earth in this time of apostasy and betrayal is completely irresponsible.

Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, as will be demonstrated briefly below, is perfectly in accord with his predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in substance, the current public face of apostasy's bold proclamation of Modernism has removed Ratzinger/Benedict's stylistic masks that were used to fool those who were unwilling to read or to even want to understand that he, Ratzinger/Benedict, has been a lifelong Modernist in his own twisted right. The only "space" between Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio/Francis is a matter of style and approach.

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believed that he, having been a Modernist peritus at the "Second" Vatican Council even though he had been under suspicion of heresy by the Holy Office during the papacy of Pope Pius XII, something that was perhaps part of the credentials he carried around in the suit jacket he work with a black tie during this false council, had the "key" to the "true" interpretation of the "Second" Vatican Council by means of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, on the other hand, is not at all concerned about making it "appear" as though the "Second" Vatican Council is in conformity with the patrimony of the Catholic Church as he believes that everything associated with the "no church" that was too "self-referential" and "closed-in-on-itself" can be ignored in light of the "encounter" that the "widowed church" has with Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in her "search" for the meaning of His Sacred Teaching in the context of changed historical circumstances.

Both men believe in the condemned Modernist dogma of the "evolution of dogma," differing, you see, only on the margins. And it is from that warfare upon the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than a direct assault upon the very nature of God Himself as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church, from which flow all of the other proscribed teachings of conciliarism (the new ecclesiology, separation of Church and State, religious liberty, false ecumenism and interreligious "dialogue" and prayer meetings, episcopal collegiality, heretical interpretations of Sacred Scripture) and its false, sacramentally barren liturgical rites and hideous pastoral practices.

To wit, a glowing report that appeared on the website of the Catholic News Agency compared Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's assertion that what he thinks is the Catholic Church cannot be "obsessed" with moral issues with the exact teaching of his predecessor, couched, of course, at it was in Ratzingerian contradiction and paradox:

Vatican City, Sep 26, 2013 / 02:08 am (CNA/EWTN News).- While Pope Francis’ mention of the Church’s priorities in a recent interview grabbed worldwide attention, few remember that Benedict XVI said substantially the same thing seven years ago.

Pope Francis' interview with La Civiltà Cattolica published Sept. 19 led to headlines such as CNN's “Pope Francis says religion does not have the right to interfere spiritually in the lives of gays and lesbians” and the New York Times' “Pope Bluntly Faults Church's Focus on Gays and Abortion.”

Among other things, the Roman Pontiff had said that the Church “cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods … when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context.”

He continued, “The church’s pastoral ministry cannot be obsessed with the transmission of a disjointed multitude of doctrines to be imposed insistently. Proclamation in a missionary style focuses on the essentials, on the necessary things: this is also what fascinates and attracts more, what makes the heart burn, as it did for the disciples at Emmaus … the proposal of the Gospel must be more simple, profound, radiant. It is from this proposition that the moral consequences then flow.”

The Pope's words echoed those of his predecessor, Benedict XVI, who had made similar comments to the bishops of Switzerland on Nov. 9, 2006.

At that time, Benedict recalled that when asked for interviews in the 1980s and '90s, he knew the questions in advance, as they “concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems.”

We should not allow our faith to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details,” he said, “but rather, should always keep our eyes in the first place on the greatness of Christianity.”

If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions,” Benedict said.

We give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith,” adding that we must never be diverted from that highlight.

This continuity between Benedict and Pope Francis was noted by Carl Anderson, head of the Knights of Columbus, in a Sept. 22 essay in National Review Online. He pointed to a misleading “media narrative,” in which Pope Francis is portrayed as “a progressive, taking the Catholic Church in a profoundly new direction – uninterested in Church teaching on moral issues.”

“Benedict, we are told, is conservative, doctrinaire, and old-fashioned — focused on moral issues,” according to the media narrative.

Anderson concluded that “neither narrative is true, because each leaves out half of the story.” (Like Benedict, Quick Draw Jorge Francis doesn't want Church of 'moralists'.)

Leaving aside the inconvenient fact that Carl Anderson does not want to see that both Ratzinger and Bergoglio are Modernists, anyone with a modicum of the sensus Catholicus who has actually read what Joseph Ratzinger wrote before his "election" to succeed Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II on April 19, 2005, knew full well at the very moment his name was announced on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter as the successor to the Polish apostate as the next universal public face of apostasy that he was nothing other than an unvarnished Modernist by way of the "new theology."

"Antiquated convictions"?

What has made the Ten Commandments and the precepts that flow therefrom "antiquated"?


When did this happen?

As was noted yesterday in Quick Draw Jorge and His Own Baba Looey, there is no "expiration date," no "shelf life" for any article of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, are nothing other than egregious, blaspheming heretics.

Only the willfully blind and intellectually dishonest could claim that the old German heretic was a "conservative" or a "moralist" just because he liked a "devout" and "dignified" staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and was willing to indulge traditionally-minded Catholics in order to purchase silence from them about his multiple offenses against Faith, Worship and Morals, including personally esteeming the symbols of five false religions on Thursday, April 17, 2008, at the John Paul II Cultural Center in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, that Carl Anderson himself helped to found and on whose Board of Trustees he served for several years, in exchange for Summorum Pontificum on July 7, 2007.

Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is outspoken in his most fervent hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Traditionalism and of traditionalists (whom he has disparaged as Pharisaical, "rigid," "stubborn," "restorationists," "triumphalists" and other names), Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict holds the exact same views, something that he made very clear in the explanatory letter that he wrote to the conciliar "bishops" of the world in 2009 to provide his rationale for lifting the "excommunications" imposed by Wojtyla/John Paul II upon the four bishops consecrated by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on June 30, 1988, in Econe, Switzerland. Indeed, Ratzinger/Benedict had spoken of his true rationalize for issuing Summorum Pontificum six months before he issued that "explanatory letter":

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Only the willfully blind in the Motu buglosses could ignore Ratzinger/Benedict's frank discussion of the reason he issued Summorum Pontificum. Ratzinger/Benedict was not personally devoted to the Immemorial Mass of Tradition as it enshrined a Faith, including an ecclesiology, that was counter to the alleged "needs" of his mythical "modern man." He desired there to be a "synthesis" between the Missal of Pope Saint Pius V and that of the very unblessed Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick. Kurt "Cardinal" Koch, the president of the conciliar "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, made this clear two years ago:

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Pope Benedict XVI's easing of restrictions on use of the 1962 Roman Missal, known as the Tridentine rite, is just the first step in a "reform of the reform" in liturgy, the Vatican's top ecumenist said.

The pope's long-term aim is not simply to allow the old and new rites to coexist, but to move toward a "common rite" that is shaped by the mutual enrichment of the two Mass forms, Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, said May 14.

In effect, the pope is launching a new liturgical reform movement, the cardinal said. Those who resist it, including "rigid" progressives, mistakenly view the Second Vatican Council as a rupture with the church's liturgical tradition, he said.

Cardinal Koch made the remarks at a Rome conference on "Summorum Pontificum," Pope Benedict's 2007 apostolic letter that offered wider latitude for use of the Tridentine rite. The cardinal's text was published the same day by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper.

Cardinal Koch said Pope Benedict thinks the post-Vatican II liturgical changes have brought "many positive fruits" but also problems, including a focus on purely practical matters and a neglect of the paschal mystery in the Eucharistic celebration. The cardinal said it was legitimate to ask whether liturgical innovators had intentionally gone beyond the council's stated intentions.

He said this explains why Pope Benedict has introduced a new reform movement, beginning with "Summorum Pontificum." The aim, he said, is to revisit Vatican II's teachings in liturgy and strengthen certain elements, including the Christological and sacrificial dimensions of the Mass.

Cardinal Koch said "Summorum Pontificum" is "only the beginning of this new liturgical movement."

"In fact, Pope Benedict knows well that, in the long term, we cannot stop at a coexistence between the ordinary form and the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, but that in the future the church naturally will once again need a common rite," he said.

"However, because a new liturgical reform cannot be decided theoretically, but requires a process of growth and purification, the pope for the moment is underlining above all that the two forms of the Roman rite can and should enrich each other," he said.

Cardinal Koch said those who oppose this new reform movement and see it as a step back from Vatican II lack a proper understanding of the post-Vatican II liturgical changes. As the pope has emphasized, Vatican II was not a break or rupture with tradition but part of an organic process of growth, he said.

On the final day of the conference, participants attended a Mass celebrated according to the Tridentine rite at the Altar of the Chair in St. Peter's Basilica. Cardinal Walter Brandmuller presided over the liturgy. It was the first time in several decades that the old rite was celebrated at the altar. (Benedict's 'reform of the reform' in liturgy to continue, cardinal says.)

Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis wants no part of any "reform of the reform."

Nevertheless, you see, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI had the same contemptuous views of traditionalists as does his successor, and only the willfully blind can contend that this is not so.

Moreover, Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio/Francis are joined at the hip in their belief that atheists can be saved as long as they act in "good will." Even some Protestants are scandalized by this, keeping some of them from entertaining any thought of converting to Catholicism, something that is directly from the devil himself.

Consider the commentary of one such Protestant, Wallace Henry whose only basis of Divine Revelation is Sacred Scripture, albeit a corrupted version of Holy Writ, while rejecting Sacred (Apostolic) Tradition:

Confession: I could be a wannabe Catholic.

Not long ago, on a trip to Paris, my wife and I were in Notre Dame Cathedral during Mass. A congregation in the thousands refused to be distracted by gaping tourists as the great organ exploded in music summoning all the human senses to look up and contemplate the transcendent glory and mystery of God.

I understood what a Marxist said to a Christian in a 1960s "dialogue" between Communists and followers of Christ – "You have awakened in us the hunger for transcendence." I understand, and yearn for that "high and lifted up" worship.

On the vital issue of the right to life, the Catholic Church has so far refused to surrender the ground. Despite the sexual sins of priests who are sinners like all the rest of us, the Catholic Church has stood relentlessly for moral truths revealed in God's Word.

And yet, despite my admiration for people like G.K. Chesterton and Malcolm Muggeridge, great British writers who converted to Catholicism, and heroes of mine, I could not become a Catholic. A recent statement by Pope Francis reveals why.

Italian agnostic journalist Eugenio Scalfari questioned if non-believers could be forgiven by the God worshipped and proclaimed by Christians. Addressing "the attitude of the Church to those who don't share faith in Jesus," the Pontiff wrote that God's mercy "has no limits if one turns to him with a sincere and contrite heart."

However, the Pope argues that the deciding issue for one who doesn't believe in Jesus as Savior "lies in obeying one's conscience. Sin, also for those who don't have faith, exists when one goes against one's conscience," wrote the Pope.

Francis is right, in light of passages in Romans, when he says that violating the conscience makes one a sinner. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them," says Romans 1:18-19.

If the Pope is biblical with regard to what categorizes sin, his view of salvation is the reason why I could never become a Catholic. It is the crisis of Catholicism. "Obeying one's conscience" seems to be the means of forgiveness and salvation for the person "who doesn't believe and who doesn't seek the faith."

The crisis of Catholicism, which makes it difficult for many who respect the Catholic Church to link with it, is the issue of authority. For the Pope to disregard clear biblical teaching about the necessity of Christ's atonement for humanity's salvation, is apparently no great problem for Francis, since the Bible is not the exclusive authority in Catholicism. The Church looks to the Magisterium, the sanctioned accumulation of its own traditions, interpretations and pronouncements over the centuries, along with the Bible. Too frequently, this conglomeration of doctrine becomes the standard for measuring the Bible.

Evangelicalism has its own biblical authority crisis. Liberal evangelicals try to adjust biblical revelation to suit the demands of a culture in flux. They speak of "making the Bible relevant" to today's generations, as if the Bible were not eternally and absolutely relevant across all times and places.

Another set of evangelicals abuse biblical authority by allowing cultural style to drive theology. Bravo for efforts to communicate the eternally and absolutely relevant truth of God's word in a relevant way – but not to the point of denying and rewriting key biblical truths to suit the style du jour.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me," said Jesus. (John 14:6)

No one has the authority to alter that assertion – not even the Pope.

Sadly, the emergent Pope may be leading the Church down trails that look new and fresh, but actually are deeply rutted from all the others who have already explored them, as we will see in Part 2 of this series. ( Francis and the Crisis of Catholicism.)

Wallace Henry does not understand that there is no basis in Sacred Tradition for Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's assertion about the salvation of atheists. Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and his conciliar predecessors stand condemned by the following solemn words issued by Pope Eugene IV at the Council of Florence on February 4, 1442:


It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

Wallace Henry himself does not accept this, and that is to be expected as he is a Protestant.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis does not accept this, and that is why he is not a Catholic, no, not even if he uttered twenty-four carefully scripted words for him to recite about baby-killing the day after his infamous interview with "Father" Antonio Spadoro, S.J., was published wherein he said what he thought was the Catholic Church would collapse like a "house of cards" if she did not stop "obsessing" over "abortion and gay marriage."

Pope Saint Pius X made it clear in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, that Modernists say some things on occasion that are in conformity with the Catholic Faith, something that does not redeem their Modernism nor make them any less than what they are, enemies of Christ the King and the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem:


The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: "Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text...to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science...these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid."

This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Only the willfully blind and/or intellectually dishonest can deny that this describes each of the conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is indeed an antipope, a man whose words and actions are that of a figure of Antichrist himself, something that has made abundantly clear on this site in numerous articles in the past six months, ten days now.

Consider the simple fact that Pope Pius IX understood that he would be judged harshly by God if he did not do everything possible to invite Protestants to convert to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there is no true social order, while Jorge Mario Bergoglio is continuing the conciliar "tradition," if it can be called that, of keeping Protestants away from any consideration of such a conversion, both by means of heretical words and by reaffirming them in their own false sects that have no power to save them whatsoever:


It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

Pope Pius IX feared to have to render an account to Christ the King if he had, "through some possibility," "not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, a brutal ecclesiastical tyrant, does not.

Pope Pius IX was a Catholic and thus a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a heretic who is nothing other than an insane dreamer, rebel and miscreant according to the following words of Pope Saint Pius X, which bear repeating once again as repetition is the mother of learning:


We know well that they flatter themselves with the idea of raising human dignity and the discredited condition of the working class. We know that they wish to render just and perfect the labor laws and the relations between employers and employees, thus causing a more complete justice and a greater measure of charity to prevail upon earth, and causing also a profound and fruitful transformation in society by which mankind would make an undreamed-of progress. Certainly, We do not blame these efforts; they would be excellent in every respect if the Sillonist did not forget that a person’s progress consists in developing his natural abilities by fresh motivations; that it consists also in permitting these motivations to operate within the frame of, and in conformity with, the laws of human nature. But, on the contrary, by ignoring the laws in governing human nature and by breaking the bounds within which they operate, the human person is lead, not toward progress, but towards death. This, nevertheless, is what they want to do with human society; they dream of changing its natural and traditional foundations; they dream of a Future City built on different principles, and they dare to proclaim these more fruitful and more beneficial than the principles upon which the present Christian City rests.

No, Venerable Brethren, We must repeat with the utmost energy in these times of social and intellectual anarchy when everyone takes it upon himself to teach as a teacher and lawmaker - the City cannot be built otherwise than as God has built it; society cannot be setup unless the Church lays the foundations and supervises the work; no, civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants. omnia instaurare in Christo. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Let those who want to persist in willful blindness reckon with the fact that it is impossible according to Catholic doctrine for men to believe, speak and act as the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have done and remaining a member of the Catholic Church, no less serve as her officials:


With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

There is no wiggle room here at all.

If one even "privately" dissents from one article contained in the Catholic Faith while holding, however tenuously, to others, he has expelled himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church by virtue of violating the Divine Positive Law. 

So much for the utterly absurd claim that there are a "irreducible minima" of truths by which anyone, no less one of the conciliar "popes," can hold and thus remain a member of the Catholic Church even though he denies or puts into question many others. It does not get much clearer, does it?

Those who believe that they have found a kernel of Catholicism in Bergoglio/Francis's recent blatherings are deceiving themselves as they must go into denial about the consistency with which he has spoken and acted in defiance of the Catholic Faith while supporting the "new ecclesiology" and "false ecumenism" and other assorted condemned propositions summarized above. Catholics seeking to do with Bergoglio/Francis what they did with Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and what I did with Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for far, far too long must eternally grasping at straws rather than face the fact that The Chair is Still Empty.

We must take heart from this account of the life of Saint Servatus:


Servatus held the bishopric of Tongres (Belgium) at a time when the whole of Christendom had Arian tendencies. The all-powerful emperor, Constantius, was a heretic and supported the heresy; many bishops no longer believed in the divinity of Our Lord; St. Athanasius and St. Hilary, great champions of orthodoxy, were in exile.

The story of the Jewish origins of St. Servatus and his kinship with St. Anne appears legendary. It is not known when he became bishop of Tongres, but by 336, when St. Athanasius spent his exile at Trier, he had already occupied the see. The declaration which he made before the Council of Cologne in 346 informs us both of his meeting with the celebrated Alexandrian doctor and of his own orthodoxy. This is what he says in reference to the bishop of Cologne, deposed on that occasion: "It is not from hearsay that I know what he has been teaching, but from having myself heard it. Our churches are adjacent; many times I have had occasion to contradict him, when he has denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. It has happened in the presence of Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. .. . I judge that he can no longer be bishop of Christians; and those do not deserve to be considered Christians who remain in communion with him."

After failing in his efforts to reconcile the usurper, Magnetius, with the Emperor Constantius, Servatus made a pilgrimage to Rome. He returned convinced that Tongres would soon fall to the Huns. Hastily he carried the relics of the church to Maestricht, and there, shortly afterwards, he died. The towns of Tongres remained thereafter for nearly a century without a bishop. (Omer Engelbert, The Lives of the Saints, Barnes and Noble, p. 186. For an online version, see The Lives of the Saints, page 186.)

Please share this article with those within your own acquaintanceship who remain willfully blind about the truth even with all of the evidence that is staring them in the face, making sure to be kind and to entrust them to Our Lady in prayer after you acquit your duty to provide them with access to facts rather than emotions, "feelings" and empty-headed sentiments that are nothing other than personal projections of what they want the truth to be without having read any scholarly tomes concerning the canonical doctrine that state very clearly those who defect from the Faith in one thing defect from It in Its entirety and are entirely outside the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

We must remember that this is all a chastisement for our sins and those of the whole world. Things are only going to get worse, which is why we must remain steadfast in prayer to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the King of all men and of all nations, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary while we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits and remember these words that Our Crucified and Risen King spoke to saint Margaret Mary Alacoque:


"I will reign in spite of all who oppose Me." (Quoted in: The Right Reverend Emile Bougaud. The Life of Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 1990, p. 361.)

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

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?


Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 Cosmas and Damian, pray for us.




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