Anti-Catholicism Out in the Open Once Again, part one

The so-called “civilized” nations of the Western world has been shaped for over half a millennium now by the ceaseless efforts of Talmudists to overthrow the Social Reign of Christ the King in Europe in the Sixteenth Century and then to claim over the course of time that the invocation of the phrases Christ the King or Long Live Christ the King (Viva Cristo Rey!) are in se anti-Semitic.

United States Secretary of War Peter Hegseth brought all this into public view again when he invited his “pastor,” a Calvinist and self-professed “Christian Nationalist named Douglas Wilson, to speak at the Pentagon despite the fact—or perhaps because of the fact—that he openly supports the enactment of Penal Laws that the English Protestant Revolutionaries imposed upon the British Isles following the lustful, bigamous, adulterous practitioners drunkard and glutton Henry VIII’s revolution against the Catholic Church in 1534 to “marry” his “mistress,” Anne Boleyn, whom some scholars, including William Cobbett in the Nineteenth Century, to have been Henry Tudor’s own illegitimate daughter.

Here is a review of some of the Penal Laws enacted following King Henry VIII’s having Parliament declaring himself “supreme head of the church in England” in 1534 as a veritable genocide of believing Catholics who held fast to the true Faith commenced shortly thereafter:

Results of the Plunder of the Church.—Not only is the Protestant Revolt mainly responsible for the unsocial character of Britain’s economic system but it was the immediate cause of much of the degrading pauperism that has disfigured British civilisation for the past four centuries. We have already alluded to the plunder of the Church and the alienation of the revenues devoted to charitable and educational purposes, which took place as a result of the religious revolt. This led directly to dreadful hardship in the case of the poor, to whose benefit most of the ecclesiastical revenue had previously been applied. The confiscated wealth, which according to the law under which the confiscations were carried out should have been to the service of the State, was in very large measure appropriated by lawyers, court favourites and other greedy and avaricious adventurers. These henceforth formed a new class of wealthy and unscrupulous plutocrats who in the following centuries dominated the political and social life of their several countries. Nowhere did these robbery of Church goods produce such disastrous results as in Ireland and Britain. In both these countries the Protestant Reformation laid the foundations secure and deep, of extreme individualistic capitalism, with its hideous counterpart of pauperism and oppression of the poor, which forms one of the chief characteristics of their social history during the following centuries. On this aspect of the question, Cardinal Gasquet writes:

“Viewed in its social aspect the English Reformation was in reality an uprising of the rich against the poor. . . . Those in place and power were enabled to grow greater in wealth and position, while those who had before but a small share of the good things of this world came in the process to have less. . . . The supposed purification . . . of doctrine and practice was brought about . . .  at the cost of driving a wedge well into the heart of the nation, which . . . established the distinction which still exists and the masses.” (Preface to Cobbett’s History of the Reformation, p. 6.)

The history of this lamentable revolution in England, by which the whole face of a great Catholic nation became permanently disfigured, the great majority of her once happy children plunged in ever-increasing degradation and misery, and her ideals and principles conformed to a non-Christian instead of a Christian standard, is graphically told by the Protestant writer Cobbett, in his History of the Protestant Reformation. “Never,” he writes, “since the world began was there so rich a harvest of plunder.” He tells how gold and silver, books and manuscripts, ornaments, paintings and statuary of priceless value equally with church, monastery and convent fell prey to the satellites of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell:

“The whole country was thus disfigured: it had the appearance of a land recently invaded by the most brutal barbarians: and this appearance it has . . . even to the present day. Nothing has ever come to supply the place of what has been destroyed.” (Cobbett—History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland, edited by Cardinal Casquet (Art and Book Co., London, 1899), chap. vii, no. 182.)

Explaining the social effects of the plunder of the Church, Cobbett writes:

“The Catholic Church included in itself a great deal more than the business of teaching religion . . . and administering the Sacraments. It had a great deal to do with the temporal concerns of the people. It provided  . . . for all the wants of the poor and distressed. . . .  It contained a great body of land proprietors, whose revenues were distributed in various ways amongst the people upon terms always singularly favourable to the latter. It was a great and powerful estate, and naturally siding with the people. . . . By its charity and its benevolence towards its tenants it mitigated the rigour of proprietorship, and held society together by the ties of religion rather than by the trammels and terrors of the Law. (Cobbett, History of the Protestant Reformation, chap. vii, no. 206.)

Dissolution of the Monasteries.—The dissolution of the monasteries, with the resulting confiscation of their property, immediately produced overwhelming distress amongst the multitudes who had been maintained by the resources that the religious bodies had administered. It proved disastrous also to the tenants on the monastic lands, which were probably more than 2,000,000 statute acres in extent. The tenants who had been accustomed to an easy and sympathetic mode of treatment at the hands of the monks, now passed under the power of harsh and exacting landlords. Rack-rents were too often exacted and the numerous exemptions and privileges to which the tenants had been accustomed were withdrawn.

Enclosures and Confiscations.—Again, the common lands, in which the poor of the neighbourhood had from time immemorial possessed common rights, were seized and enclosed in the lords’ demenses; and numberless other hardships, hitherto unknown, now began to press upon the people.

The wanton confiscation of the property of the guilds, hospitals and almshouses, unjust and indefensible even form the Protestant standpoint, was also disastrous to the interests of the poor. The destruction of the religious schools and colleges, in which so many children were educated free of cost, was still another blow. Even the introduction of married clergy, which diverted into another channel the energies and resources that would otherwise be expended on charity, aggravated further the lot of the poor.

Vagabondage in England.—Hence it was that the destruction of Catholicism in England gave rise to the sordid pauperism which has since disfigured English civilisation. Cobbett describes in his own eloquent and vigorous style how England, “once happy and hospitable, became a den of famishing robbers and slaves.” As a result of the plunder of the Church and the destruction of the institutions which had grown up under its influence, the country quickly became filled with the destitute. Immense numbers of these were drive to live as professional robbers. “There were,” writes Hume, “at least 300 or 400 able-bodied vagabonds in every country who lived by theft and rapine, and who sometimes met in troops to the number of sixty and committed spoil on the inhabitants.” As many as five hundred of this expropriated class were sometimes executed in a single year during the reign of Elizabeth.

English Poor Laws.—This state of affairs—a direct result of the Protestant revolt—gave rise to the celebrated Elizabethan leglsation on pauperism, “as novel as it was harsh,” which for the first time standardized pauperism as distinct from poverty. The former was henceforth the status of those who, being destitute of the prime necessities of life, are maintained at the public expense in the parish poorhouses. They are no longer “God’s poor,” to whom as the special representatives of Him Who became poor for men’s sake, special sympathy and even reverence are due. They are now despised outcasts, the pariahs of society. They usually live, or are supposed to live, in the poorhouses, segregated form their wives and children, under a harsh discipline, deprived of the franchise and compelled to wear a special uniform.

The following extracts from Pelgrave will convey a general idea of the spirit which animated the English post-Reformation legislation on mendicancy and poverty:

“It was only towards the middle and end of the 16^th century that measures against it [viz., mendicancy] were enforced, possibly in part owing to the sounder (sic) teachings of the Reformers on the subject. Then we find Southampton ordering that beggars should have their hair cut, and Parliament decreeing punishments on a progressive scale of severity. Whipping, branding, cutting off the gristle of the ear, even death, were the penalties assigned (!) . . . A Consolidating Act of 1713 lays it down that any person wandering about the country, on any one of a long list of pretences, is to be summarily arrested and removed to his settlement, or, if he have one, to be dealt with by the poor law authorities of the parish in which he is apprehened; but previously he may be flogged or set to hard labour, or committed for seven years to the custody of any person who will undertake to set him to work in Great Britain or the Colonies. By the Act of 1744 even women are to flogged for vagrancy and late as 1824 flogging is retained as punishment for “incorrigible rogues.” (Palgrave—Dictionary of Political Economy, vol. iii. Art “Poor Law” p. 154; also art. “Pauperism,” p. 81.)

Such was the spirit introduced by Protestantism into the legislative system of a country that was once the “Dowry of Mary.” (Father Edward Cahill, S.J., The Framework of a Christian State, first published in 1932, republished by Roman Catholic Books, pp. 97-101.)

Consider this for a moment.

Henry VIII threw the poor off the lands on which their ancestors had lived for centuries, and that his wretched, murderous daughter, Elizabeth, by his partner in adultery and bigamy, Anne Boleyn, made sure when she acceded to the throne in 1558 that the penal laws he had enacted against the poor were enforced with vigor that can only be described as diabolically conceived. Modernity was founded on the blood of faithful Catholics, and it has been sustained on the blood of faithful Catholics ever since.

Protestant England abandoned “God’s Poor,” who were believed by the Calvinist strain of Protestantism to be accursed by God rather the subjects of our loving charity, and that abandonment would lead in time to the abandonment of the teaching that children are the natural fruit of human conjugal love. Children became seen as “burdensome” simply because they had been conceived, which, of course, resulted in the widespread acceptance of the surgical assassination of the preborn in their mothers’ wombs.

Although many factors led up to the Protestant Revolution, it is undeniably an historical fact that Talmudists played a key role in undermining the Holy Faith before its outbreak because they understood very well that a divided Christendom would leave to their own triumph over men and their nations over time as it is simple fact that if Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is not recognized as the King over men and their nations that the adversary himself will be their king. There is no middle ground.

Consider the history of the Anabaptists in Europe, whose descendants in heresy are the Southern Baptists, as described by William Thomas Walsh in Philip II and ask yourselves if the United States of America has not suffered—and is not suffering now—from the fatal errors that continue to be held by various Protestant sects from its inception to the present day:

At no time, during the eight years after his return to Spain, could Philip's policy in the Low countries be called tyrannical. He made one concession after another. He assumed the huge and mounting deficit of the government of a rich country. He went to great pains to avoid any undue interference with the lives and privileges of his subjects. As regards religion, he insisted that the Catholic Faith must not be destroyed. What else could a man say of a truth he believed to be divinely ordained?

Even in that respect, considering the times and the anarchical and anti-social tendencies of sixteenth-century Protestantism, he was more lenient than most rulers. It was considered an unusual event, worthy of comment, when a notorious heretic and agitator was burned in Valenciennes in 1563. The man who ordered the execution was not the King, but one of the chief advocates of freedom of worship, the Marquis of Berghes. Jews and heretics acted and spoke as they pleased in Antwerp, without much hindrance. Many of them were Marranos, fugitives from Spain, of whom the Inquisitors in Madrid sent full information.

Granvelle sadly wrote to his friend Perez, “It is laughable to send us depositions made before the Inquisition of Spain so that we can seek the heretics here, as if there were not thousands here to whom we dare say nothing and of whom the King's officers arrest none. Indeed, it is more than a year since a single Calvinist has been arrested in Antwerp. The chief Inquisitor at Antwerp was a rather pathetic fellow, a good studious professor of the University of Louvain with the rare name of Jude Titelmanus (or Tiletanus), who begged to be relieved from his office because the enemies of Christendom mocked and hindered and threatened him and he felt powerless to cope with them.

Philip was lenient, but not from choice. If he had had plenty of money, he probably would have wasted little time in persuasion with the heretics of the north. He understood better than most modern historians the significance of the revolutionary movement. Hence, early in 1563, he sent Margaret a list of suspects in Antwerp, many of them refugees from Spain, and urged her to look into their intrigues; especially those who had thrown stones at the executioner of the notorious heretic Fabricius at Antwerp and then circulated threats of vengeance written in the dead man's blood. He wanted her to give particular attention to one Jean Tulet, fugitive from Bruges and Frankfort, a confessed Anabaptist, and to another named Juan de Moya, “not less pernicious.” The King was informed also that there were in Antwerp “an infinite number of Jews, who assembled in their synagogues, circumcised themselves and performed their ceremonies publicly. He complained also of the open performance, in Antwerp, of some very scandalous comedies “in which they speak ill of my person –a matter of which I would take no notice, if, at the same time, they did not mock our holy Faith and Catholic religion.”

The chief target for the King's intolerance in this important long letter was the “cursed sect of the Anabaptists,” which was extending itself in Holland and Zeeland. “It is a great shame,” wrote Philip, “that this cursed sect which even the heretics of Germany cannot endure, finds a refuge and shelter in my Estates.” The international character of the conspiracy was evident. He was informed that the heretics of the Netherlands were in communication with those of France, and bade her stop this. As for the sect of Anabaptists, he requested her to exterminate the vile thing.

The modern reader who shrinks from all this as another example of medieval bigotry, difficult to understand and impossible to condone, has forgotten who and what the Anabaptists were. To Philip, and to most of the men of his time (including Luther and William of Orange) those fantastic forerunners of the Jacobins of 1792 and the Communists of twentieth-century Russia and Spain were enemies of God and man, whom no one in his sane senses could tolerate.

Philip could remember the time (he was then seven) when Melchior Hoffman, one of those furriers who traveled from one end of Europe to the other, let it be known through Lower Germany and the Netherlands that he was a Prophet to whom the Word of the Lord had come, bidding him to establish the New Jerusalem in Strasbourg. His program was simplicity itself, with some remarkable resemblances to that of Mohammed. He undertook to send through the world from the New Jerusalem a hundred and eighty-four Horseman of Extermination, who with Elias and Enoch should pass through the world with the sword, “vomiting flame to destroy the enemies of the Lord.”

Enoch presently appeared in the person a a baker, John Matthiessen. This latter transferred the New Jerusalem to Munster, in Westphalia, where his emissaries found allies in a cloth merchant name Knipperdollinck, who had been active in propagating Lutheranism, and a tailor of Leyden, on John Bockelsohn or Bokelsoon. So successful was their propaganda in Munster that Knipperdollinck was elected burgomaster, and the city passed into their hands. Bockelsohn now revealed himself as the King of Sion, Ruler of all the Earth, and Son of David, while Matthiessen disclosed that he was the Prophet Moses, come to organize a massacre of all the ungodly.

The Reign of Terror which followed would seem incredible if there were not more modern instances to demonstrate the depths of human degradation and blood-lust. The King of Sion, commanded all gold, silver and jewelry to be turned over to his treasury. Communism was proclaimed, with polygamy, community of women, and world-conquest. Rothmann, an ex-chaplain, had four wives. The King of Sion had sixteen. Mass executions began. The corpses of the ungodly piled up, rotting, in the streets. When the chief wife of the King of Sion objected, he cut of her head in the marketplace before a select group of his Loyalist. There followed a delirium of blood letting, with the usual accompaniments of mass drunkeness, mob insanity, indescribable scenes of sadism and bestiality. This went on until a force of landsknechte took the city and slew the leaders and instigators of the anarchy.

The story of Munster alone, to those who were near enough to it to comprehend its horrors and their causes, explains a great deal about Philip II and other men of his sort. To them it was the logical outcome of any departure from the sane unity of the Catholic Church. No one who knew the facts could separate it from Lutheranism and Calvinism and the ancient hatred of the Talmud. These elements were all bound up together in the Munster experiment. The germ of a sinister and growing chapter in modern history was there. The Catholic who loved Christian order and peace instinctively wished to destroy it before it should spread and destroy the world.

It was enough for Philip that Anabaptists were preaching in the Netherlands; the slaughter, the communism, the burning of churches and the torturing of priests and nuns, the anarchy and sex orgies would follow in due time, as a crisis follows pneumonia. It is doing him no injustice as a man of humane instincts and common sense, therefore, to say that he tolerated the Revolution for several years only because he lacked force with which to suppress it. Yes he did tolerate it. It is unhistorical to pretend that he was a tyrant in any sense in which a man of the sixteenth-century (with no heretical axe to grind) would have understood the word.

The results of his tolerance convinced him more and more that it was a mistake. The heretics were not looking for tolerance, of freedom of worship, or equality, or any of the other fine things they talked about. As Professor Merriman has acknowledged, “before long it became evident that some of the revolutionists would not be content with liberty to exercise their own faith, but were even intent of the destruction of Catholicism.” (William Thomas Walsh, Philip II, published originally in 1937 by Sheed and Ward and republished by TAN Books and Publishers, 1987, pp. 352-355.)

Is there any difference between then and now as the agents of the naturalist “left,” whose amorality, immorality, communism, hedonism, heathenism, and seething hatred for Catholicism seek the elimination of all opposition and the exclusion of any mention of the Catholic Faith and of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour, Christ the King, Himself from public life?

Is there any difference between then and the open call by this Doug Wilson to ban Eucharistic processions and processions in honor of the Mother of God now?

Wake up.

The United States of America was founded on corrupt, decadent Calvinist and Judeo-Masonic and Pelagian principles that are simply manifesting the perfection of the inherent degeneracy at this time. Nothing else. The degeneracy was there the beginning in 1776 and 1787, and it is irresponsible for anyone, especially for a Catholic, to turn a blind eye to this fact.

Once again, true love of one’s country, which is a precept of the Fourth Commandment and of the Natural Law, can never be confused with its idolatry as a force for “good” in the world. True love of country wills her good, the ultimate good of which is her conversion to the true Faith.

Moreover, the contemporary open hatred of Catholicism by Calvinists of the Dispensationalist variety is nothing new at all as it is simply a recrudescence of the hatred that Calvinists and Anglicans had for Catholics in most of the Thirteen Colonies (see Dr. Marian Therse Horvat’s The Catholic Church in Colonial America) and was manifested throughout much of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries in various parts of the country and was exhibited at time by major office-holders, most especially President Thomas Woodrow Wilson.

As is pointed out in Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics, many leading colonists, including Alexander Hamilton, were very alarmed that Quebec Act granted toleration to Catholics in what had been a French colony prior to 1763. It was fear of men such as Hamilton that such “toleration” might be extended to the American colonies, and it was this fear that was a principle motivating factor in the formation of the First Continental Congress in 1774

It was this hatred of Catholics that caused colonists to consider the Quebec Act as “intolerable” as it was a sign, at least to them, that the British were beginning to slacken in their resolve against “popery” when the truth of the matter was the act demonstrated British pragmatism in the face of a populace more numerous and prosperous than were the Acadians who were dispersed in Nova Scotia.

Robert Leckie described the flames of hatred that were fanned by anti-Catholic propagandists in the colonies in the immediate aftermath of the Quebec Act:

This piece of legislation had not only confirmed the French in the free exercise of their religion and the practice of their native law, it had also granted the Quebec government those lands in the west which the English colonies claimed. Now, the colonists fancied themselves surrounded by French-speaking Catholics, the old enemy of former years, and their rage was so unbounded that on October 21, 1774, the [First] Continental Congress addressed a letter to the British people admonishing them for tolerating in America a religion which “has deluged your island in blood, and dispersed impiety, bigotry, persecution, murder and rebellion through every part of the world.”

One again, it was popular to quote Samuel Adams, who had said six years earlier [that is, in 1768]: “I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act or any other acts destructive of civil rights. . . .” Once again, the popular press picked up the old anti-Catholic cudgels, and one journal went so far as to predict: “We may live to see our churches converted into mass houses and our lands plundered by tythes for the support of the Popish clergy. The Inquisition may erect her standard in Pennsylvania and the city of Philadelphia may yet experience the carnage of St. Bartholomew’s Day.” Others, misrepresenting the truth of the Quebec Act, insisted that it actually established Romanism as an official religion, and warned: ‘If Gallic Papists have a right To worship their own way Then farewell to the liberties Of poor America.’

Ministers, of course, were in full voice once more, but so also were John Adams, apparently recovered from his momentary lapse into tolerance, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, the inevitable Samuel Adams, and none other than Washington’s protégé and confidante, Alexander Hamilton, who thundered: “If [Parliament] had any regard to the freedom and happiness of mankind they would not have done it. If they had been friends to the Protestant cause, they would never have provided such a nursery for its greatest enemy . . . They may as well establish Popery in New York and the other colonies as they did in Canada!”

More than the Stamp Act, perhaps more than any other act by Parliament or any British minister, the Quebec Act was a direct cause of the American Revolution. It so inflamed colonial hatred of the mother country that even that staunch and solid Protestant, King George III, was accused of being a Jesuit in disguise, and his statues, from which the rebels later were to melt so many serviceable bullets, were adored with mocking rosaries. Meanwhile, patriots such as Paul Revere did a brisk business in scurrilous engravings which depicted His Majesty and his Ministers clothed in the livery of the Pope of Rome. To the Catholics of colonial America–who actually represented no more than 1 per cent of the total population of three million persons–it appeared that it was time to pull tight the shutters again, and it was this furor of anti-Catholic sentiment that rose about the ears of Father John Carroll when he returned to his native Maryland in 1774. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday, 1970, pp. 45-47.)

Look at those names. John Adams. Samuel Adams. Alexander Hamilton. Paul Revere. These are not men to admire. They hated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church, she that is the one and only means of personal salvation and social order.

They had little to fear, however.

Eager to be accepted by their fellow colonists, the leading Catholics of the colonies did not want to convert them to Catholicism. They simply desired the “freedom” to practice their Faith without persecution which is the only thing that the Quebec Act had guaranteed French Catholics in Quebec. Indeed, one could say that the Quebec Act was an incubator of the heresy of “religious liberty” just as much as had been the approach taken by the first Catholics who had arrived in Maryland in 1634 and the pragmatic tack taken by William Penn, who was no friend of Catholicism, in the Colony of Pennsylvania.

Archbishop John Carroll, who certainly wanted to advance the best interests of the 25,000 or so Catholics who were in the United States of America in the first twenty years of its existence, believed that the religious “liberty” found in the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America would assure the life of the faithful without persecution as had been case in England and Ireland in the two hundred fifty years following the English Protestant Revolution that had been started by King Henry VIII in 1534. Although he was very sincere in this regard, he did not understand that a trap had been set by the adversary to accustom Catholics the ability to practice their Faith while they become “evangelized,” if you will, by the American ways of democracy and egalitarianism:

If any man can be regarded as the Father of the American Church, it is John Carroll of Maryland. Bearer of a respected American name, ordained in a Society which had planted the faith on the shores of the Chesapeake, he took charge of the infant Church as naturally and firmly as a man bringing order to his own household. To the handful of ex-Jesuits demoralized by the suppression of their order he brought inspiration and direction, while guiding the Church from the Penal Age and into the sunlight of religious freedom. John Carroll organized the American Church. Under him, its diverse and disparate elements were unified, and by his establishment of a seminary and schools, its future was assured.

Although his administrative ability was indeed great, coming at a time when it was most needed, his insights into the American character may have been even of more value to the Church. He realized that in the matter of religion the genius of the new American political system was the separation of church and state. His writings and his speeches are full of encomiums not on behalf of toleration, for that presumes an established church, but for complete religious freedom. It may be that, like the Calverts before him, this attitude was born of expediency; that Catholicism had more to gain from religious freedom than any other American creed. True enough, but so also did the Founding Fathers of the United States have the most to gain from independence.

So it was John Carroll who gave the American Church, this congeries of European races forever in conflict over tastes and customs, yet joined together in the unity of the One Faith, its peculiar American stamp. Most astonishing, he foresaw its future, "To dissipate justice," he said in 1785, "time will be our best aid, as also will divine Providence and the experience of our fellow citizens in our devotion to our country and its independence." (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Doubleday and Company, pp. 88-89.)

There is a lot of truth contained in the three paragraphs cited above from the late Robert Leckie's American and Catholic, but not that intended by Mr. Leckie or by the man he praised so much, Archbishop John Carroll, who became the first bishop of the United States of America when he was consecrated on August 15, 1790, by Bishop Charles Walmseley, O.S.B., in Lulworth Castle, Dorsetshire, England. There is, I should say (apologies to the late Ralph McPherson Kiner for using this phrase that he repeated so much in the early days of broadcasting games for the New York Mets in the 1960s), a lot of unintended truth in the three paragraphs cited above.

Archbishop John Carroll did assure the future of the Catholic Church in the United States of America by his embrace of "religious freedom." Carroll's embrace of "religious freedom" in the belief that the civil rights of individual Catholics and the institutional rights of Holy Mother Church was erroneous as "religious freedom" for one is "religious freedom" for all. Lacking an ultimate arbiter ordained by God to resolve disputes between Church and State that were bound to emerge over the course of time as such disputes occurred frequently even during the period of Christendom itself.

Carroll, presaging the giddy optimism of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII concerning the need for an "opening to the world" (Roncalli/John XXIII's much vaunted "updating" or, in Italian, aggiornamento), could not foresee areas of conflict between Church and State in the framework of the "genius" of Constitution of the United States of America. Archbishop Carroll truly believed that the Catholic Church, though she might have suffer persecution from individual Protestants and unbelievers and in states where the roots of "religious liberty" had not yet taken root, would be respected by officials of the Federal government to carry out her apostolic duties without interference.

Quite instead, of course, religious liberty and separation of Church and State, both of which Carroll thought were guarantees of the life of the Church in the United States of America, opened the doors wide to the persecution Catholic immigrants from Ireland began to suffer in the 1820s, although he had died on December 3, 1815, and thus never saw this persecution.

Carroll's naive trust and full-throated endorsement of these twin errors came despite the fact that it was within his own lifetime that the first two papal condemnations of them were pronounced. Those pronouncements did not matter to him. The United States of America was "different." It was "special." It was "exceptional." The "good" and "tolerant" Protestants and Freemasons and others who just wanted to "live together" as Americans would never seek to the double-edged sword of "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" against the Catholic Church, right?

Within ten years of his death, the persecution of Irish immigrants, who were very eager to prove their Americanism, was in fever pitch, and it was endorsed by many politicians, which puts the lie to the contention made by Spadaro and Figueroa that it has been only in more recent decades that “religion” has sought to play a role in politics and public policy decision-making. Nonsense. A particular “religion,” Protestantism, used all of the levers of power available to them to make sure that the “unwashed” Irish immigrants, beholden to a foreign potentate, the pope, were not able to influence politics and policy in this country.

The first means used by Protestants and, it should be noted, Freemasons to blunt the influence of the new immigrants was the standardize public schools into systems of Protestant propaganda and the inculcation of American values sentiments, starting with religious indifferentism itself. 

Massachusetts became the first state to mandate curricular standards on a statewide basis, creating in 1837 the first state Department of Education (thought control) in the United States of America, principally to Americanize the children of Irish immigrants to this country. Horace Mann, who had no initial interest in the subject of education, was recruited to head the new agency. He warmed to to this task with ready abandon, establishing the following guideline over the course of seven years:

(1) Fifth Annual Report (1841). Mann argued successfully that economic wealth would increase through an educated public. It was therefore in the self interest of business to pay the taxation for public education.

(2) Seventh Annual Report (1843). Horace Mann inspected and appraised favorably the Prussian school system. This report led to widespread improvement .of education through the educational theories of Pestalozzi, Herbart and eventually Froebel.

(3) Tenth Annual Report (1846). Mann asserted that education was a natural right for every child. It is a necessary responsibility of the State to insure that education was provided for every child. This report led to the adoption of the first State law requiring compulsory attendance in school in 1852.

(4) Twelfth Annual Report (1848). He presented a rationale for the support of public education through taxation. Society improves as a result of an educated p public. He argued for non-sectarian schools, so the taxpayer would not be in the position of supporting any established religion with which he might disagree in conscience. (Educational Contributions of Horace Mann)

The development of Horace Mann's thought was influenced heavily by the "Prussian Education System" that had its origins in the Eighteenth Century and whose own "evolution" over the course of the decades thereafter convinced him to use it as a model for Massachusetts, which, in turn, could be a model to "standardize" his brainwashing standards for the rest of the nation. Indeed, Mann, who belonged to the extinct species of naturalist organized crime known as the Whig Party, convinced his fellow party adherents to become "true believers" in the "Prussian Education System." Mann even traveled to Prussia in 1843 to see the system for himself. The People's Republic of New York was one of the first to follow the model that Mann established in the neighbor statist stronghold of Massachusetts, and it is absolutely no accident at al that these two states remain two of the most hostile states to home schooling parents in the United States of America at this time (Maryland, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont round out the ranks of the states whose regulations are designed to make home schooling very difficult as parents are monitored at every turn).

One of the keys to the "Prussian Education System" was the passage of laws to compel the attendance of children in state-run institutions of thought-control. The Prussians of the Eighteenth Century, however, were simply implementing the idea of a former Augustinian monk, a man named Martin Luther, who believed that it was necessary to require children to go to school in order that they learn how to read the Protestant version of the Bible  to make sure that all remnants of Catholicism could be eradicated from the German states influenced by his revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church and to organize society under the Social Reign of Christ the King, which, of course, Luther, much like another German, a priest from Bavaria who was ordained on June 29, 1951 (Father Joseph Ratzinger), rejected out of hand and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes was wrong both in theory and in fact.

By the way, the likes of Horace Mann, much like Luther three hundreds years before him, desired compulsory so that those children of Catholic immigrants would be exposed to the "truth" in the blasphemous "King James" version of the Bible. We must remember that each and every Protestant "bible" is worthless it contains false translations and omit Sacred Books contained in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, thereby blaspheming God the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration each word contained in Holy Writ was written. Do not permit yourselves into believing one of naturalism's greatest lies: that it doesn't matter what version of the Bible one reads. This belief is from the devil himself.

Compulsory attendance in state-run institutions of thought-control was essential to American "educational reformers" such as Horace Mann for many of the same reasons, although the Prussian system that they admired so much had made explicit what was implicit in Luther's call for "compulsory education:" the belief that the civil state has the "right" and thus the "duty" to educate children, not parents, thereby violating the precepts of the Fourth Commandment and denying the graces inherent in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that equip every father and mother with the graces necessary to fulfill the primary end of their wedded union in Christ the King: the procreation and education of children.

Alarmed that the efforts to “educate” the children of Catholic immigrants might not be enough, many influential Protestants in the 1840s and 1850s sought to blunt their growing political influence. So much for the false, self-serving narrative spun by Spadaro and Figueroa that “religion” has had more of an influence on politics and public policy in recent decades than in the past here in the United States of America.

Indeed, an entire political party, the Know-Nothing Party, arose after the election of 1852, to oppose the political influence of Catholic immigrants, and police in several cities simply looked the other way as riots against Irish Catholics broke out in such places as Boston, Massachusetts, Providence, Rhode Island, and Louisville, Kentucky:

The Know-Nothings, a new society, began to be organized about 1852. Theirs was a secret order, which bound its members by a solemn oath. It was formed, ostensibly, to defend the rights of the poor against European invasion. “America is for Americans” was its slogan. With this object in view, they endeavored to have severe naturalization laws enacted against the new arrivals from Europe, and exclude citizens born of foreign parents from holding public offices. In reality, these fanatics combated no so much the foreign immigration as the fidelity of Europeans, especially the Irish, to the Church of Rome. To base calumnies they added murder, pillage, incendiarism, and, before long, found an occasion for opening the campaign. In the spring of 1853 the Papal Nuncio to Brazil, Archbishop Bedini, arrived in New York, bringing the Sovereign Pontiff’s blessing to the faithful in the United States. He was charged, moreover, to investigate the conditions of Catholicism in the great Republic.

The Know-Nothings saw in this mission a grave attack upon American liberties. Their newspapers denounced the perfidious and ambitious intrigues of Rome. The apostate priest Gavazzi came from London and placed his eloquence at the service of his follow-socialists and friends. For several months he followed the Envoy form one city to the other, vomiting forth lies, threatening him with dire reprisals, and through fiery denunciation endeavored to stir up the masses against the “Papists.”

From vituperation and abuse there was but one step to action. On Christmas day in Cincinnati a band of assassins attempted to do away with the Nuncio. Driven off by the police, they revenged themselves by burning him in effigy. This odious scene was enacted in several towns. Conditions pointing to renewed attacks, Archbishop Bedini was forced to depart after a short sojourn in the United States. But the hostilities did not cease with the departure of the Nuncio. The campaign lasted for three years, attended by violent outrages and attacks, and armed forces had presently to interfere to defend life and property. A witness of these disorders, Father [Pierre Jean] De Smet draws a gloomy picture of existing conditions in his letters. “The times are becoming terrible for Catholics in these unhappy States. Nowhere in the world do honest men enjoy less liberty.”

“European demagogues, followers of Kossuth, Mazzini, etc., have sworn to exterminate us. Seven Catholic churches have been sacked and burned; those courageous enough to defend them have been assassinated.” “The future grows darker, and we are menaced from every side. If our enemies succeed in electing a President from ranks–until now the chances have been in their favor–Catholics will be debarred from practicing their religion; our churches and schools will be burned and pillaged, and murder will result from these brawls. During this present time [1854] over twenty thousand Catholics have fled to other countries seeking refuge from persecution, and many more talk of following them. The right to defame and exile is the order of the day in this great Republic, now the rendezvous of the demagogues and outlaws of every country.”

No laws were enacted for the protection of Catholics, and in some States the authorities were openly hostile. “The legislators of New York and Pennsylvania are now busy with the temporal affairs of the Church, which they wish take out of the hands of the Bishops. These States have taken the initiative, and others will soon follow. In Massachusetts, a mischief-making inquisition has just been instituted, with the object of investigating affairs in religious houses. In Boston, a committee of twenty-four rascals, chosen from among the legislators, of which sixty are Protestant ministers, searched and inspected a convent of the Sisters of Notre Dame de Namur.”

While making a tour of the Jesuit houses with the Provincial, Father De Smet more than once braved the fury of the fanatics. In Cincinnati, a priest could not show himself in the street without being insulted by renegade Germans, Swiss, and Italians. In Louisville, thirty Catholics were killed in an open square and burned alive in their houses. Those who attempted to flee were driven back into the flames at the point of pistols and knives. Even in St. Louis, several attempts were made in one week upon the lives of citizens. The Jesuits were not spared. At Ellsworth, Maine, Father Bapst was taken by force from the house of a Catholic where he was hearing confessions, was covered with pitch, rolled in feathers, tied, swung by his hands and feet to a pole, and carried through the city to the accompaniment of gross insults. (Father E. Lavaille, S.J., The Life of Father De Smet, S.J. (1801-1873): Apostle of the Rocky Mountains, published originally in 1915 by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, New York, and reprinted by TAN Books and Publishers in 2000 with the additions and the subtitle, “Apostle of the Rocky Mountains.” pp. 262-265.)

This was not taught in American history classes fifty years ago when I was in high school, and it is certainly not being taught today, and is not something that “Father” Spadaro and Senor Figueroa want to admit as it would defeat their effort to show that an “ecumenism of hate” is what binds Catholics to “evangelical fundamentalists” in support of President Donald John Trump and his policies. Behold the true “ecumenism of hatred” that existed in the Nineteenth Century in the United States of America that was directed at Catholics by an alliance of Protestants, Jews and Freemasons.

Interestingly, the aforementioned the Know Nothing Party (or American Party), was actually formed in 1845 by the first Talmudist elected to Congress, Lewis Charles Levin. Levin formed the Know Nothings not to oppose immigration in general but to protest the influx of German and Irish Catholic immigrants to the United States of America. In other words, the Know Nothing Party was founded by a Jew to oppose the immigration of Catholics to this country because he wanted to preserve the "American way," which, of course, provides plenty of space for the devil and his false religions, starting with Talmudism, of course, while seeking to intimidate Catholics in this country from knowing anything about, no less proclaiming openly, the Social Reign of Christ the King over men and their nations. Americanism is thus an expression of the Talmudic ethos that celebrates error while scorning the truth incluing Truth Incarnate Himself. 

Part of the larger "Know Nothing" movement (named not for fictional Sergeant Hans Schultz of Hogan's Heroes, but for members of this movement saying that they "knew nothing" about its activities when questioned) that sponsored mob riots against Catholics in various areas, including the attacking and killing of individual Catholics and the burning of Catholic church buildings and schools. Know Nothings won control of the Massachusetts General Court in the elections of 1854, being successful as well in electing their candidates as mayors of the cities of Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California. Ohio was a particular stronghold of the Know-Nothings, who nominated former President Millard Fillmore, who had succeeded to the presidency of the United States of America upon the death of President Zachary Taylor on July 9, 1850, and served the remainder of Taylor's term (which ended on March 4, 1853), for president in 1856.

The Blaine amendments, named after the virulently anti-Catholic James G. Blaine (R-Maine), who, in additional to being the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States of America in 1884, served in the United States House of Representatives (where he was the Speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875), in the United States Senate and served two different terms in two different presidencies as the United States Secretary of State, prohibited the use of public funding of any kind to subsidize schools operated by religious organizations.

That notwithstanding, however, none other than the infamous Americanist, Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, sought to encourage Catholics to join the leave the Democratic Party, which had served as the means by which Catholic immigrants from all over Europe, especially after the War between the States to achieve upward economic mobility and political influence, in order to join the Republican Party precisely because he, Ireland, wanted to show his support for public schools as the means to “Americanize” Catholic immigrants from Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.

John Ireland was also not above interfering in political matters outside of the State of Minnesota.

To wit, As is well known, Bishop Bernard McQuaid of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, conflicted with the infamous Americanist archbishop of Saint Paul, Minnesota, John Ireland, who took it upon himself in the Spring of 1894 to write letters to the members of the New York State Legislature to urge them to vote for Father Sylvester Malone, a supporter of suspended priest Father Edward McGlynn, who promoted the Knights of Labor, which had been condemned by the Vatican in a letter Elzear-Alexandre Cardinal Tascherau, the Archbishop of Quebec from March 19, 1871, to April 12, 1898 (a condemnation Americanists contended applied only to Canada and thus defied, later petitioning the Vatican successfully in the person of the longtime Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, James Cardinal Gibbons to reverse), rather than for McQuaid for what was called the "Catholic seat" on the New York State Board of Education. Malone won, angering McQuaid and the Archbishop of New York, Michael Corrigan, another anti-Americanist of Irish descent. Ireland was a support of public schools as a means of "Americanizing" Catholic students. McQuaid and Corrigan wanted the Faith to be protected against the secularizing elements of a culture that they knew posed dangers to the life of the faithful. Sound familiar.

The McQuaid-Ireland dispute occurred when all diocesan bishops, quite of course, had ordinary, territorial jurisdiction, something that no traditional Catholic bishop possesses (unless one accepts the claims made by Bishop Louis Vezelis, who, ironically, is located in Rochester, New York). And the McQuaid-Ireland dispute flared up anew later in 1894 when Ireland absented himself from his archdiocese for a month to campaign for Republican Party candidates in the State of New York, appearing alongside such notorious Masons as then United States Senator William McKinley (R-Ohio) and the then head of the United States Civil Service Commission, Theodore Roosevelt. McQuaid denounced Ireland from the pulpit in Rochester. That was a little much for the papal delegate, Monsignor (later Cardinal) Francesco Satolli, who wrote to McQuaid to tell him to stop the public criticism of Ireland, who was, to be sure, no favorite of Rome's.

The late Dr. Justin Walsh, who died in 2011, wrote the following in The Angelus seventeen years ago about this dispute:

On the First Sunday of Advent in 1894 (the third Sunday after Election Day) Bernard McQuaid, "mitered and with crozier in hand," rose in his cathedral to denounce the interloper from Minnesota. "John Ireland was guilty of unseemly action contrary to episcopal dignity, and one which is a scandal for right-minded Catholics," McQuaid began. He continued: 

If we are to believe the newspapers, Minnesota stands in great need of being purified and His Grace might have found ample scope there for the exercise of his political zeal. But...it was not love of good government which induced Archbishop Ireland to spend so many weeks in New York, away from his diocese, where the law relative to residence obliged him to be.

No, McQuaid insisted, Ireland came "to acquit himself of a debt to the Republican party [for electing Fr. Malone to the board of regents.]" McQuaid added that an appeal to Rome might be necessary to teach the "conspirators" - his term for Ireland, Gibbons, Keane, and O'Connell - to stay home and tend their respective flocks. To forestall action by Rome, Ireland wrote to Propaganda [i.e., The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, established for dealing with all ecclesiastical affairs in missions of the Latin rite throughout the world and having jurisdiction over all foreign missions - Ed.] about McQuaid's pique: "My letters, had...more effect than all the effort he and his friends made in their own state. He was defeated, and he won't forgive me for that."

It was clear by 1895 that Americanist views were incompatible with orthodox Catholicism. In the spiritual realm Keane was hell-bent on fostering interdenominational congresses. In the temporal realm Ireland, and to a lesser extent Gibbons, had peculiar penchants for meddling in things better left alone by Churchmen. In such a situation action by Rome was inevitable. It came on January 6 when Leo XIII addressed Longinqua Oceani to American bishops. (Heresy Blossoms Like a Rose.)

Catholic bishops in the Twentieth Century in Oregon and North Dakota had to oppose state-sponsored efforts to impose Masonically-inspired oppression upon Catholics.

To wit, members of the Grand Orient Masonic lodge of Oregon, using all of their considerable clout, joined forces with their great ally, the Ku Klux Klan, and others to sponsor an initiative (a referendum that, if approved by voters, becomes law as though it had been passed by a state legislature) to amend the Compulsory Education Act to, in effect, outlaw Catholic schools in the State of Oregon by mandating that all children be "educated" in public schools. This effort was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, June 1, 1925. (See ).

The State of North Dakota, long a den of Masonic activity (Freemasons in the newly formed state legislature in 1889 sought to "liberalize" existing divorce laws as a means of destabilizing the family, something that was fought by the founding bishop of the Diocese of Jamestown (later Fargo), North Dakota, John Shanley), passed an anti-garb law in 1947 to require priests and consecrated religious to wear lay clothing when teaching in public schools. The Freemasons of North Dakota hoped to force a crisis of conscience for priests and religious that would prompt the two bishops of North Dakota from prohibiting their clergy and religious to teach in public schools. Bishops Leo Dworschak of Fargo and Vincent Ryan of Bismarck got permission from the Holy See for the clergy and the religious to wear lay clothing, thereby avoiding that crisis of conscience:

When the "anti-garb" campaign was waged in North Dakota in 1948, Bishop Ryan led in the defense of the rights of those wearing religious garb to teach in the public schools of the state. The opposition was well organized and had carried on vigorous campaign before the Catholics of the state were aware of their activities. Bishop Ryan rose to the challenge, and his efforts to defeat this measure were very nearly successful. In conjunction with Bishop Leo Dworschak of the Fargo Diocese, he appealed to the Holy See for permission for the sisters to teach in lay clothing. The victory for the anti-Catholics and the bigots was rendered empty when the Holy See granted their request. Friends and enemies alike had a new admiration for Bishop Ryan following this campaign. (History of Bishop Vincent J. Ryan.)

Moreover, Catholic bishops supported statists such as Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a virulent anti-Catholic and the thirty-third degree Freemason named Franklin Delano Roosevelt time and time again. After all, it was the "party" that mattered.

Consider, for example, the commitment of President Thomas Woodrow Wilson, who was President of the United States of America from March 4, 1913, to March 4, 1921 (although the spent the last eighteen months of his second term suffering the effects of a severe stroke that he had suffered while campaigning for the Treaty of Versailles in 1919), to liberalism as he rebuffed the pleas of Father Francis Clement Kelley, who met with him in the White House as a representative of the American bishops, to help the Catholics in Mexico who were being persecuted and killed by the anti-clerical revolutionaries who had been brought to power with the help of American financial and military assistance:

Wilson replied: 'I have no doubt but that the terrible things you mention have happened during the Mexican revolution. But terrible things happened also during the French revolution, perhaps more terrible things than have happened in Mexico. Nevertheless, out of that French revolution came the liberal ideas that have dominated in so many countries, including our own. I hope that out of the bloodletting in Mexico some such good yet may come.'

Having thus instructed his visitor as to the benefits which must perforce accrue to mankind out of the systematic robbery, murder, torture and rape of people holding a proscribed religious conviction, the professor of politics [Wilson] suggested that Father Kelley visit Secretary of State Williams Jennings Bryan, who expressed his deepest sympathy. Obviously, the Wilson administration was committed to supporting the revolutionaries. All efforts of Catholics to succor their coreligionists across the border were to prove fruitless, as they were to prove once again in 1924, when the fiercest persecution of all was begun by President Plutarco Calles. (Robert Leckie, American and Catholic, Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1970, p. 274.) 

Bishop Kelley described Wilson's steadfast support for the Carranza regime and justified his refusal to assist Catholics being persecuted in Mexico:

Carranza was chosen by the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, to be the President of Mexico. When the Turks massacred the Armenians the Christian world shouted its protest. When the Russians murdered the Jews the shout was repeated. No people shouted louder against the massacres than the Americans and the English. About the horrors perpetrated against the Catholics of Mexico few voices were raised. President Wilson told an Indianapolis audience that he would allow the Mexicans to shed all the blood they wanted. He told me in his office in the White house that, as the inspiration of democracy had come out of the French Revolution, which had shed as much blood as Carranza and his men, perhaps something good would come out of the Mexican debacle. His words were offered in consolation. I thanked him and withdrew. (Bishop Francis Clement Kelley, Blood-Drenched Altars, published originally in 1935 by the Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1987, p. 237.)

No, the current outbreak of anti-Catholicism by the likes of Douglas Wilson (see Catholic Rights Under Christian Nationalism) and Raphael Edward Cruz is absolutely nothing new, and the irony of this that the supposedly “Christian” hatred of Catholicism was, as noted above, shared entirely by many of founding fathers, most of whom were rationalists, Deists, and “freethinkers”:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Unembarrassed by attachments to noble families, hereditary lines and successions, or any considerations of royal blood, even the pious mystery of holy oil had no more influence than that other of holy water: the people universally were too enlightened to be imposed on by artifice; and their leaders, or more properly followers, were men of too much honour to attempt it. Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind. (President John Adams: "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," 1787-1788)

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away {with} all this artificial scaffolding…" (11 April, 1823, John Adams letter to Thomas Jefferson, Adams-Jefferson Letters, ed. Lester J. Cappon, II, 594).

Can a free government possibly exist with the Roman Catholic religion? (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 19, 1821)

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! (John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, quoted in 200 Years of Disbelief, by James Hauck)

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."—James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr„ April I, 1774

". . . Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which pervades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."—James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratification of the Constitution, June 1778

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."—-James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance," addressed to the Virginia General Assembly, 1785

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December, 1813.)

May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them. (Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Roger Weigthman, June 24, 1826, ten days before Jefferson's death. This letter is quoted in its entirety in Dr. Paul C. Peterson’s now out-of-print Readings in American Democracy. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall-Hunt, 1979, pp. 28-29.)

This dripping contempt for the true Faith by the rationalists of the Eighteenth Century was the foundation of the following anti-clerical, Judeo-Masonic founders of the Republic of Texas in 1836:

“When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country [Mexico], which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, in which every interest is disregarded but that of the army and the priesthood, both the eternal enemies of civil liberty, the everready minions of power, and the usual instruments of tyrants.” (Texas Declaration of Independence, March 2, 1836.)

As I will never cease to remind the readership of this site, a Constitution that is based on no need to even recognize Christ the King, no less submit to His Social Kingship over men and their nations by means of the Indirect Power of His Catholic Church in all that pertains to the good of souls, will produce men who have respect neither for the laws of God or the true meaning of its own text.

Despite the failings of this writer, which are so many, I have tried to defend the Social Reign of Christ the King in The Wanderer (1992-2001), The Remnant (2002-2006), Catholic Family News (2004-2006), and in the pages of the printed pages of Christ or Chaos (1996-2004) and on this website (February 20, 2004, to the present) in well over one thousand five hundred commentaries and in several books.

Catholics must stand for Christ the King with the same courage displayed by the English and Irish martyrs and, among so many others, the Cristeros of Mexico and of Spain who proudly exclaimed Viva Cristo Rey! in life and as they faced their martyrdoms for the honor and glory of God and with total love for His Most Blessed Mother, and it is not in the least bit “anti-Semitic” to do so.

Part two of this commentary will elaborate on how Protestantism itself was inspired in large measure by the Talmudists for whom today’s Protestants carry water so eagerly and that, while individual Protestants may be Christians if they were properly baptized, Protestantism is not Christianity as, to quote Father Frederick William Faber, “Where there is no Mass there is no Christianity.

There is no such thing as Judeo-Christian “values,” but there is also no such thing as a generic Christianity as, to quote Father Frederick William Faber. “Where there is no Mass there is no Christianity,” a truth that Father Robert Mader reiterated seventy years later when he wrote:

That we are vitally permeated with the actual presence of our King is characteristic of our religion. Catholicism is not merely a marvellous teaching, a wonderful moral system, an unexcelled organization. It is more. It is the real, living, present Jesus with His Mystical Body, i.e., the faithful united with Him. It is not so much a theory as it is something living. A Catholicism that would not be united with Jesus would be nothing but a phantom in the mist, a soulless shell with another name and another outlook than its own.

That is why it is perhaps dangerous to faith if we use misunderstood words like Christianity and Catholicism somewhat too often. Let us repeat: Catholicism is not a theory, not a teaching, Christianity is the invisible but truly living presence of Christ among us, the Kingship of Jesus. To be Catholic means to stand in vital communication, through faith, hope and love, with the invisibly present Redeemer, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.

Thus it is that there, where Jesus is not present in the Host and no living communication with Him takes place, there can be no living Christianity. In that moment when Luther rejected the Sacrament of the Altar and therewith Christ present, he rejected Christianity.

Christianity equals Christ with the Christians! What does Jesus do when He is with the Christians? The same thing he did for three years in Palestine: be King. We often have no real concept of the life and the effectiveness of Jesus in the tabernacle. We think that because our eyes and ears are too weak to observe the divine-human activity of Jesus in the tabernacle, only the stillness of death reigns there. That is a gross deception.

His activity depends neither upon the greatness of his work room nor the loudness of sounds. What gigantic work is done by sun and nature, although no eye and ear can observe its progress! The Jesus of the tabernacle is the same as the Jesus in the Gospels, the same in Holiness, in Might, in Wisdom, in Omniscience, in Mercy and in Love. St. Paul writes in Hebrews (13:8) that "Jesus Christ, yesterday, and to-day; and the same for ever."

So what is Jesus doing in the tabernacles? He exercises His priestly office. The King prays. He holds perpetual adoration. He holds services in the name of the parish. He celebrates the Holy Mass. The visible Mass is over with the Ite missa est. The invisible Mass continues day and night since Jesus is present in the tabernacle, as an offering of praise and thanks and reparation. The parish priest is obliged by canon law to "read" Holy Mass for the congregation every Sunday. That is called "application." Jesus does more than the visible priest. He prays and makes application for HIs people continually.

What else Jesus do in the tabernacle? He exercises His office Shepherd. He does pastoral care of souls. The King keeps watch. The eyes of the Good Shepherd never sleep. They see everything that happens in the parish, in the houses and in the hearts. The eyes of the Good Shepherd take note of every longing for help and every danger. The Heart of the Good Shepherd beats for all with unending love, and that is the soul of pastoral work.

What else does Jesus do in the tabernacle? He exercises the preaching office, a preaching that penetrates deeper than just to the ears and without the preaching of the clergy in the pulpit remains nothing but sounding brass and tinkling cymbal. The King speaks. The angels are His parish helpers. They visit the individual souls of the parishioners on assignment from the Saviour and with the power of the Holy Spirit. That proves what ought to be proven: that Christianity is not empty theory. Christianity is Christ with the Christians! The King lives!

Christianity should not be anything for us than it was for the Apostles: a living relationship to Jesus present. This personal relationship expresses itself in faith, hope and love for Jesus the King. Above all it is the Christian with Christ through love! Take for example in thought. Love expresses itself in its domination of the entire world of our thoughts. The world of thoughts usually is preoccupied with business, pleasure, the latest sensation, exaggerated worries and often just dirt. It is materialistic, money-grabbing, sensual, alcoholic, worldly. It is the thought of a baptized heathen. If we want to call ourselves Christians, then we ought to think of nothing but Christ Who is present among us. Neither work nor politics, neither the press nor sports ought to occupy us in the least in comparison to the occupation of our memory and our understanding by Jesus. That's Christianity!

The same applies to the world of feelings. Measure your temperature in Church, near to Jesus. It is much lower than when you are in a theater, a restaurant, in the office. That's not normal. You must have a heart defect. And today it seems that cardiac defects have become the mass epidemic of Christianity. We love everything, only not for Jesus. I repeat: that's not normal! A patient whose temperature has sunk so low is very ill. Christianity is the Christian with Christ. Not only with his thoughts and his feelings, but in all his doings must he be with Him. The church, the house where Jesus lives, ought to be a stronger attraction for every genuine Christian than any other house in in town, even during the week. Tell me where I can find you most often, and I will tell you who are are.

We want to be Christians again! Yet a little while, and we shall see Jesus. The Invisible will become visible. The hidden King of the tabernacle is Judge over punishment or reward for eternity! The great movement of decision over heaven and hell has come. What is heaven? The place of blessed happiness in love. It is clear that whoever does not know the great law of Christianity, the law of love between the Christian and Christ, cannot enter into heaven. Not want to love Christ, Who is Love, is the sins of sins! Whoever does not love will be damned. We want to become Christians again. We want to love again, love and die for Christ the King. (Father Robert Mader, Cross and the Crown, edited and translated by Dr. Eileen Kunze, Sarto House, 1999, pp. 92-94.)

As we know, the ineffable Sacrifice of the Cross is not offered universally today as it was when Father Mader wrote nearly a century ago.

Our Lord is not present in His Real Presence in most tabernacles in the world today.

The new religion wrought by conciliarism has reduced the days of mandatory fast and abstinence during Lent to two, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

That’s it.

Forty days of Lent.

Only two days of mandatory fast and abstinence under penalty of sin.

A religion that eschews the necessity of fasting and abstinence during Lent has nothing to do with Catholicism. Nothing. The lack of sacrifice in the conciliar sect has led to a loss of faith in the souls of millions and to the actual celebration of sin in one conciliar-controlled parish, school, university and seminary after another. The “popes” of the conciliar sect have celebrated “religious liberty” and the “separation of the Church and State,” which were the goals of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, and had already produced a mess in the world by the time that the “Second” Vatican Council took place.

Catholicism is not the “fullness of Christianity.” It and it alone IS Christianity:

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

We need to pray and work for the conversion of all men to the Catholic Church, and for this, of course, we need the help of Our Most Blessed Mother, especially through her Most Holy Rosary (and especially the Sorrowful Mysteries during these days of Passiontide), so that the following promise that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque three hundred twenty-seven years ago will be fulfilled sooner rather than later:

"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.)

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, 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 Beloved, 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 Balathasar, pray for us.

Appendix

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., on Monday in Passion Week

The Station, at Rome, is in the church of Saint Chrysogonus, one of the most celebrated Martyrs of the Church of Rome. His name is inserted in the Canon of the Mass.

COLLECT

Sanctify, O Lord, we beseech thee, our fasts, and mercifully grant us the pardon of all our sins. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

EPISTLE

Lesson from Jonas the Prophet 3:1-10

In those days: The word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: Arise and go to Nineveh, the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. And Jonas arose, and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was a great city of three days’ journey. And Jonas began to enter into the city one day’s journey: and he cried and said: Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be destroyed. And the men of Nineveh believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least. And the word came to the king of Nineveh: and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Nineveh, from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste anything: let them not feed, nor drink water. And let men and bests be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn everyone from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and the Lord our God had mercy on his people.

The Church’s intention in this day’s lesson is to encourage us to earnestness and perseverance in our penance. Here we have an idolatrous city, a haughty and debauched capital, whose crimes have merited the anger of heaven. God threatens it with his vengeance: yet forty days, and Nineveh and its inhabitants shall be destroyed. How came it that this threat was not carried into effect? What was it that caused Nineveh to be spared? Its people returned to the God they had left; they sued for mercy; they humbled themselves and fasted; and the Church concludes the Prophet’s account by these touching words of her own: “And the Lord our God had mercy on his people.” They were Gentiles, but they became his people because they did penance at the preaching of the Prophet. God had made a covenant with one only nation—the Jews; but he rejected not the Gentiles, as often as they renounced their false Gods, confessed his holy name, and desired to serve him. We are here taught the efficacy of corporal mortification; when united with spiritual penance, that is, with the repentance of the heart, it has power to appease God’s anger. How highly, then, should we not prize the holy exercises of penance put upon us by the Church during this holy Season! Let us also learn to dread that false spirituality which tells us that exterior mortification is of little value: such doctrine is the result of rationalism and cowardice.

This passage from the Prophet Jonas is also intended for the Catechumens, whose baptism is so close at hand. It teaches them to have confidence in this merciful God of the Christians, whose threats are so terrible, but who, notwithstanding, turns from his threats to forgive the repentant sinner. These Catechumens, who had hitherto lived in the Nineveh of paganism, were here taught that God, even before sending his Son into the world, invited all men to become his people. Seeing the immense obstacles their Gentile ancestors had to surmount in order to receive and persevere in the grace offered them, they would bless God their Savior for having, by his Incarnation, his Sacrifice, his Sacraments, and his Church, facilitated salvation for us who live under the New Testament. True, he was the source of salvation to all preceding generations: but with what incomparable richness is he the source of ours? The Public Penitents, too, had their instructions in this Epistle. What an encouragement for them to hope for pardon! God had shown mercy to Nineveh, sinful as it was, and sentenced to destruction: he would, therefore, accept their repentance and penance, he would stay his justice, and show them mercy and pardon.

GOSPEL

Sequel of the holy Gospel according to John 7:32-39

At that time: The Rulers and Pharisees sent ministers to apprehend Jesus. Jesus therefore said to them: Yet a little while I am with you: and then I go to him that sent me. You shall seek me, and shall not find me: and where I am, thither you cannot come. The Jews, therefore, said among themselves: Whither will he go, that we shall not find him? Will he go to the dispersed among the Gentiles, and teach the Gentiles? What is this saying that he hath said: You shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am, you cannot come? And on the last and great day of the festival, Jesus stood and cried, saying: If any man thirst, let him come to me, and drink. He that believeth in me, as the Scripture saith, “Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.” Now this he said of the Spirit which they should receive who believed in him.

The enemies of Jesus sought to stone Him to death, as we were told in yesterday’s Gospel; today they are bent on making him a prisoner, and send soldiers to seize him. This time, Jesus does not hide Himself; but how awful are the words he speaks: I go to Him that sent me: you shall seek me and shall not find me! The sinner, then, who has long abused the grace of God, may have his ingratitude and contempt punished in this just, but terrific way — that he shall not be able to find the Jesus he has despised: he shall seek, and shall not find. Antiochus, when humbled under the hand of God, prayed, yet obtained not mercy. (2 Maccabees 9:13) After the Death and Resurrection of Jesus, while the Church was casting her roots in the world, the Jews, who had crucified the Just One, were seeking in each of the many impostors, who were then rising up in Judea, and fomenting rebellions, which led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Surrounded on all sides by the Roman legions, with their temple and palaces a prey to flames, they sent up their cries to heaven, and besought the God of their fathers to send, as he had promised, the Deliverer! It never occurred to them that this Deliverer had shown himself to their fathers, to many even of themselves; that they had put him to death, and that the Apostles had already carried his name to the ends of the earth. They went on looking for him even to the very day when the deicide city fell, burying beneath its ruins them that the sword had spared. Had they been asked what it was they were awaiting, they would have replied that they were expecting their Messias! He had come and gone. You shall seek me, and shall not find me! Let them, too, think of these terrible words of Jesus, who intend to neglect the graces offered them during this Easter. Let us pray, let us make intercession for them, lest they fall into that awful threat of a repentance that seeks mercy when it is too late to find aught save an inexorable Justice.

But, what consoling thoughts are suggested by the concluding words of our Gospel! Faithful souls, and you that have repented! listen to what your Jesus says, for it is to you that He speaks: If any man thirst, let him come to me and drink. Remember the prayer of the Samaritan woman: Give me, Lord, to drink of this water! This water is divine grace: come, and drink your fill at the fountains of your Savior, as the Prophet Isaias bids you. (Isaiah 12:3) This water gives purity to the soul that is defiled, strength to them that are weak, and love to them that have no fervor. Nay, our Savior assures us, that he who believes in Him shall himself become as a fountain of living water, for the Holy Ghost will come upon him, and this soul shall pour out upon others of the fullness that she herself has received. With what joy must not the Catechumen have listened to these words, which promised him that his thirst should soon be quenched at the holy Font! Jesus has made himself everything to the world he has come to save: Light to guide us, Bread to nourish us, a Vine to gladden our hearts with its fruit, and lastly, a Fountain of Living Water to quench our thirst.

Bow down your heads to God.

Grant, Lord, we beseech thee, to thy people, health both of body and mind, that being constant in the practice of good works, they may always be safe under thy protection. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

This being the day on which the Church offers to our meditations the history of the Prophet Jonas preaching to Nineveh, we subjoin a new fragment from the Hymn of Prudentius on Fasting. It is the passage where he relates the life of this Prophet, and the repentance of the wicked City.

HYMN

I fain would now, in holy fasting’s praise, tell, from the book of truth, how God our Father, with his wonted love, repressed the fire and thunder of his wrath, and spared the city doomed to be destroyed.

In ancient days, a city flourished, whose mighty power drove her into haughtiness extreme. Criminal indulgence and lewd corruption had destroyed the morals of her people, so brutalizing them, that they left the worship of the God of heaven.

At length, the tired patience of God’s long-suffering gave way to justice, which moves his hand to prepare his arrowed lightnings, and storm-voiced clouds, and jarring whirlwinds, and thunderbolts that shake the vault of heaven.

Yet does he grant them time for penitence, wherein to tame and break the wickedness of their lust and wonted follies. Mercy, that waits for prayer, holds back the blow of anger; a brief delay puts oft the day of doom.

The meek Avenger sends a herald of the coming woe: it is Jonas the Prophet. But he, well knowing that the threatening Judge is prone to save, rather than to strike and punish, stealthily to Tharsis flees.

A noble vessel was prepared for sail, whereon he takes his place. The anchor weighed, the vessel puts from shore. She ploughs the deep, when, lo! a storm. Endangered thus, the crew would know the cause, and casting lots, it falls upon the fugitive, the Prophet.

Of all, the only one in fault is he. His guilt is clear, the lot has told the tale. Headlong is he cast, and buried in the deep; and as he falls, a whale’s huge jaw receives the Prophet, burying him alive in the sepulcher of his capacious womb.

There, for three nights, does Jonas lie unhurt; which passed, the sick monster heaves him from his womb, just where the murmuring billows break upon the shore, and whiten the salty rocks with foam. The Prophet comes forth, — wondering, but safe.

Compelled, to Nineveh he turns his hurried steps. He chides, he censures, he charges her with all her shameless crimes, saying: “The anger of the great Avenger shall fall upon you, and speedily your City shall be made a prey to fire. Believe the prophecy I speak.”

Then to the summit of a lofty hill he goes, from whence to see the thickened clouds of smoke rising from the ruined heap, and gaze upon the pile of unpitied dead. Suddenly there grows upon the spot an ivy-tree, whose knotted branches yield a shaded cover.

But scarce had the mournful City felt the wound of her coming grief, than deathly fear possesses her. Her people and her senate, her young and old, youths pale with panic, and women wailing loud, scamper in groups along the spacious walls.

It is decreed: the anger of Christ shall by fasting be appeased. Henceforth, they spurn to eat. Matrons doff their trinkets, and vest in dingy garbs, and, for their wreaths of pearls and silks, sprinkle ashes on their hair.

Patricians put on robes of somber hue; the people, weeping, take hairshirts for their dress; disheveled maidens clad in skins of beasts, and hide their faces in veils of black. Children, too, make the dust of earth their bed.

The king himself from his shoulders tears the Cossian purple robe, and for the diadem that decks his brow with emeralds and gems, strews grim ashes on his head.

None think of drink or meat. Among the youths, not one would touch the food prepared. Nay, babes are kept from their mothers’ breasts, and in their cradles, wet with tears, these little fasters lie.

The herdsman, too, pens up his flock with care, lest, left to roam, the dewy grass or rippling fount should tempt them to transgress the universal fast; but now, pent up, their moans rebellow through their prison-cave.

Thus is God appeased, his anger brief restrained, and threatened evil yields to proffered love: for mercy leans to pardon men their sins, if they but humbly pray ; and when they weep, she makes herself their friend.

Let us close the day with these stanzas in honor of the holy Cross. We have taken them from the Triodion of the Greek Church.

HYMN

(Feria VI. mediæ Septimanæ.)

Purified by our fast, let us, to the praise and glory of the Omnipotent God, venerate that most holy Cross, whereon Christ, with his arms stretched forth, overcame the power of our enemy.

The saving Cross, that sanctifies us, is now exposed before our eyes. Let us draw nigh, having purified our body and our soul.

Cleanse me, O merciful Savior, by the fire of thy commandments, and grant that I may contemplate thy saving Passion, and lovingly adore it, having the Cross for my protection and defense.

Having our hearts purified by the waters of our fast, let us, with faith, embrace the wood of the Cross, on which Christ was crucified, and gave us the water of immortality.

Having thy Cross as our sail, we have already winged our way half through the saving voyage of our fast. Lead us by the same, O Jesus our Savior, into the haven of thy Passion.

Moses on the mount was a figure of thee, O holy Cross, (when he prayed with his outstretched arms,) unto the destruction of the Amalekites. Grant that we, who sign thee on ourselves, and lovingly gaze on and venerate thee, may, by thy power, put our spiritual enemies to flight. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Monday in Passion Week.)

Appendix B

From Jorge Misrepresents the Prophet Jonas as a Champion of Illegal Immigration

The following excerpts are from Jorge Misrepresents the Prophet Jonas as a Champion of Illegal Immigration, February 18, 2016, and Jorge Misrepresents the Prophet Jonas as a Champion of Illegal Immigration, part two, February 20, 2016, starting with an excerpt from an address the late non-lamented Argentine Apostate he gave in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, in support of the nonexistent right of citizens of one nation to break the just laws of another nation by crossing its borders illegally with the expectation of being rewarded with debit cards, an unlimited array of social services and, in many instances, complete impunity for the violent acts that some of their nation commit upon American citizens:

In the second century Saint Irenaeus wrote that the glory of God is the life of man. It is an expression which continues to echo in the heart of the Church. The glory of the Father is the life of his sons and daughters. There is no greater glory for a father than to see his children blossom, no greater satisfaction than to see his children grow up, developing and flourishing. The first reading that we have just heard points to this. The great city of Nineveh, was self-destructing as a result of oppression and dishonour, violence and injustice. The grand capital’s days were numbered because the violence within it could not continue. Then the Lord appeared and stirred Jonah’s heart: the Father called and sent forth his messenger. Jonah was summoned to receive a mission. “Go”, he is told, because in “forty days Nineveh shall be overthrown” (Jon 3:4). Go and help them to understand that by the way they treat each other, ordering and organizing themselves, they are only creating death and destruction, suffering and oppression. Make them see this is no way to live, neither for the king nor his subjects, nor for farm fields nor for the cattle. Go and tell them that they have become used to this degrading way of life and have lost their sensitivity to pain. Go and tell them that injustice has infected their way of seeing the world. “Therefore, go Jonah!”. God sent him to testify to what was happening, he sent him to wake up a people intoxicated with themselves.

In this text we find ourselves before the mystery of divine mercy. Mercy, which always rejects wickedness, takes the human person in great earnest. Mercy always appeals to the latent and numbed goodness within each person. Far from bringing destruction, as we so often desire or want to bring about ourselves, mercy seeks to transform each situation from within. Herein lies the mystery of divine mercy. It seeks and invites us to conversion, it invites us to repentance; it invites us to see the damage being done at every level. Mercy always pierces evil in order to transform it.

The king listened to Jonah, the inhabitants of the city responded and penance was decreed. God’s mercy has entered the heart, revealing and showing wherein our certainty and hope lie: there is always the possibility of change, we still have time to transform what is destroying us as a people, what is demeaning our humanity. Mercy encourages us to look to the present, and to trust what is healthy and good beating in every heart. God’s mercy is our shield and our strength.

Jonah helped them to see, helped them to become aware. Following this, his call found men and women capable of repenting, and capable of weeping. To weep over injustice, to cry over corruption, to cry over oppression. These are tears that lead to transformation, that soften the heart; they are the tears that purify our gaze and enable us to see the cycle of sin into which very often we have sunk. They are tears that can sensitize our gaze and our attitude hardened and especially dormant in the face of another’s suffering. They are the tears that can break us, capable of opening us to conversion.

This word echoes forcefully today among us; this word is the voice crying out in the wilderness, inviting us to conversion. In this Year of Mercy, with you here, I beg for God’s mercy; with you I wish to plead for the gift of tears, the gift of conversion.

Here in Ciudad Juárez, as in other border areas, there are thousands of immigrants from Central America and other countries, not forgetting the many Mexicans who also seek to pass over “to the other side”. Each step, a journey laden with grave injustices: the enslaved, the imprisoned and extorted; so many of these brothers and sisters of ours are the consequence of a trade in human beings.

We cannot deny the humanitarian crisis which in recent years has meant the migration of thousands of people, whether by train or highway or on foot, crossing hundreds of kilometres through mountains, deserts and inhospitable zones. The human tragedy that is forced migration is a global phenomenon today. This crisis, which can be measured in numbers and statistics, we want instead to measure with names, stories, families. They are the brothers and sisters of those excluded as a result of poverty and violence, drug trafficking and criminal organizations. Being faced with so many legal vacuums, they get caught up in a web that ensnares and always destroys the poorest. Not only do they suffer poverty but they must also endure these forms of violence. Injustice is radicalized in the young; they are “cannon fodder”, persecuted and threatened when they try to flee the spiral of violence and the hell of drugs. Then there are the many women unjustly robbed of their lives.

Let us together ask our God for the gift of conversion, the gift of tears, let us ask him to give us open hearts like the Ninevites, open to his call heard in the suffering faces of countless men and women. No more death! No more exploitation! There is still time to change, there is still a way out and a chance, time to implore the mercy of God.

Just as in Jonas’ time, so too today may we commit ourselves to conversion; may we be signs lighting the way and announcing salvation. I know of the work of countless civil organizations working to support the rights of migrants. I know too of the committed work of so many men and women religious, priests and lay people in accompanying migrants and in defending life. They are on the front lines, often risking their own lives. By their very lives they are prophets of mercy; they are the beating heart and the accompanying feet of the Church that opens its arms and sustains.

This time for conversion, this time for salvation, is the time for mercy. And so, let us say together in response to the suffering on so many faces: In your compassion and mercy, Lord, have pity on us ... cleanse us from our sins and create in us a pure heart, a new spirit (cf. Ps 50). (Jorge Mario Bergoglio Blasphemes the Prophet Jonas-and thus God he Holy Ghost.)

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was saying that those who propose to erect walls to safeguard their nation’s borders so as to assure an orderly process of migration in the interests of national security and public health and safety are analogous to the citizens of Ninive, who were, to paraphrase the false “pope,” “self-referential” and thus “close in on themselves.”

This is a total distortion and thus a gross misrepresentation of why God had sent Jonas to warn the people of Ninive about the impending destruction of their city if they did not convert.

The king and the people of Ninive were guilty, among other things, of the very same sins of the flesh that Bergoglio treats with some lightness, if not outright jocularity, in the name of his false concept of “mercy.”

None other than Saint Jerome himself wrote the following commentary on the Verse Five of the Third Chapter of the Book of the Prophet Jonas:

5 ¶So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.  LXX: similar.  Nineveh believed but Israel did not believe; the foreskin believed, but circumcision remained without faith.  First of all the men of Nineveh believed who had arrived at the age of Christ[1]: they announced a fast and dressed in sackcloth, from the greatest to the smallest of them.  This regime and clothing is very worthy of penitence, so that those who had offended God through their indulgence or lust appeased him by condemning all that they had previously offended with.  Sackcloth and fasting are the weapons of penitence, the rescue of sinners.  First of all fasting, then sackcloth; first of all what is not seen, then what is visible; the one is always shown to God, the other sometimes to man. And if it were necessary to remove one from the two then I would rather keep fasting without sackcloth than have sackcloth without fasting.  Elder men give the example which pertains to youths: for no one is without sin; and if his life only lasted one day, the years of his life would still be counted[2].  For if the stars are not pure before God, they are still more so than a worm or putrefaction, and those who are held by the sin of Adam, the great offender.  Note here too the order, which is well written: God commands the prophet, the prophet proclaims to the city.  First of all the men believe, announce fasting, and then everyone puts on sackcloth.  The men do not announce the putting on of sackcloth, but only the fasting.  All the same, with reason, those to whom penitence has been proscribed wear sackcloth and fast so that empty stomach and mourning clothes give the Lord more of an opportunity to remit. (See Saint Jerome on the Book of the Prophet Jonas.)

The preaching of Jonas had nothing to do with refusing to show “mercy” to those who are encouraged and enabled to break the just laws of another nation by fleeing from corrupt regimes in their nations without respecting and complying with those laws. Bergoglio’s contention in this regard is a pure projection onto Sacred Scripture a meaning that is not there.

The people of Ninive gave up their lives of indulgence and lust and were willing to do repentance for their sins by fasting and wearing sackcloth. The counterfeit church of conciliarism believes that outward signs of penance, such as those that were observed by Catholics universally until the end of the “Second” Vatican Council belongs to “another age in the history of the Church”:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen, General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 1997.)

There must be a new language for a new religion and its false liturgical rites.

Moreover, the conversion of the king and the citizens of Ninive is a prophecy of the conversion of the Gentiles and the reprobation of the Jews after Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Whose three days in the tomb after His Crucifixion on Good Friday was prefigured by Jonas having spent three days in the belly of a whale, had Resurrected from the dead on Easter Sunday, Ascended to His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal God the Father’s right hand in Heaven forty days thereafter, and the beginning of the missionary work of the Apostles following the descent of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, upon them (and Our Lady and the other disciples gathered in the Cenacle). Our Lord permitted this preaching to be conducted among the Jews for a thirty-seven year period prior to using the pagan Romans to disperse them across the face of the earth as a punishment for their hardness of heart and to make them a means of perpetual chastisement of those who belong to his Catholic Church.

Father George Haydock commented on the conversion of the Ninvites as a prophetic prefiguring of the conversion of the Gentiles, who responded to the preaching of the Gospel, and the reprobation of the Jews who responded with blasphemies and persecutions:

Ver. 1. Troubled. His concern was lest he should pass for a false prophet; or rather lest God's word, by this occasion might come to be slighted and disbelieved. (Challoner) --- He conjectured that God would spare the penitent Ninivites, and feared lest prophecies should be deemed uncertain. But this doubt is solved by observing that some are conditional, (chap. iii. 4., and Jeremias xviii. 8.) as it proved here. When the people relapsed, they were afterwards destroyed, Nahum i., &c. (Worthington) (Chap. iii. 10.) --- The conversion of Ninive was an earnest of that of the Gentiles. (Calmet) --- This being so intimately connected with the reprobation of the Jews, (Haydock) the prophet was grieved at the misery of the latter, (St. Jerome) which our Saviour and St. Paul bewailed. (Father George Haydock Commentary on Jonas 4:1.)

Senor Jorge does not like to hear anything about the reprobation of the Jews. Indeed, he believes that the only ones who are reprobated are believing Catholics who are too “self-referential” and who do such silly, outdated things as believe everything that Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial with certainty and thus without a shadow of any doubt. He also believes that those who do respect false gods and bow down before them have no place in Heaven, showing himself to be ignorant of the fact that Our Lord caused a tempest in the sea to rock the ship that carried Jonas (and from which he would be cast into the sea to be swallowed whole in the belly of a whale) because of the idolatry of those onboard the ship who saw Jonas as reproach to their sins. As know, though, Jorge loves to show signs of respect and admiration of false religions and their symbols. So did his predecessor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Saint Jerome himself explained the first verse in chapter four of the Book of Jonas as follows:

IV. 1 ¶But it displeased Jonah exceedingly and he was very angry. [And he prayed unto the LORD, and said]  LXX: 'Jonah was saddened by a great sadness, and he was confounded.  And he prayed to the Lord, and he said'.  Seeing the crowd of gentiles enter[1], and that fulfils what is written in Deuteronomy: "they annoyed me with these gods who are not gods, so I will annoy them with a people that is not one; I shall anger them like a foolish nation"[2].  He despairs of Israel's safety and is hit by a great suffering which breaks out in words.  He shows the signs of his suffering and more or less says this: 'I have been the only one of the prophets chosen to announce my people's ruin to them through the safety of others.'  Thus he is not sad that the crowd of gentiles should be saved, as some people believe, but it is the destruction of Israel.  Moreover our Lord wept for Jerusalem and refused to take bread away from the children to give to the dogs[3].  And the apostles preach firstly to Israel, and Paul wishes to be anathema for his brothers who are Israelites[4] and have adoption, glory, alliance, promises and law, and from whom the patriarchs come, and from them too according to the flesh came Christ.[5]  But suffering in vain, which is interpreted as the word Jonah, he is smitten by suffering, and 'the spirit is sad until death'[6].  For lest the people of the Jews should die, he has suffered as much as he was in power.  The name of the sufferer also is appropriate to the story, since it signifies the toil of the prophet, weighed down by the miseries of his journey and the shipwreck.  (See Saint Jerome on the Book of the Prophet Jonas.)

I think that readers should see pretty clearly that Jorge Mario Bergoglio engaged in another of his epic feats of blasphemy by attempting to portray the Book of Jonas as having anything to do with justifying illegal immigration. Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe that those who are steeped in lives of impurity and indecency need to convert and to do penance. No, as noted before, the only people who are in need of “conversion” are those who resist and reject the doctrinal, moral, liturgical and pastoral revolutions of conciliarism. Also in need of conversion, he believes, are those in public life who are possessed of the stupid idea that nations have a right founded in the Natural Law to safeguard the integrity of their borders.

To be sure, the plight of those who are suffering from cruel and corrupt regimes in Central America—and for the corruption and poverty that are rife in so many parts of Mexico—is genuine. Granted. It is truly astounding that Bergoglio speaks in generalities about problems in Central America without naming the governments responsible. It is easier to blame the "yanqis" for being "without mercy" than it is to deal with the proximate root causes of a wave of illegal immigraiton that has been welcomed and enabled by Republican presidential administrations at the behest of the United States Chamber of Commerce and by Democratic presidential administations as a means to alter the demographics of the United States of America and thus keep themselves in power for decades to come as to continue the work of "transforming" this country to look more like "the rest of world."

No matter the suffering of those who are seeking to cross over into the United States of America illegally, the plight of those who believe themselves forced to flee from their native lands, however, has nothing to do with the Book of Jonas, which has everything to do with the conversion of sinners from their ways of lust and indulgence and of the necessity for Holy Mother Church to seek out the lost sheep of the flock by preaching repentance as the precondition to becoming beneficiaries of the ineffable mercy of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, Who offered Himself up once on the wood of the Holy Cross in atonement for ours sins, an act of propitiation that is perpetuated in an unbloody manner when a true priest offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

My advice, for whatever it is worth to those few people who read this website any longer, is this: pay no attention to the man who calls himself “Pope Francis,” who is truly a chastisement visited upon us by God to chastise us for our own sins and our own infidelities.

May we, consecrated to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, continue to pray our Rosaries this Lent to console the good God for the crimes of our age and, of course, to make reparation for our sins that have contributed far more than we are willing to admit to the worsening of the problems in the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal as well is in the world-at-large.

Keep praying. Keep sacrificing. Keep fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima Message in your own lives.

From Part Two:

Bergoglio’s deconstruction of the following verses from Chapter Twelve of the Gospel according to Saint Matthew thus gave “official” voice to his own self-serving, Talmudic “open-borders” approach to migration so as to avoid their plain meaning, which is evident from the very words of Our Lord Himself as recorded therein:

[36] But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. [37] For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. [38] Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master we would see a sign from thee. [39] Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. [40] For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

[41] The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here. [42] The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here. [43] And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none. [44] Then he saith: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. [45] Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this wicked generation. (Matthew 12:36-45.)

Although explications on these verses as found Father George Haydock’s commentary on the New Testament and in the writing of Saint Jerome were given yesterday, it is nevertheless useful to provide Father Maurice Meschler’s beautifully clear explanation of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s telling the Pharisees that the conversion of the Ninivites upon hearing the preaching of Jonas was a prefiguring of the conversion of the Gentiles after they, the Jews, had rejected Him:

On the same occasion some of those present asked our Saviour for a sign from heaven in ratification of His mission. This demand had already been made on a former occasion (Mark viii. 11. Matt. Xvi. I.), and this mystery is in many respects similar to that. According to St. Mathew the demand was made by Pharisees and scribes (Matt xii. 38); according to St. Luke, by “others” among “the multitudes” (Luke xi. 14-16); but in any case they were Pharisees in sentiment, though not so malicious as those who ascribed the miraculous power of Jesus to the devil. They wish to avoid the duty of believing, by requiring extraordinary signs. What they demand is, as in the former case, “a sign from heaven,” which was quite superfluous and useless, because our Saviour had worked miracles enough since then (and indeed immediately before this), and because this request was prompted by the same bad intention as the former had been. Perhaps it was made by the same persons as on the former occasion, and very likely just because they had then met with a refusal they hoped to expose Him again, to excuse themselves and to palliate their unbelief by His rejection of their demand. It was probably for this reason that they made it before all the people. Our Saviour designates the reason which prompted it, in this case as in the former, as bad and blameworthy, as unbelief in short, saying that only “an evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign” (Matt. xii. 39. Luke xi. 29), i. e. a generation which has fallen away from

God and lost the faith. We will here speak only of what is new in this reply of our Saviour.

OUR SAVIOUR PROMISES THE SIGN OF JONAS

On the first occasion our Saviour had simply refused to give a sign (Mark viii. 12). Now He promises one, and a very great and glorious one, too; namely, the sign of Jonas (Luke xi. 29 30. Matt. Xii. 39 40). Jonas was in several respects a type of our Saviour, especially by his prophetic office; but also by his being cast into the sea to propitiate God and save the crew, and lastly by his marvelous deliverance out of the body of the fish. Our Saviour lays especial stress upon this last resemblance, thus indicating His glorious Resurrection from the dead as the miracle which was to become the principle sign of His divine mission.  In truth, the Resurrection from the dead as the miracle which was to become the principal sign of His divine mission. In truth, the Resurrection is a far greater miracle than the deliverance of Jonas; it is not merely “a sign from heaven,” but to heaven, the sign of signs and the seal of all miracles.

OUR SAVIOUR PREDICTS THE JUDGEMENT OF UNBELIEF.

By the miracle of Jonas our Saviour predicts His own Death and Resurrection. By both He will become a sign to the Jews, as Jonas was a sign to the Ninivites by his apparent death and deliverance (Luke xo. 30); but with this difference, that the Ninivites believed, but the Jews do not and will not believe. Our Lord therefore announces to them the judgment and their own rejection, whilst the Gentiles will be received into the kingdom of God.

Our Saviour bases this judgment upon two reasons. First, upon the depravity and wickedness of the Jews. By His reference to Jonas, He indicates one of the worst – perhaps the worst of all – periods before the double captivity, namely that of Elias and Eliseus. Corruption was almost universal, in spite of the miracles wrought by these two prophets. It had for its consequence the Assyrian captivity (Eccli. xlviii. 13-16). The Israelites were the worse than the Gentiles, among whom the prophets Elias, Eliseus, and Jonas found credence. Our Saviour also cites the example of the Queen of Saba (3. Kings x. 1), who, induced by the fame of Solomon's wisdom, came from a great distance with presents in order to do him homage and to learn from him to know the true God. Thus the heathens – the Ninivites and the Queen of Saba – will rise up in the judgment against the Jews, accuse them, confound and convict them by the example of their desire for truth, their penance and high esteem of God's grace (Luke xi. 31 32. Matt xii. 41 42). The rejection of Israel and the reception of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God is hereby sufficiently expressed. But the thought was intolerable to the Jews, that the Gentiles into the kingdom of God is hereby sufficiently expressed. But the thought was intolerable to the Jews, that the Gentiles should have even equal rank and equal rights with themselves in the kingdom of God. – Secondly, our Saviour bases the sentence of condemnation, pronounced upon Israel, upon the greatness of the marks of grace which it had despised, by saying with reference to Himself: “Beyond more than Solomon . . . more than Jonas here” (Matt. Xii. 41 42. Luke xi. 31 32). Jonas, with his gift of prophecy, his apparent death and deliverance, was indeed only a faint image of our Saviour; as was Solomon also, with all his royalty, wisdom, riches and power.  By the allusion to Solomon our Saviour reminds the Jews of the most glorious period of the kingdom of Israel; and yet its splendor vanishes before what Israel now experiences, sees and hears. The Head of all the prophets and kings is now there, the true “first born, high above the kings of the earth” (Ps. Lxxxviii. 28). All the more therefore to the Jews deserve condemnation for their indifference, unbelief, and resistance of such graces. This resistance is strikingly emphasized by the threefold contrast, which gradually rises to a climax: a heathen woman and the Jews; the “ends of the earth” and “here;” Solomon, Jonas, and the Son of Man.

OUR SAVIOUR EXPOSES THE CAUSE OF THEIR UNBELIEF

With the intention of exposing the cause of their unbelief, our Saviour made use of a parable. The master of a house places a candle upon a high candlestick, that it may give light. But the eyes of those for whom it is to shine must also be clear, if they are to see. If this is the case, then their whole body, so to speak, sees and becomes light; if not the entire man will be in darkness, in spite of the light set up. All then depends upon our own eyes, and therefore our Saviour admonishes us: “take heed therefore that the light” – i.e. the organ and source of light and vision, the yes – “which is in thee, be not darkness” (Luke xi. 33-36. Matt. V/ 15; vi. 22).

The same thing is true of the interior eye, the eye of the soul, i.e. the power discerning and receiving supernatural truth. It is not enough that the truth gives us light; the eye of the mind must be clear and untroubled, in order to recognise this truth where its light shines out. Then it will enlighten the entire man, and he will be able to comprehend all the strength and beauty of the heavenly light, as a ray of eternal truth. But if the mind is dull and clouded it does not see the truth, and the entire man remains in darkness. This interior darkness comes from the will, the irregular passions and wickedness, which do not allow reason and grace to have their due. The light is set up; it shines with a bright radiance, and yet the blind do not see it. But the cause of their not seeing it does not lie in the light, but in the interior blindness of men.

The most important thing in this mystery is the public and solemn announcement of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus as the principal proof of His divine mission and doctrine, though this announcement is somewhat obscure as yet and given under the shadowy figure of the typical Jonas. By this as well as by the allusion to Solomon the typical character of the Old Testament is again acknowledged and declared, and a splendid light is thrown upon our Saviour, Who unites in His own Person all the splendor of the world of types, and eclipses it. The relation of the will and the passions to faith is also of great importance. Faith presupposes the good will to believe, and this is very clearly and strikingly taught in this short parable.  (Father Maurice Meschler, S.J., The Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, The Son of God, in Meditations, Volume II,Freiburg Im Breisgau 1928 Herder & Co., Publishers to the Holy Apostolic See, pp. 11-15.)

There is nothing in the Book of Prophet Jonas concerning the plight of illegal immigrants. That Jorge Mario Bergoglio sought to manipulate the text of Sacred Scripture for his own ideological purposes, knowing full well what he was doing in the midst of an American presidential election cycle, is shameful and a blasphemous offense to the One under Whose Divine inspiration every word of Sacred Scripture was written, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Bergoglio does not believe that the Jews have been reprobated by Our Lord for their unbelief as he, Bergoglio, believes that the Old Covenant exists in a parallel manner with Our Lord’s New and Eternal Covenant. Bergoglio has prayed out of the blasphemous Talmud. He has participated in Talmudic ceremonies. Much like his predecessor before him, Ratzinger/Benedict, he has learned from the “insights” of Talmudic “scholars.” And as been documented on this site so many times in the past, Jorge Mario Bergoglio castigates as “anti-Semites” anyone who doubts that God still looks favorably upon Judaism as a religion worthy of honor and respect. It is not, and this makes “Pope Francis” one of the most virulent anti-Semites in the world today as he leaves Talmudists in their unbelief by refusing to seek their conversion, pays his respects at the tomb in Jerusalem of Theodore Herzl, the founder of international Zionism, a movement that infiltrated the ranks of various Protestant sects before getting a foothold in many quarters amongst Modernist/New Theology Catholic “scholars” and, among so many other things, as he hides his pectoral cross so as not to offend the Jews when in their presence.

Among the "anti-Semites," of course must be numbered Popes Eugene IV and Pius XII:

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.)

28.That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Night and day, ladies and gentlemen. The night of the matter comes from the adversary and is promoted by the counterfeit church at the behest of its Talmudic masters. The light and truth of the matter is from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the very Light of the world.

The Old Covenant has been superseded. It has the power to save no one. Anyone who contends that it does is a heretic. There are not two “parallel paths” to salvation.

Lest we become puffed up with pride, however, and forget that the gift of the Catholic Faith can be lost, Father Benedict Baur, while providing a similar reflection on the meaning of the Gospel passage read at Holy Mass on Ember Wednesday, reminded us that we might be reprobated as well if we refuse to quit our sins and our worldliness, thus showing ourselves to be every bit as much as Our Lord’s enemies as the Jews to whom He explained the preaching of the Prophet Jonas to the Ninivites:

“As He was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold His mother and His brethren stood without, seeking to speak to Him” (Gospel). With Mary, the mother of Jesus, who gathers us today about her in her sanctuary (the stational church for the Mass today is St. Mary Major in Rome), we come to Jesus as He speaks to the multitudes in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We must listen carefully to His words. He tells of the high vocation to which we are called by baptism, and He warns us lest we should prove unworthy of this high calling.

“The men of Ninive (pagans) shall rise in judgment with this generation [the chosen people of Israel] and shall condemn it; because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas; and behold a greater than Jonas is here. The queen of the South [of Saba] shall rise in judgment against this generation and shall condemn it; because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon here” (Gospel). The chosen people would have nothing to do with their Savior when He came to them. They rejected Him, and therefore they themselves were rejected. We who are of the Gentiles have been chosen in their place. Mary and our Holy Mother the Church lead us to Him. In baptism we were made His brothers and sisters and were joined to Him in a union of prayer, in a union of life and spirit. From that moment we are bound to do the will of the Father.

“Behold the handmaid of the Lord” (Luke 1:28). Christ and His blessed mother had but one ambition, and that was to do the will of the Father. When Mary asked to see her Son, Jesus stretches His hand toward His disciples and says” “Behold my mother and My brethren; for whosoever shall do the will of My Father that is in heaven, He is My brother and sister and mother” (Gospel). To be a Christian is to be a brother of Christ, to have the same will, the same desires, the same burning zeal to accomplish the will of the Father. Have we really understood the implications of our baptism? Have we sought the will of the Father before all else?

The chosen people renounced their inheritance in spite of the abundant graces and the miraculous guidance they had received from God. In spite of the preaching of the prophets and the frequent warning of God, in spite of the revelations of the holy books and their possession of the true faith, they failed to recognize and accept the promised Messias. The long-awaited Redeemer “came unto His own; but His own received Him not” (John 1:11). Israel repudiated its Savior and condemned Him to a most cruel death. How could such an action be possible? Yet it is possible and is a warning to us. Our having been called by baptism, our possession of the faith and membership in the true Church, is no guarantee against infidelity or apostasy. “He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). The enemy, the impure spirit, never sleeps. “Your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour” (1 Pet. 5:8). “And when the unclean spirit is gone out of a man [at the time of our baptism or after a good confession], he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. The he saith: I will return into my house from whence I came out; and coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished [by grace and the beginning of virtue]. Then he goeth and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there; and the last state of that man is made worse than the first. So shall it be also to this wicked generation” (Gospel).

We, too, can prove unfaithful to our vocation, lose our faith, and fall away. How many examples of apostasy do we not have in the history of the Church, in the annals of religious houses, and even among the clergy! For this reason the Church presses upon us the urgency of self-examination, penance, and meditation during the holy season of Lent. In the lessons of Matins, two excellent examples are presented for our imitation. They are Moses and Elias. Moses withdraws from the world to the heights of Sinai. There amid the clouds, high above the lowly plains where other men idle away their time, he gave himself to fasting for forty days. In quiet communion with God he receives the Ten Commandments. Elias also fasts for forty days, and then food is given to him that enables him to make a pilgrimage to the mountain of God. During Lent, we should, like Moses, withdraw from the world to spend our time in conversation with God. Like Elias, strengthened by the divine food of the Eucharist, we should abstain from the pleasures and vanities of secular life, and make our way steadfastly and courageously to the Mountain, which is Christ.

Our hearts are filled with gratitude for the great grace that has been given to us in baptism. We should renew our desire and or resolution to accomplish the will of the Father. “I will meditate on Thy commandments which I have loved exceedingly; and I will lift up my hand to Thy commandments which I have loved” (Offertory). Let God’s will be done in all things and before all things. Then we shall truly be the brothers and sisters of Christ, one in spirit with Him. In our prayers today we include all of our brethren, that God may give them the grace to prove faithful to their vocation and to remain faithful children of the Church, unflinching in their devotion to her.

“He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). “Be sober and watch; because your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour. Whom resist ye, strong in faith. . . . But the God of all graces, who hath called us to His eternal glory in Christ Jesus, after you have suffered a little will Himself perfect you and confirm you and confirm you and establish you” (1 Pet. 5:8-10). Give us strength, O God, to resist all temptation to escape all sin, and to embrace every grace. (Father Benedict Baur, O.S.B., The Light of the World, translated by Father Edward Malone, O.S.B., Volume I, B. Herder Book Company, St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, 1953, pp. 324-326.)

These are incredible times in which to live. Much fear abounds in the hearts of men about the forces surround us and have poisoned every single aspect of popular culture bar none. This is all the work of Judeo-Masonry (for a meaning of what that phrase means, please see Bowing Down Yet Again To Those Who Hate Christ the King, part one and Bowing Down Yet Again to Those Who Hate Christ the King, part twoBowing Down Yet Again to Those Who Hate Christ the King, part two). It was to remind us mortal creatures, so prone as we are to seeing the immediacy of the moment without thinking in prophetic terms that what we fear from those who hate Christ the King and His true Church are the means that God has appointed for all eternity to save our poor souls, that our battle is not with the prices of this world that Saint Paul the Apostle wrote the following in his Epistle to the Ephesians:

Put you on the armour of God, that you may be able to stand against the deceits of the devil. For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and power, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high place. Therefore take unto you the armour of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and to stand in all things perfect. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of justice, And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace:

In all things taking the shield of faith, wherewith you may be able to extinguish all the fiery darts of the most wicked one. And take unto you the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit (which is the word of God). By all prayer and supplication praying at all times in the spirit; and in the same watching with all instance and supplication for all the saints. (Ephesians 6: 11-18.)

We should not fear anything in this world, not from the civil state and not from the counterfeit church of conciliarism. We must be prepared for martyrdom, both figuratively and literally, in order to remain steadfast apostles of Christ the King and Mary our Immaculate Queen, trusting that our few acts of reparation, offered in love to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, will help to plant a few seeds for the end of this era of chastisement and the resurrection of the Church Militant on earth.

There is great peace to be had when one recognizes that the Catholic Church is responsible for nothing of the outrages committed by its counterfeit ape of conciliarism. The jaws of Hell have not prevailed against the Church. We must simply do our part as the consecrated slaves of Our Lord through Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to practice True Devotion to Mary as we endeavor to fulfill as best we are able to do so by means of the graces the He sends to us through His Most Blessed’s loving hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces.