The Endless Battle Between the False Opposites of Conciliar Revolutionaries

The rapidity of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s becoming a parody of even the zaniest “mainline” Protestant sect should come as no surprise whatsoever. We are merely witnessing the manifestation of the inherent degeneracy of conciliarism’s false doctrines and sacramentally barren liturgical rites. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only accelerating the pace at which the evolutionary process of accustoming Catholics to the conciliar revolt against Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals becomes impossible for any “counterrevolutionary” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to turn back. The die has been cast. Public opinion, such as it is, is squarely on the side of what appears to be Jorge’s revolution but is only the “final act” of a play that opened to reviewers when Angelo Roncalli stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Tuesday, October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude.

The madness of the present moment is such that the seriousness of Mortal Sin and its consequences upon the souls of sinners and upon the good order of men and their nations is now a subject of derision not only by the worldly wise but by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and many of his “bishops” within the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Those who sin unrepentantly are to be shown “mercy” without reforming their lives. Those who seek to denounce sin, especially the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance, must be mocked with scorn as “cold-hearted,” “rigoristic” “Pharisees” who seek to “cage” or to “tame” the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

We are living at a time when believing Catholics, who, despite their own sins and failings, believe in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, have been demonized by the lords of Modernity in the world and the lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Believing Catholics who seek to defend moral truth in the midst of the world do even any true allies in the quarters of what passes for the “hierarchy” of what they believe to be is the Catholic Church. Sin and its celebration are “in.” Condemnation of sin and its enshrinement in civil law and celebration in popular culture is “out,” forbidden.

Although there have been times of persecution from the lords of the world and from various heretics and infidels throughout Holy Mother Church’s history, Catholics who believe in moral truth are now being attacked by what they think is the “pope” from inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber, and from local “bishops” in all too many isntances. There are no “friends” in the Vatican to come to the “rescue” of such Catholics.

Much like police forces in the Western world who have been trained to protect baby-killers and harass and threaten those praying Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary and/or engaging in sidewalk counseling outside of the killing centers—and are being used at this time to engage in outright repression of dissenting thought (see        ), the conciliar cavalry has ridden off to the defense of those who used to be the objects of occasional slaps-on-the-wrist for putting into question or denying truths contained in the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

Gone are the days when Catholics can “write to Rome” to complain about some outrageous statement or action by a conciliar “bishop” or one of his priests/presbyters, although some truly poor souls continue to grasp at straws whenever the “pope” issues a perfunctory statement that is said to be “pro-life.”

No, these are the days of the neo-Montinians, the days of those who are the direct successors of Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin, John Cardinal Dearden, Richard “Cardinal” Cushing, Francis Cardinal Spellman, Francis Mugavero, John Quinn, John Roach, John Cody, Joseph Fiorenza, Daniel Pilarczyk, Peter Rosazza, William Borders, Matthew Clark, Daniel Leo Ryan, John May (of Saint Louis, Missouri), Raymond Hunthausen and, among so many others, Walter Sullivan. The counterfeit church of conciliarism has finally dumped its “bilge” of the “no church” into the depths of the abyss as it sails confidently off on its final voyage to the land of the One World Ecumenical Church.

The adversary had used those Montinian “bishops” to set believing Catholics up for fools as he laid the same sort of trap of “false opposites” for them into which they had fallen in the political realm.

That is, many of us who thought that the “bad” “bishops” were anomalous and that we just needed a “good” “pope” to clean-up the mess. I was one of those misguided people, not realizing that I was reducing the price of being Catholic, at least for the most part, to opposition to abortion, which is why we looked to the “good” bishops in the early 1970s as champions of moral truth even though each of them were full supporters of the wicked agenda of the “Second” Vatican Council,” especially that of false ecumenism, the “new ecclesiology,” dogmatic evolutionism, and the unprecedented overturning of the ends of marriage that resulted in the Catholic form of contraception known as “natural family planning.”

Indeed, among some of the strangest phenomena to emerge from the whole wreckage of the conciliar revolution against the Catholic Faith is that it became necessary in the 1970s for Catholics to identify themselves as “pro-life” even though every Catholic is, by the definition of being a Catholic, is supposed to be opposed to every direct, intentional act that kills any innocent being at any time from conception until death. Worse yet, though, the adjective “pro-life” began being applied to priests, both true and presumptive, because many priests and presbyters in the conciliar structures were either indifferent to or openly supportive of “abortion rights.”

The diabolical trap that into which “pro-life” Catholics had been spared, though, lulled most of them to sleep as their “pro-life” “bishops” spoke empty words in nominal opposition to the surgical killing of the innocent preborn while indemnifying and emboldening Catholic pro-abortion politician and office-holder by refusing to excommunicate them from their non-Catholic sect that poses as the Catholic Church, starting with how the likes of two formerly “pro-life” Catholic United States Senators, Edward Moore Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and one Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. (D-Delaware), were able to switch their positions after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, without having been warned and then excommunicated. The “bishops” worried about a backlash, although the truth is that they emboldened the forces of bodily death in the United States of America just as surely as the “Second” Vatican Council turned them into active agents of spiritual death by the promotion of propositions condemned by our true popes and by staging a liturgical abomination that has convinced most baptized Catholics that they might as well belong to the world rather than bother to go to the community fellowship meeting posing as a the “Eucharistic celebration.”

Even the conciliar “bishops’” weak-kneed efforts to oppose surgical baby-killing was based upon the false premise of the "life of the mother exception” that they have embraced as an integral, indispensable part of every legislative proposal introduced in Congress without even attempting to pressure supposedly pro-life members of various legislatures, including those in both houses of the Congress of the United States of America, believing that doing so will help to convince "reasonable" people that they and the politicians they support are not "radicals" or "extremists," that such concessions are "necessary" to make in the realm of prudence.

This is, of course, the exact same moral casuistry that gave us "natural family planning" and explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments that has corrupted what passes for Catholic moral theology in so many places that high level officials in the Vatican itself can speak of "therapeutic" abortions as being within the moral law (see So Long to the Fifth Commandment and Rotten To The Very Roots).

Some tried very hard to warn the "bishops" as early as the first years after the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, that the acceptance of "exceptions" would lead to the further institutionalization of baby-killing under the cover of the civil law in the mistaken belief that some killings would be prevented.

One of those who did so was Mrs. Randy Engel, the Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life, who testified in 1974. before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments of the United States Senate Committee for the Judiciary. Mrs. Engel saw things with prophetic clarity: there could never be any compromise with the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment, and for this, of course, she has been hated by the "pro-life establishment" ever since:

I am Randy Engel, National Director of the United States Coalition for Life, an international research center and clearing- house specializing in domestic federal anti-life programs within the Department of Health, Education and Welfare and the Agency for International Development. Thank you for your invitation to appear before the sub-committee today in order that I may express the views of the Coalition, its distinguished national and international board of advisors, some of whom have already testified at earlier Senate hearings on the Human Life Amendment, and that of thousands of grassroots people whom we have had the honor of serving on a day to day basis since the Coalition opened its offices almost two years ago. 

Mr. Chairman, about four months ago, the Coalition filed with your office, the transcript of a speech made by Louise Tyrer, M.D., Family Planning Division of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, before the Association of Planned Parenthood Physicians' 12th Annual Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee on Tuesday, April 16, 1974, on the status of the various Human Life Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. (Attachment A) According to Dr. Tyrer' s assessment of the Congressional scene there are two basic approaches. One - a "state's rights" approach which would return the power of lawmaking in the area of abortion to the individual States. The second - which would guarantee the full protection of the law to the unborn child from the moment of fertilization. The "State's rights" approach she states, and correctly so, is unacceptable to the majority of Pro-Life people yet very attractive to the legislators because "it sought of takes the onus off their backs from making any decisions."

The remainder of her talk stresses the necessity of stalling the hearings of this sub-committee by having Planned Parenthood physicians flood the sub-committee with requests to testify. This, Dr. Tyrer suggests would be politically expedient and politically NECESSARY for you Mr. Chairman, in order to keep the amendments bottled up in sub-committee until you had gone through the election process in the Fall. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to embarrass you in any manner. Not because I fell Dr. Tyrer was incorrect in her judgment of the political realities of the Senate and House Committees dealing with the abortion issue or her assessment that stalling these subcommittee hearings by dragging them out month by month would be politically expedient for you and others who might prefer not to have a roll call vote on a Human Life Amendment before election time. But rather, because with few exceptions, almost every Senator and Representative in Congress would like nothing better than to get rid of the abortion issue tomorrow, if not before, or at least dump the matter back into the lap of the State legislatures.

This is not our affair - they say.

The massive slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent unborn children is not a federal matter - they say.

We are not responsible for the Supreme Court decision of January 22, 1973 which is now the law of the land - they say.

Well, I am here Mr. Chairman to tell you and every other Senator and Congressman that like it or not - Abortion IS your affair. That the massive slaughter of unborn children in this country IS a proper matter of federal concern. Moreover that this Congress IS directly responsible for the almost inevitable Supreme Court decision which stripped unborn children of their inalienable right to life. Congress IS responsible because over the last ten years it has permitted an anti-life philosophy and anti-life programs and policies to become matters of NATIONAL POLICY, promoted and supported by tax dollars.

It is the Federal Government - at all levels - Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches - which has posed the greatest threat to unborn children in recent years. The Executive Branch because it has failed to correct the anti-life abuses primarily within the bureaucracies of HEW and AID and has permitted key anti-life leaders such as Dr. Louis Hellman the Office of Population Affairs and Dr. R. T. Ravenholt, Director Population Bureau for Population and Humanitarian Affairs [and the man who coined the phrase "Natural Family Planning"] to remain in office. The Legislative Branch, because it has authorized legislation and appropriated funds year after year to initiate, promote and sustain anti-life programs in virtually every conceivable federal bureaucracy including the Office of Economic Opportunity, Office of Environmental Education, Office of Education, Department of Defense Office of Population Affairs (HEW), National Institutes of Health, Agriculture Department, Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service Social Security, MedicAID, Aid to Dependent Children, U.S. Information Agency Population Office(AID). Contraceptive Research Branch (NIH) Federal Communication Commission).

As I said the Supreme Court abortion decision was an inevitable one. All the cliches of that decision - terms like "unwanted children", "a woman's right to control her own body.", the population explosion stem from the Sangerite ethic. It represented the culmination of more than half a century of dedication and tireless efforts by the Sangerites and the Malthusians to convince the American public of the righteousness of the CAUSE and to elevate the SANGERITE-MALTHUSIAN philosophy to that of Public Policy.

This final achievement is portrayed quite candidly in this book Breeding Ourselves to Death - the Story of the Hugh Moore Fund by abortion leader Lawrence Lader. In the section on gaining Congressional Support, former N.Y. Senator Kenneth Keating, then newly appointed National Director of the Population Crisis Committee tells about eating in the Senate Dining Room where he could spread the gospel of family planning among old friends, particularly among the Republican leadership. This fight to influence by other population control leaders in Congress goes on today.

But what does all this have to do with this subcommittee hearing on the Human Life Amendment? Simply this:

For more than a year the Hogan-Helms Human Life Amendment and similar bills have been buried in the House, where Representative Don Edwards has refused to hold hearings, and in the Senate - hearings are dragged out month after month to get Senators and Representatives through the November watershed without a floor vote on such as the HLA.

Obviously there is no sense of urgency about the matter, with the exception of a handful of dedicated men, the Congress doesn't appear to be the least concerned that its inaction will result in the death of hundreds of thousands of unborn children. The fact that millions of federal tax dollars are used to promote a myriad of anti-life schemes- from direct abortion payments (Medicaid-ADC; to the research development and promoting of new abortion techniques to the indoctrination of young children of an anti-life ethic appears to raise no particular concern at family planning authorization or appropriation hearings.

Equally obvious is the fact that under these conditions we will have a difficult time getting a Human Life Amendment passed by both Houses of Congress and on its way to the states for ratification. My purpose here today is to point out the current commitment of the Federal Government including this Congress to the anti-life establishment, and briefly how such a commitment was obtained and at what price.

Mr. Chairman, this Congress OWES its vigorous support for a Human Life Amendment which would protect Human Life from conception until natural death to the American people. The Coalition would agree that the Hogan-Helms Amendment or the newer Roncallo Amendment would provide such protection.

Apart from the merit of these amendments themselves, we feel that Congress should recognize the fact that through its indifference, ignorance and its inability to withstand the pressures of the anti-life movement, it must bear its share of guilt for the 1973 Abortion decision, and its share of responsibility in seeing a Human Life Amendment is passed to protect the unborn child.

Your responsibility, Mr. Chairman, in this matter is very plain. As for our part, I believe the Coalition and the Pro-Life Movement in the U. S. will continue to fight at all levels - including the Halls of Congress and yes, even in Senate dining rooms - to educate and to promote an ideal that is as revolutionary in our day as the Sangerite ideal was fifty years ago. That ideal is based on the sanctity and innate goodness of all human life. (Full text of "Abortion : hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments.)

Even though the efforts made by Mrs. Engel and others, including the efforts of the indefatigable late United States Representative Angelo Roncallo (R-Massapequa, New York), were valiant, we can see now with perfect hindsight that which was not understood by very many at the time: that these noble efforts were doomed to failure precisely because the "pro-life establishment," headed by the National Not-So-Right to Life Committee, rallied around the constitutional amendment that had been proposed by United States Senator James Buckley (C-New York; the "c" reflects Buckley's election in a three-way race in 1970 as the candidate of the Conservative Party of the State of New York) that permitted the "life of the mother" exception. Only four American bishops, Timothy Cardinal Manning of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, John Cardinal Krol of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Humberto Medeiros of the Archdiocese of Boston, and John Cardinal Cody of the Archdiocese of Chicago testified against the Buckley Amendment on the grounds that the civil law could never permit the direct taking of a single, solitary innocent human life from the first moment of conception through all subsequent stages until natural death. These cardinals, however, although part of the conciliar church by that time, were opposed by the entire "pro-life" establishment whose machinations were being orchestrated by the then Monsignor James Timothy McHugh of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey. McHugh did not have a qualm of conscience whatsoever about the "life of the mother exception" as a matter of legislative expediency or as a core moral principle of the National Right to Life Committee his work at the then named Family Life Bureau of the United States Catholic Conference helped to launch.

No, the well-intentioned efforts of Mrs. Engel and her associates were doomed from the start as, unbeknownst to them, a false church had arisen filled with men who had lost the Catholic Faith, men who had surrendered to the prevailing ethos of Judeo-Masonry, a surrender that has devastated the world in which we live and that must be considered nothing other than one of the worst chastisements of our time for neither Popes Pius XI or XII consecrating Russia collegially to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart with all of the world's bishops. Treasonous priests/presbyters and their leftist apparatchiks and toadies worked against efforts to provide full constitutional protection for baby-killing and were hard at work preparing the ground for what has become the ready acceptance of the homosexualist agenda at this time. And this is what must happen when men who claim to be Catholic make their "reconciliations" with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity.

Yet it is that many of us believed that the death of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI on August 6, 1978, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the subsequent election of Karol Josef Wojtyla on Monday, October 16, 1978, the Feast of Saint Hedwig, after the death of Albino Luciani/John Paul I, on September 28, 1978, and his supposedly “hard line” on a number of matter gave us cause for hope that some “pro-life” “bishops” were on the way.

One of the reasons for “hope” was the sermon that he gave in what I later came to recognize as a liturgical travesty on the Capitol Mall on Sunday, October 7, 1979, when the Polish Modernist thundered the following in accented English right in front of the members of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, which included at the time each of the seven justices who voted to permit the decriminalized slaughter of the innocent preborn from the moment of conception until the day of birth in the case of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973:

3. I do not hesitate to proclaim before you and before the world that all human life—from the moment of conception and through all subsequent stages—is sacred, because human life is created in the image and likeness of God. Nothing surpasses the greatness or dignity of a human person. Human life is not just an idea or an abstraction; human life is the concrete reality of a being that lives, that acts, that grows and develops; human life is the concrete reality of a being that is capable of love, and of service to humanity.

Let me repeat what I told the people during my recent pilgrimage to my homeland : "If a person's right to life is violated at the moment in which he is first conceived in his mother's womb, an indirect blow is struck also at the whole of the moral order, which serves to ensure the inviolable goods of man. Among those goods, life occupies the first place. The Church defends the right to life, not only in regard to the majesty of the Creator, who is the First Giver of this life, but also in respect of the essential good of the human person" (8 June 1979).

4. Human life is precious because it is the gift of a God whose love is infinite; and when God gives life, it is for ever. Life is also precious because it is the expression and the fruit of love. This is why life should spring up within the setting of marriage, and why marriage and the parents' love for one another should be marked by generosity in self-giving. The great danger for family life, in the midst of any society whose idols are pleasure, comfort and independence, lies in the fact that people close their hearts and become selfish. The fear of making permanent commitments can change the mutual love of husband and wife into two loves of self—two loves existing side by side, until they end in separation.

In the sacrament of marriage, a man and a woman—who at Baptism became members of Christ and hence have the duty of manifesting Christ's attitudes in their lives—are assured of the help they need to develop their love in a faithful and indissoluble union, and to respond with generosity to the gift of parenthood. As the Second Vatican Council declared: Through this sacrament, Christ himself becomes present in the life of the married couple and accompanies them, so that they may love each other and their children, just as Christ loved his Church by giving himself up for her (cf. Gaudium et Spes, 48 ; cf. Eph 5 :25).

5. In order that Christian marriage may favor the total good and development of the married couple, it must be inspired by the Gospel, and thus be open to new life—new life to be given and accepted generously. The couple is also called to create a family atmosphere in which children can be happy, and lead full and worthy human and Christian lives.

To maintain a joyful family requires much from both the parents and the children. Each member of the family has to become, in a special way, the servant of the others and share their burdens (cf. Gal 6:2; Phil 2 :2). Each one must show concern, not only for his or her own life, but also for the lives of the other members of the family: their needs, their hopes, their ideals. Decisions about the number of children and the sacrifices to be made for them must not be taken only with a view to adding to comfort and preserving a peaceful existence. Reflecting upon this matter before God, with the graces drawn from the Sacrament, and guided by the teaching of the Church, parents will remind themselves that it is certainly less serious to deny their children certain comforts or material advantages than to deprive them of the presence of brothers and sisters, who could help them to grow in humanity and to realize the beauty of life at all its ages and in all its variety.

If parents fully realized the demands and the opportunities that this great sacrament brings, they could not fail to join in Mary's hymn to the author of life—to God—who has made them his chosen fellow-workers. (John Paul II Homily Capitol Mall, October 7, 1979.)

Sure, I was on the Capitol Mall that day, and I applauded when the “pope” exclaimed “and when God gives life, it is forever.” I had, quite stupidly and inchoately reduced the defense of the Catholic Faith to opposition to the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn, failing to recognize that “Pope John Paul II” was a full supporter of the “Second” Vatican Council, something that he made clear the very day after his “election”:

First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into effect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)

Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II sure found "those things which lie hidden in" the "Second" Vatican Council" as he made manifestly explicit what he believed was "implicit" in his vaunted "Second" Vatican Council, fooling the sappy likes of me by throwing some conciliar fairy dust in our eyes as he talked about getting priests back in their clerical garb and consecrated religious sisters back into their habits and demanding doctrinal orthodoxy from theologians even though he was not doctrinally orthodox and let most of the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries remain in perfectly good standing as sons and daughters of what he claimed was the Catholic Church.

What those of us who were fighting what we thought was the “good fight” of the Catholic Faith at this time did not realize—and what so many within the structures of the false conciliar sect have yet to recognize—is that is as impossible for conciliarism to protect the Sacred Deposit of Faith as it is based upon false principles of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. It cannot do anything but spread error and harm souls, and I was irresponsible for not being more alert to the apostasy represented by false ecumenism, which I always despised but considered “secondary” to the “fight” against those within the conciliar structures who denied the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and/or who were outright moral relativists. The fact that moral relativism is the result of the kind of theological relativism to which the “strong” “pope” subscribed did not occur to me, bright light that I was, eh?

To be sure, Karol Josef Wojtyla’s appointment of the known liturgical and moral revolutionary, Joseph Bernardin, who was a true bishop, to be the “archbishop” of Chicago, Illinois, on August 25, 1982, was distressing. “Why would the pope do this?” I asked Father Vincent Miceli, who looked at me quizzically and said very dryly, “Don’t kid yourself. John Paul is a liberal. He was friends with Bernardin at the council.” I thereupon asked myself, “Why would the pro-life pope appoint a passivist and a man who was known to be very friendly with the homosexualist collective (whose own ties in this regard were deeply personal, as reported in Randy Engel’s The Rite of Sodomy that made news again in the following post Bernardin Was a Homosexual Predator and Satanist)? I was a rather dull blade, not wanting to see the truth for what it was.

Indeed, the adversary fired many of us “conservatives” with the Bernardin appointment and by the apologia he gave on December 6, 1983, at Fordham University, on behalf of the so-called “consistent ethic of life” (the “seamless garment”) that tied opposition to abortion with the entire statist, anti-national security platform of the Democratic Party. Here is an excerpt from Bernardin’s address, which was designed to convince Catholics that they could vote for the likes of New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo, who took the “I’m personally opposed to abortion but can’t impose my morality on the people” stand that he learned from his mentor, then former Governor Hugh Leo Carey, against the partly pro-life, partly pro-abortion President Ronald Wilson Reagan in 1984:

The substance of a Catholic position on a consistent ethic of life is rooted in a religious vision. But the citizenry of the United States is radically pluralistic in moral and religious conviction. So we face the challenge of stating our case, which is shaped in terms of our faith and our religious convictions, in non-religious terms which others of different faith convictions might find morally persuasive. . . . As we seek to shape and share the vision of a consistent ethic of life, I suggest a style governed by the following rule: We should maintain and clearly communicate our religious convictions but also maintain our civil courtesy. We should be vigorous in stating a case and attentive in hearing another's case; we should test everyone's logic but not question his or her motives. ("A Consistent Ethic of Life: An American-Catholic Dialogue".)

“Cardinal” Bernardin was hit with a torrent of criticism after the Fordham address. Thus it was that he sought to make some “clarifications” and “distinctions” in an address at Saint Louis University in March of 1984 that acknowledged that abortion and capital punishment were different issues but, he added, were “related” to each other in the “practical” realm of political “choices” that required “dialogue” to treat “seamlessly”:

Some of the responses I have received on the Fordham address correctly say that abortion and capital punishment are not identical issues. The principle which protects innocent life distinguishes the unborn child from the convicted murderer.

Other letters stress that while nuclear war is a threat to life, abortion involves the actual taking of life, here and now. I accept both of these distinctions, of course, but I also find compelling the need to relate the cases while keeping them in distinct categories.

Abortion is taking of life in ever growing numbers in our society. Those concerned about it, I believe, will find their case enhanced by taking note of the rapidly expanding use of public execution. In a similar way, those who are particularly concerned about these executions, even if the accused has taken another life, should recognize the elementary truth that a society which can be indifferent to the innocent life of an unborn child will not be easily stirred to concern for a convicted criminal. There is, I maintain, a political and psychological linkage among the life issues—from war to welfare concerns—which we ignore at our own peril: a systemic vision of life seeks to expand the moral imagination of a society, not partition it into airtight categories.

A third level of the question before us involves how we relate a commitment to principles to our public witness of life. As I have said, no one can do everything. There are limits to both competency and energy; both point to the wisdom of setting priorities and defining distinct functions. The Church, however, must be credible across a wide range of issues; the very scope of our moral vision requires a commitment to a multiplicity of questions. In this way the teaching of the Church will sustain a variety of individual commitments.

Neither the Fordham address nor this one is intended to constrain wise and vigorous efforts to protect and promote life through specific, precise forms of action. Both addresses do seek to cultivate a dialogue within the Church and in the wider society among individuals and groups which draw on common principles (e.g., the prohibition against killing the innocent) but seem convinced that they do not share common ground. The appeal here is not for anyone to do everything, but to recognize points of interdependence which should be stressed, not denied.

A fourth level, one where dialogue is sorely needed, is the relationship between moral principles and concrete political choices. The moral questions of abortion, the arms race, the fate of social programs for the poor, and the role of human rights in foreign policy are public moral issues. The arena in which they are ultimately decided is not the academy or the Church but the political process. A consistent ethic of life seeks to present a coherent linkage among a diverse set of issues. It can and should be used to test party platforms, public policies, and political candidates. The Church legitimately fulfills a public role by articulating a framework for political choices by relating that framework to specific issues and by calling for systematic moral analysis of all areas of public policy. (The Seamless Garment and a Consistent Pro-Life Ethic.)

This was just moral casuistry of the highest order.

I, for one, prefer the clarity offered by the late Dr. Charles E. Rice in The Wanderer in 1998:

Sen. D'Amato will face a pro-abortion Democratic opponent in the fall. While a voter could morally vote for a pro-abortion candidate who is less objectionable on abortion than his opponent, he should not. The tactic of voting for the less objectionable of two pro-abortion candidates is a tactic of incremental surrender. The incremental strategy of accepting the legalization of abortion in some cases concedes that some innocent human life is negotiable after all. The pro-death movement is a guaranteed winner against an opposition that qualifies its own position by conceding that there are some innocent human beings whom it will allow to be directly and intentionally killed. That approach in practice has mortgaged the pro-life effort to the interests and judgment of what Paul Johnson called "the great human scourge of the 20th century, the professional politician." (Modern Times, 1985, p. 510.)

When a politician says he favors legalized abortion in life of the mother, rape and incest, or other cases, he affirms the nonpersonhood of the unborn child by proposing that he be subjected to execution at the discretion of another. The politician's pro-life rhetoric will be drowned out by the loud and clear message of his position, that he concedes that the law can validly tolerate the intentional killing of innocent human beings. Apart from exceptions, of course, Sen. D'Amato is objectionable as well for some of his other stands on abortion and for his positions on other issues, including especially the homosexual issue.

Pro-lifers could increase their political impact if they were single-issue voters, treating abortion as an absolutely disqualifying issue. Any candidate who believes that the law should treat any innocent human beings as nonpersons by tolerating their execution is unworthy to hold any public office, whether President, trustee of a mosquito abatement district, or senator. (Dr. Charles E. Rice, "Pro-Life Reflections on Sen. D'Amato, The Wanderer, August 27, 1998.)

Quite correct then. Quite correct now, although I would stipulate that no one can be considered “pro-life” who supports contraception, “brain death”/human organ vivisection and transplantation, the starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings and the whole concept of “palliative care” and hospice “care.”

In answer, therefore, to the Bernardin “seamless garment” sophistry, of course, one must ask the following question: To what must a Catholic listen on the issue of the taking of innocent human life?

Those who support the chemical and/or surgical taking of innocent human life in the womb do not have a "case." They have lies. Such people, if they are non-Catholics, must be converted to the Catholic Faith. Those who are Catholics must be told that they excommunicate themselves from the Church's maternal bosom by supporting willful murder, one the four crimes that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The Bernardin approach to "life issues" contrasts, of course, very sharply with that of the true popes of the Catholic Church, who taught clearly and unequivocally that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. We do not speak in "non-religious" terms. We make proper Catholic distinctions when speaking about moral issues, remembering always to speak as Catholics at all times without ever dissenting from anything contained within the Deposit of Faith at any time for any reason, something that Pope Leo XIII made clear Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890:

The chief elements of this duty consist in professing openly and unflinchingly the Catholic doctrine, and in propagating it to the utmost of our power. For, as is often said, with the greatest truth, there is nothing so hurtful to Christian wisdom as that it should not be known, since it possesses, when loyally received, inherent power to drive away error. (Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae, January 10, 1890.)

The very reason that contraception and abortion are part of our culture and protected by civil law is because the Protestant Revolution overthrew the Social Reign of Christ the King in the Sixteenth Century in many parts of Europe and the revolutions and movements inspired by the naturalism of Judeo-Masonry finished the job in the rest while creating entirely new nations elsewhere, such as in the United States of America, whose people were to celebrate religious "diversity" as a "protection" against tyranny and a "guarantee" of individual liberties rather than as the means by which the devil can propagate and then institutionalize Every Error Imaginable.

Always eager to find “common ground” between truth and error, Joseph Louis Bernardin even started what he called the “Common Ground Initiative” in 1996 to produce “dialogue” between those who support unrestricted baby-killing on demand in all circumstances as a matter of “human rights” and a woman’s supposed “right to choose” (to kill a baby, of course!) and those who oppose such killing in all circumstances without exception. There is no “common ground” between truth and error. None. Truth must be proclaimed. Those in error must be corrected. Civil law that defies the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law has no binding force over men and must be opposed and defied, not accepted as “settled law” or made subject to “discussions.” The truths of the moral law are non-negotiable. Then again, the conciliar revolutionaries believe that everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith is subject to “discussion,” “reflection” and “adaptation” according to alleged “pastoral needs” that, to recall the words uttered by Pope Pius XII to the Jesuits sixty-three and one-half years ago, “would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.”

As discouraging as the Bernardin appointment to the see of Chicago in conciliar captivity was, however, many of us poor dupes who failed to recognize the true state of the Church Militant on earth believed that the appointed of “Bishop” John Joseph O’Connor of Scranton to succeed Terrence “Cardinal” Cooke as the “archbishop” of New York was a reason to “hope” that “better days” were ahead of us. This was delusional as we failed to recognize that those who were wrong about the First through Fourth Commandments and thus defected from the Faith in numerous ways could never be legitimate defenders of the binding precepts of the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments.

However, I was among many who were heartened when “Bishop” John J. O’Connor began to speak openly about how “sick and tired” he was of hearing politicians claim that there were “personally opposed” to abortion but could not “impose their morality” upon their constituents. This inflamed then New York Governor Mario Matthew Cuomo, who had an infamous temper that he passed on to his two sons, Andrew Mark, and Christopher Cuomo. The elder Cuomo started a war of words with the new "archbishop," especially after the latter was interview by the legendary WNBC-TV reporter Gabe Pressman, who had covered the Communist show trial of Josef Cardinal Mindszenty in 1949, on the Newsroom discussion program just a short time before O’Connor’s “installation”:

''I have absolutely no tolerance, I must confess, for those politicians, political figures or political campaigners, who deliberately, now, deliberately and intentionally, not because of their own personal convictions, but deliberately and intentionally exploit the political potential of this issue, try to sit on the fence with this business of 'I personally am opposed to abortion, but, after all, we must have a choice.'

''You show me the politician who is prepared to say, 'I personally am opposed to bombing cities with nuclear weapons, but we have to have free choice;' 'I personally am opposed to killing blacks or Jewish people or Methodists or Lutherans or Catholics, but we have to have a choice.' That's - you know - that's to me, sheer absurdity.'' (O'Connor Rebuts Criticism of His Abortion Comments.)

Mario Matthew Cuomo was not pleased with this turn of events and a war of words ensued. Things escalated rather rapidly, and O'Connor refused to recognize Cuomo's presence at his installation "Mass" on March 19, 1984, while recognizing Mayor Edward Irving Koch of the City of New York, the Mayor of Scranton, Pennsylvania, James Bernard McNulty, and the United States Ambassador to the Holy See, William Wilson.

Cuomo was livid.

Furious.

I know.

I was there, dressed in a cassock and surplice as a seminarian from Holy Apostles Seminary (how a group of us from Holy Apostles managed to get into the service is a story in and of itself as we had no tickets and most of the group had no official sponsorship to study for a particular diocese or religious community), watching as the red-faced Cuomo stormed past me on the right transept of the Cathedral of Saint Patrick after the end of the joke-fest that was O'Connor's Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo "installation" service. (O'Connor was telling so many jokes at various points during the service that the late Father Vincent Miceli told me, "He's a comedian. He thinks he's Johnny Carson.") Cuomo never forgot that snub. Never.

The battles between “Cardinal” O’Connor and the likes of Mario Matthew Cuomo and the woman who ultimately was the beneficiary of Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin’s Fordham University and Saint Louis University addresses, Geraldine Anne Ferraro Zaccaro overshadowed the truth about the “conservative” “archbishop” of New York’s constant reaffirmation of Talmudists in their false religion. The so-called “pro-life” “cardinal” was an apostate, but many of us were so focused on abortion that we either ignored or downplayed O’Connor’s Judaizing tendencies just as much as we pretended that Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Assisi I travesty on October 26, 1986, was an anomaly that did not represent the “totality” of his “pontificate.”

There comes a point, however, when it is impossible to ignore the plain truth, and that point for me came when the “pro-life” John “Cardinal” O’Connor spoke approvingly of the decision of a Catholic man, Stephen Dubner, to convert to Talmudism:

But like many a Jewish son before him, he couldn't separate from his mother. He wanted her approval. He presented his problem to Cardinal O'Connor, who artfully contrived a theological olive branch: ''Tell your mother that you have tried to study this, that you have prayed about it, this is not just a revolt or a rejection, this is not a dismissal of what you don't understand -- that this is where you think God wants you to be, an informed Jew.'' (BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Words Upon the Heart, Heard at Last) 

"Cardinal" O'Connor told an interviewer for the American Broadcasting Company's Nightline television program that "God is smiling on all of this" when recalling his conversation with Stephen Dubner. Oh, by the way, the wonderful people at the Nightline televised the interview on the evening of December 25, 1997. This prompted me to write a column for The Wanderer entitled, “How to Break a Mother’s Heart,” referring to Our Blessed Mother. All that archdiocesan communications director Joseph Zwilling, who, it appears, was still on the job as late as five months ago, could say to me when I asked for his comment about the Nightline interview was that the “cardinal” “said what he said” but that he knew that the Catholic Church was the true church.

Really?

You could have fooled have fooled me as O'Connor also told a B'Nai Brith meeting in early-1998 that Judaism and Catholicism were meant to "coexist side by side" until the end of time. "This is what my boss (John Paul II) teaches, and I work for my boss." The original citation for this came from a newspaper article that I cited in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos. There is also an allusion to this address in a reminiscence of O'Connor provided by the late pro-abortion "papal" "knight," Rabbi Leon Klenicki, in Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O'Connor, edited by Terry Golway:

Once we invited him to talk at one of the Anti-Defamation League dinners. He was there to help present a booklet we had put out. During his speech, he told a story about how he once went to a Reform synagogue and he was the only one there with a yarmulke. Several Reform rabbis who were there looked at each others--I think they couldn't believe it--but everybody was laughing. The Cardinal had a serious point, too. Later that night, he said that he was in pain because there are Jews who do not want to exercise their Judaism because of assimilation or other reasons. It is their duty to practice their faith, he said, to prove that God exists and to refute the Holocaust. He sounded very much like a rabbi when he spoke. The crowd was all around him afterwards, shaking his hand and embracing him. I told him if he ever needed a job I knew a congregation that could use him. (Page 148 of Full of Grace: An Oral Biography of John Cardinal O'Connor.) 

John Joseph "Cardinal" O'Connor did what the "pope," Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who appointed him to the Sees of Scranton and New York did throughout his 9,666 day tenure as the universal public face of apostasy. Ah, but he was “pro-life,” wasn’t he?

I was just one of many who fell into the adversary’s trap of false opposites that is being used once again to convince “conservative” Catholics that their like-minded “bishops” are going to “save” what they think is the Catholic Church from the clutches of the “bad” “pope.”

One need not document all the ways that Wojytla/John Paul II promoted false ecumenism as it has been done so on this site many times and in countless other places. The man of the Assisi "World Day of Peace" travesties who praised every false religion under the sun, thereby violating the First and Second Commandments repeatedly, institutionalized religious indifferetism to such an extent that even many Catholics within the conciliar structures who run "pro-life" websites and blogs wax glowingly about "other Christians" as though there is any other religion than the true one, the Catholic Faith.

However, it might be useful to use the late apostate’s addresses on January 25, 2003, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, on the occasion of the end of what is called “Christian Unity Week in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as neither the conciliar “popes” nor their partners in ecumaniacal crimes can celebrate the Chair of Unity Octave since the latter’s aim was to effect their ancestors’ unconditional conversion to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

The following is an excerpt of a “homily” delivered at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls before a group of fellow heretics composed of representatives of Protestant “ecclesial communities” and Orthodox churches:

1. "We have this treasure in earthen vessels" (2 Cor 4:7).

These words, taken from the Second Letter to the Corinthians, have been the guiding theme of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity which concludes today. They shed light on our meditation during this evening liturgy of the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul. The Apostle reminds us that we carry the "treasure" which Christ has given us in earthen vessels. All Christians are thus called to press forward on their earthly pilgrimage without letting themselves be overwhelmed by difficulties or afflictions (cf. Lumen Gentium, 8), in the certainty that they will overcome all obstacles thanks to the help and the power which come from on high.

With this conviction, I am happy to pray this evening together with you, beloved brothers and sisters of the Churches and Ecclesial Communities present in Rome, united by the one Baptism in the Lord Jesus Christ. I offer a heartfelt greeting to all of you. (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II "Homily," January 25, 2003.)

Brief Comment Number One:

United by one baptism?

Not quite:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The true Faith is to be found only in the Catholic Church. The Orthodox churches and the Protestant sects, which are called “ecclesial communities” by the conciliar revolutionaries, are false. They are filled with false doctrines and false liturgical rites, each of which is inspired directly by the adversary himself.

Pope Pius XII reminded us that the only members of the Church of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church, none other:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Pope Pius XII’s firm reiteration of Catholic teaching was, of course, rejected by the Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI and the Fathers of the “Second” Vatican Council when they voted to approve Lumen Gentium on November 21, 1964, the Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which included the following phrase, whose insertion was suggested by a Lutheran “observer” to a council peritus, Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.)

Despite all of the efforts made by defenders of all things conciliar to try to explain how the passage from Lumen Gentium above was not a contradiction of Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, it is nevertheless the case that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “new ecclesiology” of “full communion” and “partial communion” received its official sanction in Lumen Gentium. The seeds were thus planted for a wider and more “generous” application of the “new ecclesiology that Ratzinger himself defended in an interview with the Frankfort Allgemeine newspaper on September 22, 2000, forty-seven days after the issuance of Dominus Iesus on August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Back to Wojtyla/John Paul II’s 2003 “homily” at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls:

It is my great desire that the Church of Rome, which Providence has entrusted with a unique "presidency in charity" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Romans, Introduction), may increasingly become a model of fraternal ecumenical relations. (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II "Homily," January 25, 2003.)

Brief Comment Number Two:

This was a total distortion and misrepresentation of Saint Ignatius of Antioch’s Letter to the Romans, which was principally an exhortation to the Romans to pray for his martyrdom and to refuse to save him from his fervent desire to shed his blood for Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

“Saint John Paul II” made it appear as though Saint Ignatius of Antioch, whose feast is celebrated annually on February 1, did not believe that the Church of Rome was the see established by our first pope, Saint Peter, to govern every church in the whole word until Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Second Coming in glory on the Last Day and only “presided in charity, meaning honorifically.

Saint Ignatius was the second successor of Saint Peter as the Bishop of Antioch, and his epistle to the Romans was an exhortation to the Catholics in Rome to let him die as martyr in the Eternal City. Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., explained in The Liturgical Year that God’s Holy Providence had so arranged Saint Ignatius’s martyrdom to take place in Rome as a means of demonstrating the supremacy of the See of Saint Peter over the entire Church:

Two days more, and the happy season of Christmas will be over! This is the vigil and its termination, and lo! there comes to gladden us one of the grandest Martyrs of the year—Ignatius surnamed the Theophorus, the Bishop of Antioch. A venerable tradition tells us that this old man, who so generously confessed the faith before Trajan, was the child whom Jesus took into his arms, and showed to his Disciples as a model of that simplicity which we must all have if we would enter into the kingdom of heaven. Today he appears before us, standing near the Crib in which this same Jesus gives us his own divine lessons of humility and simplicity.

But, in this the Court of our Emmanuel, Ignatius stands near to Peter, the Feast of whose Chair we kept a few days since; for the Prince of the Apostles mad him his second successor in his first See of Antioch. From so honoured a position Ignatius derived that courage which made him resist a powerful Emperor even t his face, defy the wild beasts of the amphitheatre, and triumph by a glorious martyrdom. As if were to show the supremacy of the See of Rome, Divine Providence willed that he, with his chains upon him, should go to see Peter, and finish his course in the Holy City, and thus mingle his blood with that of the Apostles. Rome would have been imperfect without the glory of Ignatius’ martyrdom, which is the pride of her Coliseum, rich as it is with the blood of so many thousands of martyrs. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Christmas, Book II, pp. 456-457.)

“Saint John Paul II,” following the example of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paulus Infirmorum Inveniantur, did not hesitate to distort and corrupt the lives of the saints to make them perverted witnesses on behalf of conciliarism’s false premises, starting with false ecumenism itself. This is something, of course, that the Wojtyla/on Paul II’s two successors as the “president” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have been more than up to this task of distorting salvation history and corrupting the teaching of the lives of the saints.

Well, before turning your attention to the currently presiding head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s own annual perversion of the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, perhaps it might be instructive to provide two more excepts from the late apostate from Poland’s “homily” of fifteen years ago to demonstrate that the names of the conciliar presidents may change, but the apostasy always remains the same:

2. As Christians, we know that we are called to bear witness before the world to the "glorious Gospel" which Christ has given to us (cf. 2 Cor 4:4). In his name, let us unite our efforts in order to be at the service of peace and reconciliation, justice and solidarity, especially at the side of the poor and the least of the earth.

In this context, I would like to recall the Day of Prayer for World Peace held in Assisi one year ago, on 24 January. That interreligious event sent a powerful message to the world: every authentically religious person is obliged to ask God for the gift of peace, with renewed determination to promote and build peace together with other believers. The theme of peace remains as urgent as ever. It makes particular demands on the followers of Christ, the Prince of Peace, and it represents a challenge and a commitment for the ecumenical movement.

3. In response to the one Spirit who guides the Church, we wish this evening to offer thanks to God for the many abundant fruits which he, the giver of every good gift, has lavished upon the path of ecumenism. In addition to the Assisi meeting, which saw the participation of high-level representatives of almost all the Churches and Ecclesial Communities of East and West, how can I fail to mention the visit to Rome last March of a Delegation from the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece? In June I joined Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I in signing the Common Declaration on safeguarding the environment. In May I had the joy of visiting Patriarch Maxim of Bulgaria, and in October I was visited by Patriarch Teoctist of Romania, with whom I also signed a Common Declaration. Nor can I forget the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, at the conclusion of his mandate, my meetings with Ecumenical Delegations of Ecclesial Communities of the West, and the progress made by the various mixed Commissions of dialogue.  (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II "Homily," January 25, 2003.)

Brief Comment Number Three:

Yes, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II wanted to use false ecumenism as a means of protecting the environment. Nothing really ever changes in the fantasy world of conciliarism, up to and including finding “common ground” with non-Catholics about the “environment.”

“Saint Paul II” used various of his “World Day of Prayer for Peace” messages to exhort Catholics to “protect creation,” and his successor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, said that it was necessary to protect “creation” in order to have “peace” in the world:

14. If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation. The quest for peace by people of good will surely would become easier if all acknowledge the indivisible relationship between God, human beings and the whole of creation. In the light of divine Revelation and in fidelity to the Church’s Tradition, Christians have their own contribution to make. They contemplate the cosmos and its marvels in light of the creative work of the Father and the redemptive work of Christ, who by his death and resurrection has reconciled with God “all things, whether on earth or in heaven” (Col 1:20). Christ, crucified and risen, has bestowed his Spirit of holiness upon mankind, to guide the course of history in anticipation of that day when, with the glorious return of the Saviour, there will be “new heavens and a new earth” (2 Pet 3:13), in which justice and peace will dwell for ever. Protecting the natural environment in order to build a world of peace is thus a duty incumbent upon each and all. It is an urgent challenge, one to be faced with renewed and concerted commitment; it is also a providential opportunity to hand down to coming generations the prospect of a better future for all. May this be clear to world leaders and to those at every level who are concerned for the future of humanity: the protection of creation and peacemaking are profoundly linked! For this reason, I invite all believers to raise a fervent prayer to God, the all-powerful Creator and the Father of mercies, so that all men and women may take to heart the urgent appeal: If you want to cultivate peace, protect creation. (Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, "World Day of Peace Message for 2010.)

While the paragraph that preceded the one cited contained proper qualifications about a moral equivalence between human beings and the created world, it was—and, of course, it remains—utter madness to believe that “protecting the natural environment in order to build a world of peace” is a duty “incumbent upon each and all.”

The peace of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King, exists in the souls of men who at peace with Him by abiding in a state of Sanctifying Grace, which is to be found only in the Catholic Church, outside of which there can be no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Writing in his first encyclical letter, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 22, 1923, Pope Pius XI explained that Catholicism is the only foundation of true peace:

Because the Church is by divine institution the sole depository and interpreter of the ideals and teachings of Christ, she alone possesses in any complete and true sense the power effectively to combat that materialistic philosophy which has already done and, still threatens, such tremendous harm to the home and to the state. The Church alone can introduce into society and maintain therein the prestige of a true, sound spiritualism, the spiritualism of Christianity which both from the point of view of truth and of its practical value is quite superior to any exclusively philosophical theory. The Church is the teacher and an example of world good-will, for she is able to inculcate and develop in mankind the "true spirit of brotherly love" (St. Augustine, De Moribus Ecclesiae Catholicae, i, 30) and by raising the public estimation of the value and dignity of the individual's soul help thereby to lift us even unto God.

Finally, the Church is able to set both public and private life on the road to righteousness by demanding that everything and all men become obedient to God "Who beholdeth the heart," to His commands, to His laws, to His sanctions. If the teachings of the Church could only penetrate in some such manner as We have described the inner recesses of the consciences of mankind, be they rulers or be they subjects, all eventually would be so apprised of their personal and civic duties and their mutual responsibilities that in a short time "Christ would be all, and in all." (Colossians iii, 11)

Since the Church is the safe and sure guide to conscience, for to her safe-keeping alone there has been confided the doctrines and the promise of the assistance of Christ, she is able not only to bring about at the present hour a peace that is truly the peace of Christ, but can, better than any other agency which We know of, contribute greatly to the securing of the same peace for the future, to the making impossible of war in the future. For the Church teaches (she alone has been given by God the mandate and the right to teach with authority) that not only our acts as individuals but also as groups and as nations must conform to the eternal law of God. In fact, it is much more important that the acts of a nation follow God's law, since on the nation rests a much greater responsibility for the consequences of its acts than on the individual.

When, therefore, governments and nations follow in all their activities, whether they be national or international, the dictates of conscience grounded in the teachings, precepts, and example of Jesus Christ, and which are binding on each and every individual, then only can we have faith in one another's word and trust in the peaceful solution of the difficulties and controversies which may grow out of differences in point of view or from clash of interests. An attempt in this direction has already and is now being made; its results, however, are almost negligible and, especially so, as far as they can be said to affect those major questions which divide seriously and serve to arouse nations one against the other. No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

The conciliar revolutionaries do not believe in a word of this, going so far as to use the “ecumenical movement” as the means for “religious leaders” to work together to “protect creation” as one of those multiple “keys” to world peace. (Benedict had so many “keys” to world peace that his key ring must have been bigger than the one carried by Captain Kangaroo in the original opening of the late Bob Keeshan’s children’s television program. See 1958 Captian Kangaroo Opening Theme. For a photograph of the keys themselves when the key ring went up for auction eight years ago, see Keys to the Treasure House)

The late Polish Heretic’s elegy of praise for his partners in ecumaniacal crime mirrors that of his two successors.

This is what Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said in 2012 at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls:

Our expectation of the visible unity of the Church must also be patient and trusting. Only in this frame of mind do our prayers and our daily commitment to Christian unity find their full meaning. The attitude of patient waiting does not mean passivity or resignation but rather a prompt and attentive response to every possibility of communion and brotherhood that the Lord gives us.

In this spiritual climate I would like to extend special greetings, first to Cardinal Monterisi, Archpriest of this Basilica, and to the Abbot and the community of Benedictine monks for hosting us. I greet Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, and all the co-workers of this Dicastery. I address my cordial and brotherly greetings to His Eminence Metropolitan Gennadios, Representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and to Reverend Canon Richardson, Personal Representative in Rome of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and to all the Representatives of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities gathered here this evening.

In addition, I am particularly glad to greet several members of the Working Group composed of spokespeople of the various Churches and Ecclesial Communities present in Poland, who prepared the booklets for the Week of Prayer this year. I would like to express my gratitude to them and my hope that they will continue on the way of reconciliation and fruitful collaboration. I am also pleased to greet the members of the Global Christian Forum who are in Rome in these days to reflect on increasing the number of participants in the ecumenical movement to include new members. Further, I greet the group of students from the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey of the World Council of Churches. (Ratzinger/Benedict January 25, 2012, "Homily" at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls.)

Here is just one of some many hundreds of examples of like comments made by the current occupant of the chair of universal apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

The third circle of unity, the largest, is the whole of humanity.  Here, we can reflect on the working of the Holy Spirit. In the vine that is Christ, the Spirit is the sap that spreads to all the branches. The Spirit blows where he wills, and everywhere he wants to restore unity. He impels us to love not only those who love us and think as we do, but to love everyone, even as Jesus taught us. He enables us to forgive our enemies and the wrongs we have endured. He inspires us to be active and creative in love. He reminds us that our neighbours are not only those who share our own values and ideas, and that we are called to be neighbours to all, good Samaritans to a humanity that is frail, poor and, in our own time, suffering so greatly.  A humanity lying by the roadsides of our world, which God wants to raise up with compassion. May the Holy Spirit, the source of grace, help us to live in gratuitousness, to love even those who do not love us in return, for it is through pure and disinterested love that the Gospel bears fruit. A tree is known by its fruits: by our gratuitous love it will be known if we are part of the vine of Jesus.

The Holy Spirit thus teaches us the concreteness of love for all those brothers and sisters with whom we share the same humanity, the humanity which Christ inseparably united to himself by telling us that we will always find him in the poor and those in greatest need (cf. Mt 25: 31-45). By serving them together, we will realize once more that we are brothers and sisters, and will grow in unity. The Spirit, who renews the face of the earth, also inspires us to care for our common home, to make bold choices about how we live and consume, for the opposite of fruitfulness is exploitation, and it is shameful for us to waste precious resources of which many others are deprived. (Bergoglio Address, read by fellow heretic Kurt Koch, at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls, January 25, 2021.)

The years have passed, the names have changed, but the apostasy has only grown more bolder over time. Indeed, it has grown to such an extent that, as noted in Jorge Orders Protection for His Pro-Abortion, Pro-Perversity Statist Comrades, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has signaled that all efforts to penalize pro-abortion politicians, especially President in Name Only Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., must cease so that the conciliar agenda of impotent humanitarianism can continue unimpeded.

Although I well recognize that I took far, far too long to recognize the truth of state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal, anyone who does not recognize that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only bringing the false principles of conciliarism to their logical conclusion and who believe that they can “fight” the man who they think is a true, if heretical, “pope” when they judge him to be wrong has be willfully blind of the facts recited herein. The defense of the Holy Faith involves more than being “pro-life” as Catholics would not be arguing about the application of the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment in public life if the conciliar revolutionaries had not overturned the essential ecclesiology of Holy Mother Church by embracing dogmatic evolutionism and the implantation of a new religion that stresses social work rather than the salvation of souls while venerating itself, not God, in its abominable liturgical rites.

Gone are the days when any responsible Catholic can say, “Well, at least our bishop is pro-life.”

Saint Robert Bellarmine, S.J., a true Jesuit because he was a true Catholic, put it this way:

There are some person, dear listeners, who hold almost everything with a firm faith that Catholics hold: but there is one thing or another, which they have not yet been able to accept completely, such as that purgatory exists, that sacred images are to be venerated, that the sovereign Pontiff is the vicar of Christ and the head of the whole Church. And since there are many things that they believe, and only one or two things that they do not believe and consider it is not important if taken together with the other articles, they think they are situated very well on the foundation of Christ. What is the difference, they say, even if I err in that one thing, which I still cannot believe, and at the judgment will the Lord be concerned about that? And will he not be mindful of the many difficult things I believe? Indeed, this is the way in which they flatter themselves; I serious rebuke them and say that they have fallen from grace and have laid their foundation on sand, and will have no part with Christ. Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. I ask you (to clarify the matter with a crass example), when you order a pair of shoes from a shoemaker, if when they are finally made you find they are an inch shorter than your feet, do you not put them on and wear them? Your will say “I cannot wear them” But they are only an inch too short, so why can't you wear them, since they are just a little bit short of the right measurement? As, therefore, your shoes are either the right size for your feet or they have no value at all, so also the faith is either integral, or it is not the faith. Therefore no one should deceive himself. If we want to build a house which cannot be moved by wind or rain, we must lay the foundation of both rocks, that is, on Christ and Peter. (Sermons of St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., Part II: Sermons 30-55, Including the Four Last Things and the Annunciation., translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published in 2017 by Keep the Faith, Inc., Ramsey, New Jersey, pp. 152-154.)

Saint Robert Bellarmine combined Scholasticism with his own brilliant and very practical explanations of theological points that made it possible for those listening to him to comprehend and to remember his teaching. How much more simple can it get than “Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all” can it get?

As should go without saying, the entirety of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is premised upon a rejection and/or distortion of everything contained in the Sacred Deposit Faith as it is an instrument of Modernist perdition. Its “popes” and “bishops” have merely recycled the same Modernist propositions condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, when condemning the New Theology’s dressing up of Modernism in a different guise.

There is not one wretched thing about conciliarism that has the approval of the Mother of God.

No, not the "new ecclesiology."

No, not false ecumenism.

No, not "inter-religious prayer services."

No, not "inter-religious dialogue."

No, not "religious liberty."

No, not "separation of Church and State."

No, not "the hermeneutic of continuity" or its cousin, "living tradition."

No, not "episcopal collegiality."

No, not the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service and all of its Jansenist "reforms" (the liturgy as a "meal" and not the unbloody re-presentation or perpetuation of the Sacrifice of the Cross, the obliteration of the distinction between the presider and the laity, the proliferation of laity in the sanctuary, endless expressions of lay "participation" in the service, plenty of room for improvisation). The lords of conciliarism, including the so-called “conservatives” who stage the abominable Novus Ordo travesty and who endorse “natural family planning” and “religious liberty” as well their false opposites within the ranks of the Jacobin/Bolshevik “progressivists,” are blasphemers against God the Holy Ghost and the very inerrant nature of the true Church He guides infallibly.

Dom Prosper Gueranger explained the work of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in his reflection for this day, Ember Wednesday within the Octave of Pentecost, contained in The Liturgical Year, wherein he stressed the fact that the Holy Ghost has promulgated “a precise Symbol of Faith which each of its Members is bound to accept—producing by its decisions the strictest unity of religious belief throughout the countless individuals who compose the society,” that is the Church:

We have seen with what fidelity the Holy Ghost has fulfilled, during all these past ages, the Mission he received from our Emmanuel, of forming, protecting and maintaining his Spouse the Church. This trust given by a God has been executed with all the power of a God, and it is the sublimest and most wonderful spectacle the world has witnessed during the eighteen hundred years of the new Covenant. This continuance of a social body—the same in all times and places—promulgating a precise Symbol of Faith which each of its Members is bound to accept—producing by its decisions the strictest unity of religious belief throughout the countless individuals who compose the society—this, together with the wonderful propagation of Christianity, is the master-fact of History. These two facts are not, as certain modern writers would have it, results of the ordinary laws of Providence; but Miracles of the highest order, worked directly by the Holy Ghost, and intended to serve as the basis of our faith in the truth of the Christian Religion. The Holy Ghost was not, in the exercise of his Mission, to assume a visible form; but he has made his Presence visible to the understanding of man, and thereby he has sufficiently proved his own personal action in the work of man’s salvation.

Let us now follow this divine action,—not in its carrying out the merciful designs of the Son of God, who deigned to take to himself a Spouse here below,—but in the relations of this Spouse with mankind. Our Emmanuel willed that she should be the Mother of men; and that all whom he calls to the honor of becoming his own Members should acknowledge that it is she who gives them this glorious birth. The Holy Ghost, therefore, was to secure to this Spouse of Jesus what would make her evident and known to the world, leaving it, however, in the power of each individual to disown and reject her.

It was necessary that this Church should last for all ages, and that she should traverse the earth in such wise that her name and mission might be known to all nations; in a word, she was to be Catholic, that is, Universal, taking in all times and all places. Accordingly, the Holy Ghost made her Catholic. He began by showing her, on the Day of Pentecost, to the Jews who had flocked to Jerusalem from the various nations; and when these returned to their respective countries, they took the good tidings with them. He then sent the Apostles and Disciples into the whole world, and we learn from the writers of those early times that a century had scarcely elapsed before there were Christians in every portion of the known earth. Since then, the Visibility of this holy Church has gone on increasing gradually more and more. If the Divine Spirit, in the designs of his justice, has permitted her to lose her influence in a nation that had made itself unworthy of the grace, he transferred her to another where she would be obeyed. If, at time, there have been whole countries where she had no footing, it was either because she had previously offered herself to them and they had rejected her, or because the time marked by Providence for her reigning there had not yet come. The history of the Church’s propagation is one long proof of her ever living and of her frequent migrating. Times and places, all are hers; if there be one when or where she is not acknowledged as supreme, she is at least represented by her Members; and this prerogative, which has given her the name of Catholic, is one of the grandest of the workings of the Holy Ghost.

But his action does not stop here; the Mission given him by the Emmanuel in reference to his Spouse obliges him to something beyond this; and here we enter into the whole mystery of the Holy Ghost in the Church. We have seen his outward influence, whereby he gives her perpetuity and increase; now we must attentively consider the inward direction she receives from him, which gives her Unity, Infallibility, and Holines,—prerogatives which, together with Catholicity, designate the true Spouse of Christ.

The union of the Holy Ghost with the Humanity of Jesus is one of the fundamental truths of the mystery of the Incarnation. Our divine Mediator is called “Christ” because of the anointing which he received; and his anointing is the result of his Humanity’s being united with the Holy Ghost. This union is indissoluble: eternally will the Word be united to his Humanity; eternally also will the Holy Spirit give to this Humanity the anointing which makes “Christ.” Hence it follows that the Church, being the body of Christ, shares in the union existing between its Divine Head and the Holy Ghost. The Christian, too, receives, in Baptism, an anointing by the Holy Ghost, who from that time forward, dwells in him as the pledge of his eternal inheritance; but while the Christian may, by sin, forfeit this union which is the principle of his supernatural life, the Church herself never can lose it. The Holy Ghost is united to the Church forever; it is by him that she exists, acts, and triumphs over all those difficulties to which, by the divine permission, she is exposed while Militant on earth.

St. Augustine thus admirably expresses this doctrine in one of his Sermons for the Feast of Pentecost: “The spirit, by which every man lives, is called the Soul. Now, observe what it is that our Soul does in the body. It is the Soul that gives life to all the members; it sees by the eye, it hears by the ear, it smells by the nose, it speaks by the tongue, it works by the hands, it walks by the feet. It is present to each member, giving life to them all, and to each one its office. It is not the eye that hears, nor the ear and tongue that see, nor the ear and eye that speak; and yet they all live; their functions are varied, their life is one and the same. So is it in the Church of God. In some Saints, she works miracles; in other Saints, she teaches the truth; in others, she practices virginity; in others, she maintains conjugal chastity; she does one thing in one class, and another in another; each individual has his distinct work to do, but there is one and the same life in them all. Now, what the Soul is to the body of man, that the Holy Ghost is to the Body of Christ, which is the Church: the Holy Ghost does in the whole Church, what the soul does in all the members of one body.”

Here we have given to us a clear exposition, by means of which we can fully understand the life and workings of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Holy Ghost is the principle which gives her life. He is her Soul—not only in that limited sense in which we have already spoken of the Soul of her Church, that is, of her inward existence, and which, after all, is the result of the Holy Spirit’s action within her,—but he is also her Soul, in that her whole interior and exterior life, and all her workings, proceed from Him. The Church is undying, because the love, which has led the Holy Ghost to dwell within her, will last forever: and here we have the reason of that Perpetuity of the Church which is the most wonderful spectacle witnessed by the world.

Let us now pass on, and consider that other marvel, which consists in the preservation of Unity in the Church. It is said of her in the Canticle: One is my dove; my perfect one is One. Jesus would have but One, and not many to be his Church, his Spouse: the Holy Ghost will therefore see to the accomplishment of his wish. Let us respectfully follow him in his workings here also. And firstly; is it possible, viewing the thing humanly, that a society should exist for eighteen hundred years and never change? nay, could it have continued all that time, even allowing it to have changed as often as you will? And during these long ages, this society has necessarily had to encounter, and from its own members, the tempests of human passions, which are ever showing themselves, and which not unfrequently play havoc with the grandest institutions. It has always been composed of nations, differing from each other in language, character, and customs; either so far apart as not to know each other, or when neighbors, estranged one from the other by national jealousies and antipathies. And yet, notwithstanding all this—notwithstanding, too, the political revolutions which have made up the history of the world—the Catholic Church has maintained her changeless Unity: one Faith—one visible head—one worship (at least in the essentials)—one mode for the deciding every question, namely, by tradition and authority. Sects have risen up in every age, each sect giving itself out as “the true Church:” they lasted for a while, short or long, according to circumstances, and then were forgotten. Where are now the Arians with their strong political party? Where are the Nestorians, and Eutychians, and Monothelites, with their interminable cavillings? Could anything be imagines more powerless and effete than the Greek Schism, slave either to Sultan or Czar? What is there left of Jansenism, that wore itself away in striving to keep in the Church in spite of the Church? As to Protestantism—the produce of the principle of negation—was it not broken up into sections from its very beginning, so as never to be able to form one society? and is it not now reduced to such straits that it can with difficulty retain dogmas which, at first, it looked upon as fundamental—such as the inspiration of the Scriptures, or the Divinity of Christ?

While all else is change and ruin, our mother the holy Catholic Church, the One Spouse of the Emmanuel, stands forth grand and beautiful in her Unity. But how are we to account for it? Is it that Catholics are of one nature, and Sectarians of another? Orthodox or heterodox, are we not all members of the same human race, subject to the same passions and errors? Whence do the children of the Catholic Church derive that stability which is not affected by time, nor influenced by the variety of national character, nor shaken by those revolutions that have changed dynasties and countries? Only one reasonable explanation can be given—there is a divine element in all this. The Holy Ghost, who is the soul of the Church, acts upon all the members; and as he himself is One, he produces Unity in the Body he animates. He cannot contradict himself: nothing, therefore, subsists by him which is not in union with him.

Tomorrow, we will speak of what the Holy Ghost does for the maintaining Faith, one and unvarying, in the whole body of the Church; let us today limit our considerations to this single point, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the source of external union by voluntary submission to one center of unity. Jesus had said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: now, Peter was to die; the promise, therefore, could not refer to his person only, but to the whole line of his successors, even to the end of the world. How stupendous is not the action of the Holy Ghost, who thus produces a dynasty of spiritual Princes, which has reached its two hundred and fiftieth Pontiff, and is to continue to the last day! No violence is offered to man’s free will; the Holy Spirit permits him to attempt what opposition he lists; but the work of God must go forward. A Decius may succeed in causing a four years’ vacancy in the See of Rome; anti-popes may arise, supported by popular favor, or upheld by the policy of Emperors; a long schism may render it difficult to know the real Pontiff amidst the several who claim it: the Holy Spirit will allow the trial to have its course and, while it lasts, will keep up the faith of his Children; the day will come when he will declare the lawful Pastor of the Flock, and the whole Church will enthusiastically acknowledge him as such.

In order to understand the whole marvel of this supernatural influence, it is not enough to know the extrinsic results as told us by history; we must study it in its own divine reality. The Unity of the Church is not like that which a conqueror forces upon a people that has become tributary to him. The Members of the Church are united in oneness of faith and submission, because they love the yoke she imposes on their freedom and their reason. But who is it that thus brings human pride to obey? Who is it that makes joy and contentment be felt in a life-long practice of subordination? Who is it that brings man to put his security and happiness in the having no individual views of his own, and in the conforming his judgment to one supreme teaching—and this too in matters where the world chafes at control? It is the Holy Ghost, who works this manifold and permanent miracle, for he it is who gives soul and harmony to the vast aggregate of the Church, and sweetly infuses into all these millions a union of heart and mind which forms for our Lord Jesus Christ his “One” dearest Spouse.

During the days of his mortal life, Jesus prayed his Eternal Father to bless us with Unity: May they be one, as we also are. He prepares us for it, when he calls us to become his Members; but for the achieving this union, he sends his Spirit into the world—that Spirit who is the eternal link between the Father and the Son, and who deigns to accept a temporal Mission among men, in order to create on the earth a Union formed after the type of the Union which is in God himself.

We give thee thanks, O Blessed Spirit! who, by thy dwelling thus within the Church of Christ, inspirest us to love and practice Unity, and suffer every evil rather than break it. Strengthen it within us, and never permit us to deviate from it by even the slightest want of submission. Thou art the soul of the Church; oh! give us to be Members ever docile to thy inspirations, for we could not belong to Jesus who sent thee, unless we belong to the Church, his Spouse and our Mother, whom he redeemed with his Blood, and gave to thee to form and guide. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Reflection on Wednesday in Whitsun Week.)

It is worth reflecting on two passages quoted just above as they provide us with a marvelous and simple defense of the fact that, quite to the contrary of what has been one of the chief contentions of the conciliar “popes,” it is impossible for God the Holy Ghost to contradict Himself or to be an instrument of “making a mess of things” as His grace produces stability in the true Church, not disunity and conflict. No one can be a Catholic and declare himself at “war” with the true Church or, worse yet, to say that “no church” can tell him what to believe or how to behave:

While all else is change and ruin, our mother the holy Catholic Church, the One Spouse of the Emmanuel, stands forth grand and beautiful in her Unity. But how are we to account for it? Is it that Catholics are of one nature, and Sectarians of another? Orthodox or heterodox, are we not all members of the same human race, subject to the same passions and errors? Whence do the children of the Catholic Church derive that stability which is not affected by time, nor influenced by the variety of national character, nor shaken by those revolutions that have changed dynasties and countries? Only one reasonable explanation can be given—there is a divine element in all this. The Holy Ghost, who is the soul of the Church, acts upon all the members; and as he himself is One, he produces Unity in the Body he animates. He cannot contradict himself: nothing, therefore, subsists by him which is not in union with him. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Reflection on Wednesday in Whitsun Week.)

Here are three examples, each drawn from different phases of his nearly seventy years of priestly apostasy, of how the Antipope Emeritus, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, claimed that it was “necessary to learn” that dogmatic proclamations can never adequately express the truths of the Holy Faith and that it is necessary to make “adjustments” because of the vagaries of human language that, he has contended for so long, causes imprecision of expression:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time."

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.  

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical. As Dom Prosper Gueranger noted, God the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself. This is basic Catholicism, and anyone who clings to the insane belief that Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a defender of the Holy Faith while claiming the Catholic Church had to “learn” something that she did not “know” before the “Second” Vatican Council believes in a different religion that that which was founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Similarly, Dom Prosper Gueranger, without knowing the circumstances that would befall Holy Mother Church less than a century after his death in 1875, provided one of the most cogent defenses of the possibility of an extened papal vacancy that is based entirely upon a proper dogmatic understanding of the Unity and Trinity of God (De Deo Uno et Trino) and of a true ecclesiology in the following paragraph that was quoted above:

Tomorrow, we will speak of what the Holy Ghost does for the maintaining Faith, one and unvarying, in the whole body of the Church; let us today limit our considerations to this single point, namely, that the Holy Spirit is the source of external union by voluntary submission to one center of unity. Jesus had said: Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church: now, Peter was to die; the promise, therefore, could not refer to his person only, but to the whole line of his successors, even to the end of the world. How stupendous is not the action of the Holy Ghost, who thus produces a dynasty of spiritual Princes, which has reached its two hundred and fiftieth Pontiff, and is to continue to the last day! No violence is offered to man’s free will; the Holy Spirit permits him to attempt what opposition he lists; but the work of God must go forward. A Decius may succeed in causing a four years’ vacancy in the See of Rome; anti-popes may arise, supported by popular favor, or upheld by the policy of Emperors; a long schism may render it difficult to know the real Pontiff amidst the several who claim it: the Holy Spirit will allow the trial to have its course and, while it lasts, will keep up the faith of his Children; the day will come when he will declare the lawful Pastor of the Flock, and the whole Church will enthusiastically acknowledge him as such. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Reflection on Wednesday in Whitsun Week.)

Anyone who wants to argue with Dom Prosper Gueranger’s statement of Catholic truth is a fool of the highest order.

Our Lady does not approve anything about the counterfeit church of conciliarism as it mocks her Divine Son, Christ the King, and the Sacred Deposit of Faith that He has revealed exclusively to His Catholic Church for its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication in all of Its Holy Purity. 

We turn, as always to Our Lady who holds us in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of her mantle. We must, as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, pray as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, trusting that we might be able to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of that same Immaculate Heart.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

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 Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

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

Saint Philip Neri, pray for us.

Pope Saint Eleutherius, pray for us.