Christ or Chaos

Jorge Spits on the Blood of the English and Irish Martyrs

Revolutions are meant by the devil to turn the world upside down.

The Protestant Revolt, for example, so accustomed those who apostatized to its heresies (the rejection of the truths that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ founded a visible, hierarchical society headed on earth by Saint Peter and his true successors, the belief that one is "saved" when making a "profession of faith" in the Holy Name of Jesus and the subsequent rejection of the Sacrament of Confession and of the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Most Blessed Sacrament, the denial of the Mass as the unbloody perpetuation of the Sacrifice of Calvary, the Calvinist heresy that human souls are predestined to Heaven or to Hell by an arbitrary God Who denies free will to His rational creatures) and novelties (new "liturgical rites," the abolition of the altar in favor a table for a "supper," new prayers, the revival of the iconoclasm that was fought by Saint John Damascene, hatred of devotion to the Mother of God and the saints) that those who remained faithful to the Catholic Faith as it had been handed down to them over the centuries without an iota of change were viewed as "crazy" or "schismatic" or "disloyal" or even "unpatriotic."

Here is the account in Father Harold Gardiner's book of how Blessed Edmund Campion was paraded through the streets of London following his return to that city after his capture on July 14, 1581, just forty-seven years after King Henry VIII had himself declared Supreme Head of the Church in England and just twenty-three years after Henry's daughter by Anne Boleyn, Queen Elizabeth I, restored England to Protestantism after the five-year reign of her half-sister Queen Mary, the daughter of Henry's true wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon:

When they started their journey through the city--they were paraded from end to end of it--the crowds laughed, and many hissed and booed the prisoners. They rode with their elbows tied behind them, their hands lashed together in front, and their feet secured underneath their horses' bellies. Father Campion was singled out for further ridicule by having a paper pinned to his hat, which read: "Campion the Seditious Jesuit."

As the parade passed a section of London called Cheapside, they trooped before a cross standing in the market place. It had been battered and defaced in the religious troubles, but it was still a cross. Father Campion raised his eyes to it, bowed his head as far as he could and tried to make the sign of the cross on himself with his fettered hands.

Some of the crowd pressing close to see the famous captive booed and jeered.

"The Papist sign won't save you from the cross that waits you on Tyburn, you traitor."

"He'll bow to the stone of the cross, but he won't bend his stiff neck to the Queen."

"Haw, haw, but soon he won't have a head on top of his neck to bow with at all."

Such were some of the hoots and catcalls, but some of the people looked with respect and sympathy, not to mention shame. Was this England, that an accused man could be treated as though he had already been tried and found guilty? Did he have the ghost of a chance to get a fair trial? What would happen to the country if things like this went on? Could England ever again be thought of as part of Christendom if priests and good Catholics were persecuted and put to death just because they were priests and good Catholics?

These thoughts were in many minds, but they remained locked up there because it would have been dangerous to express them. But Father Campion would express them very soon and in a way that gave, even when he was in his last hours, new heart and courage to those he had come to serve.

Yes, England could still be thought of as part of Christendom, so long as other Campions would follow to carry on his work. And they did follow. From Campion's day to this, priests have continued to preach Christ and His Church and lay people have continued to follow. Persecutions and martyrdoms would continue for more than a hundred years, but peace would finally come to the Church in England, and with peace, growth and vigor. (Father Harold C. Gardiner, S.J., Edmund Campion: Hero of God's Underground, Farrar, Straus and Cudahy, 1957, pp. 132-134.)

Unfortunately, however, Father Gardiner's description of the Catholic Church in England became obsolete a short time after his book about Blessed Edmund Campion was published in 1957, a year before the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. A new revolution that celebrates the very schismatic "Church of England" that Blessed Edmund Campion and the other English Martyrs, including the 72,000 Catholics who were killed under orders of the lecherous King Henry VIII between 1534 and 1547, refused to acknowledge as anything other than an illegitimate work of heretics and schismatics, arose to convince Catholics that the English and Irish Martyrs died in vain, that one Christian "tradition" is as good as another.

It is more than a little interesting to point out that the majority of Englishmen alive at the time Henry Tudor took their country out of the true Church in 1534 not only lost the Faith but became bitter foes of almost everything they had believed and done as Catholics within a short period of time. Blessed Edmund Campion was put to death in 1581, just forty-eight years following the "marriage" of Henry Tudor to his scheming mistress, Anne Boleyn. Most Englishmen had become rabid in their hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and all of the other ancient customs and traditions of the Catholic Church.

The passage of less than half a century saw the flushing of the Catholic past of England down the Orwellian memory hole as monks and sisters were driven out of their monasteries and convents as the tenant farmers who lived off of the lands of those monasteries and convents were forced off of them to become the ancestors of the urban poor in England who were at the mercy of the grubby Calvinist capitalist industrialists a little over one hunred seventy years later.

Imagine that, will you?

Less than a half a century.

Oh, how long has it been since Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII began his "opening up" to the world?" That's right, a little over fifty-eight years, three months.

Most Catholics in England, Scotland and Wales nearly five hundred years ago refused to follow the path of the English Martyrs as their "liked" the "new order" of things, if you will. Others went along, sometimes out of fear of human respect, sometimes out of fear for their physical lives, sometimes out of fear for losing their property. Still others were confused terribly by the situation.

Does it sound familiar?

A fundamental loss of faith in the space of less than half-a-century effected by liturgical and doctrinal revolutionaries.

Does it sound familiar?

The loss of Faith has been so profound that very few Catholics will bat an eyelash over the news, yet to be announced officially by the lords of conciliarism, that the invalid Anglican prayer service (the equivalent of Vespers), led by lay men dressed up to look like clerics, will take place at the Basilica of Saint Peter on the March 13, 2017 (see the story at Novus Ordo Watch Wire) the fourth anniversary of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's accession to the counterfeit church of conciliarism's seat of apostasy as the sucessor to the "restorer of tradition," Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who gave a "joint blessing" with the then layman posing as the "archbishop" of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, on September 17, 2010:

This photograph is simply one of many that demonstrate the de facto legitimacy extended to Protestant sects and their invalid orders by the conciliar "popes" and "bishops."

A review of some basic facts will illustrate that there can be no mistake that the "Anglican Church" is one of darkness inspired by the adversary himself.

First, unlike the Orthodox, who have sacramental rites that developed under the inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, when the Eastern churches were united to the Catholic Church, the "traditions" of Anglicanism are man-made and were meant to be a publicly manifest rejection of Catholicism, which is why so many scores of thousands of Catholics were willing to suffer the most cruel tortures and inhumane executions to bear their own visible, tangible rejection of those man-made "traditions."

Second, the passage of time does not confer legitimacy on that which has its very origins from the devil in a rejection of the Catholic Faith and the authority of the Catholic Church. Has the passage of time conferred legitimacy on the "Anglican Book of Common Prayer"? If not, then why should it receive approvalin the counterfeit church of concilairism that presents itself to the world as the Catholic Church?

Third, Pope Saint Pius V declared the books of Anglican liturgy to be heretical:

Prohibiting with a strong hand the use of the true religion, which after its earlier overthrow by Henry VIII (a deserter therefrom) Mary, the lawful queen of famous memory, had with the help of this See restored, she has followed and embraced the errors of the heretics. She has removed the royal Council, composed of the nobility of England, and has filled it with obscure men, being heretics; oppressed the followers of the Catholic faith; instituted false preachers and ministers of impiety; abolished the sacrifice of the mass, prayers, fasts, choice of meats, celibacy, and Catholic ceremonies; and has ordered that books of manifestly heretical content be propounded to the whole realm and that impious rites and institutions after the rule of Calvin, entertained and observed by herself, be also observed by her subjects. She has dared to eject bishops, rectors of churches and other Catholic priests from their churches and benefices, to bestow these and other things ecclesiastical upon heretics, and to determine spiritual causes; has forbidden the prelates, clergy and people to acknowledge the Church of Rome or obey its precepts and canonical sanctions; has forced most of them to come to terms with her wicked laws, to abjure the authority and obedience of the pope of Rome, and to accept her, on oath, as their only lady in matters temporal and spiritual; has imposed penalties and punishments on those who would not agree to this and has exacted then of those who persevered in the unity of the faith and the aforesaid obedience; has thrown the Catholic prelates and parsons into prison where many, worn out by long languishing and sorrow, have miserably ended their lives. All these matter and manifest and notorious among all the nations; they are so well proven by the weighty witness of many men that there remains no place for excuse, defense or evasion. (Regnans in Excelsis, the decree issued by Pope Saint Pius V on March 5, 1570, excommunicating Queen Elizabeth I.)

How has the passage of time corrected the heretical content of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (which is a replacement for the four parts of the liturgy used in the Catholic Church: the Breviary, the Missal, the Pontifical, and the Ritual)?

Fourth, the Anglican liturgy (referred to as the Anglican "use" "Mass" in the conciliar structures, a "rite" whose theological deficiencies were assessed quite critically in an article in The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture about a decade ago now) was a precursor and progenitor of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service itself.

Fifth, although the conciliar officials claim that Protestant sects are in "partial communion" with the Catholic Church and thus have "elements of truth and sanctification," there is no such thing as "partial communion" with the Catholic Church. One is either a member of the Catholic Church or he is not. Pope Leo XIII, writing with the Orthodox in mind in the following passage from Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894, made this very clear. So did Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request. It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love. The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 29, 1894.)

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.)

Sixth, adherents of any false religion must be converted unconditionally to the Catholic Church as they publicly abjure their errors and make a profession in everything contained in the Deposit of Faith without any reservation or qualification whatsoever.

The conciliar revolutionaries circumvent this by making short work of the very nature of true. Remember, Modernists believe that the facts of history are in dispute as those who were involved in various, including the true general councils of Holy Mother Church that were guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost, were the time-bound prisoners of their own "biased" preconceptions. This is how the former President of the "Pontifical" Council for Promoting Chrisitan Unity, Walter Kasper, could heap hot coals upon for giving remarks such as those that he gave in England on May 24, 2003, that placed the infallibly binding nature of Apostolicae Curae into question:

As I see the problem and its possible solution, it is not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles; this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which by the way historically could hardly be proved and ascertained. The Catholic view is different from such an individualistic and mechanical approach. Its starting point is the collegium of the apostles as a whole; together they received the promise that Jesus Christ will be with them till the end of the world (Matt 28, 20). So after the death of the historical apostles they had to co-opt others who took over some of their apostolic functions. In this sense the whole of the episcopate stands in succession to the whole of the collegium of the apostles.

To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain but of collegial membership in a collegium, which as a whole goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission. The laying on of hands is under this aspect a sign of co-optation in a collegium.

This has far reaching consequences for the acknowledgement of the validity of the episcopal ordination of another Church. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.

It is beyond the scope of our present context to discuss what this means for a re-evaluation of Apostolicae Curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown. A final solution can only be found in the larger context of full communion in faith, sacramental life, and shared apostolic mission.

Before venturing further on this decisive point for the ecumenical vision, that is a renewed communio ecclesiology, I should speak first on another stumbling block or, better, the stumbling block of ecumenism: the primacy of the bishop of Rome, or as we say today, the Petrine ministry. This question was the sticking point of the separation between Canterbury and Rome in the 16th century and it is still the object of emotional controversies.

Significant progress has been achieved on this delicate issue in our Anglican/Roman Catholic dialogues, especially in the last ARCIC document The Gift of Authority (1998). The problem, however, is that what pleased Catholics in this document did not always please all Anglicans, and points which were important for Anglican self-understanding were not always repaid by Catholic affection. So we still have a reception problem and a challenge for further theological work.

It was Pope John Paul II who opened the door to future discussion on this subject. In his encyclical Ut Unum Sint (1995) he extended an invitation to a fraternal dialogue on how to exercise the Petrine ministry in a way that is more acceptable to non-Catholic Christians. It was a source of pleasure for us that among others the Anglican community officially responded to this invitation. The Pontifical Council for Christian Unity gathered the many responses, analyzed the data, and sent its conclusions to the churches that had responded. We hope in this way to have initiated a second phase of a dialogue that will be decisive for the future of the ecumenical approach.

Nobody could reasonably expect that we could from the outset reach a phase of consensus; but what we have reached is not negligible. It has become evident that a new atmosphere and a new climate exist. In our globalized world situation the biblical testimonies on Peter and the Petrine tradition of Rome are read with new eyes because in this new context the question of a ministry of universal unity, a common reference point and a common voice of the universal church, becomes urgent. Old polemical formulas stand at odds with this urgency; fraternal relations have become the norm. Extensive research has been undertaken that has highlighted the different traditions between East and West already in the first millennium, and has traced the development in understanding and in practice of the Petrine ministry throughout the centuries. As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.

These insights have led to a re-interpretation of the dogma of the Roman primacy. This does not at all mean that there are still not enormous problems in terms of what such a ministry of unity should look like, how it should be administered, whether and to what degree it should have jurisdiction and whether under certain circumstances it could make infallible statements in order to guarantee the unity of the Church and at the same time the legitimate plurality of local churches. But there is at least a wide consensus about the common central problem, which all churches have to solve: how the three dimensions, highlighted already by the Lima documents on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), namely unity through primacy, collegiality through synodality, and communality of all the faithful and their spiritual gifts, can be brought into a convincing synthesis. (A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation.)

This is simply apostasy of the highest order. Apostolic succession is not "an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles"? The perpetually binding nature of Apostolicae Cenae needs to be re-evaluated? No member of the Catholic Church is free to assert such things and remain a Catholic in good standing (see Number 9, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The dogmatic decrees of the [First] Vatican Council are historically conditioned? Oh, please do not even attempt to say that Kasper is not reflecting the exact view of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI on the "time-conditioned" nature of past dogmatic decrees and/or papal encyclical letters. Ratzinger/Benedict has told us in his very words that he believes this precise thing, a proposition that has been condemned by that Vatican Council and to which he, Ratzinger, had to swear against in The Oath Against Modernism.

Ah, but this is why, you see, Walter Kasper does not believe that there is any need to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of Anglicans to the Catholic Church, who he clearly believes have true bishops and true priests. It is simply up to the Lambeth Committee to chart its own "direction," to determine, in Kasper's words, whether Anglicans belongs more "to the churches of the first millennium -Catholic and Orthodox," which leads to the second major error in Kasper's recent remarks: that the patriarchies of the East constituted a separate "church" prior to the Greek Schism of 1054. No such "church" existed.

Lost in all of this willingness to subject immutable truths to the "historical-critical" method of Hegelian analysis is the fact that one is either a Catholic who assents to all of the truths contained in the Deposit of Faith, or he he is not. How absurd is it to ask Protestants to determine whether they belong to the Protestantism in which their sects had their origins? The Anglican "church" has no right from God to exist. It is a false religion. Its adherents are in need to be converted unconditionally to the Catholic Church. Those who have been received into the ranks of the counterfeit church of conciliarism from the Anglican sect in the past six years were not required to make any kind of abjuration of error. All they had to do was to attest to their agreement with the conciliar church's so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document that has many problems (see The New Catechism: Is it Catholic? and my own Piracy, Conciliar Style).

Walter Kasper and his two chief enablers in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, were pretty blatant in their disregard for the Apostolicae Curae as they engaged in publicly notorious acts that give the impression of conferring an acceptance of Anglican orders as valid. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done the same, and the "evensong" that will take place four weeks from today is simply the latest example of one false religious sect with heretical beliefs and invalid liturgical rites legitimzing another false religious sect with heretical beliefs and invalid liturgical rites.

Each of the revolutionaries named in the previous paragraph have shown manifest contempt for these words of Pope Leo XIII:

We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding. (Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, September 15, 1896.)

These committed revolutionaries ought to be committed for believing their own insanity that flies in the face of the truths of the Catholic Faith that have been reiterated time and time again by one true pope after another. A Catholic has the following duty to non-Catholics: to seek with urgency their unconditional conversion to the maternal bosom of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Our true popes have discharged this duty with fidelity. The conciliar "popes" have betrayed this duty time and time and time again.

Consider yet again these words of Pope Pius IX, contained in Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868:

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

Has a conciliar "pope" spoke in such a way?

Indeed not.

Just the opposite is true. Such is one of the many distinct differences between Catholicism and conciliarism.

Here an excerpt from one of the documents cited by Bishop Sanborn to prove that conciliarism's "new ecclesiology" is heretical:

One must believe in everything that is taught by the Catholic Church or he is not a Catholic.

One cannot believe in the "new ecclesiology" and be a member of the Catholic Church.

One cannot believe in "episcopal collegiality" and be a member of the Catholic Church.

One cannot believe in "false ecumenism" and be a member of the Catholic Church.

One cannot participate in "inter-religious dialogue" and "inter-religious prayer services" and be "blessed" by Protestant "ministers and enter into the temples of Protestants or the Orthodox or Mohammedans and be a member of the Catholic Church.

One cannot believe in and promote "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" and be a member of the Catholic Church.

One cannot engage in liturgical ceremonies that would have made even the Arians white with rage and be a member of the Catholic Church.

One cannot refer to the clergy of Protestant sects or the Orthodox confessions as being "pastors" in the "Church of Christ.

Bergoglio has done this by reaffirming Anglicans in their Anglicanism andby being "blessed" by Protestant "ministers" in 2006 when he was the conciliar "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina. Indeed, he wrote as follows to his fellow layman Justin Welby upon the latter's "installation" as the Anglican "archbishop" of Canterbury, one of many Catholic churches and buildings stolen by the Anglicans under the reign of Henry VIII as the blood of Catholics was shed in torrents:

I thank you for the kind words contained in your message to me at my election, and I wish in turn to offer my greetings and best wishes on the occasion of your Enthronement at Canterbury Cathedral.

The pastoral ministry is a call to walk in fidelity to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. Please be assured of my prayers as you take up your new responsibilities, and I ask you to pray for me as I respond to the new call that the Lord has addressed to me.

I look forward to meeting you in the near future, and to continuing the warm fraternal relations that our predecessors enjoyed. (Message of The Head Apostate in Rome to the Head Apostate in England.)

This is identical to how Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI spoke to the then Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople on November 30, 2006, in Istanbul, Turkey:

This fraternal encounter which brings us together, Pope Benedict XVI of Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, is God’s work, and in a certain sense his gift. We give thanks to the Author of all that is good, who allows us once again, in prayer and in dialogue, to express the joy we feel as brothers and to renew our commitment to move towards full communion. This commitment comes from the Lord’s will and from our responsibility as Pastors in the Church of Christ. May our meeting be a sign and an encouragement for us to share the same sentiments and the same attitudes of fraternity, cooperation and communion in charity and truth. The Holy Spirit will help us to prepare the great day of the re-establishment of full unity, whenever and however God wills it. Then we shall truly be able to rejoice and be glad. (Common declaration by Benedict XVI and Patriarch Bartholomew I, November 30, 2006.)

No heretic/schismatic has any "pastoral ministry" to fulfill in the "Church of Christ" as the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church and none other.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has no such "pastoral ministry" in the Catholic Church as he is an apostate who has separated himself from the bosom of Holy Mother Church.

Yes, one must believe in everything taught by Holy Mother Church as it is been defined and understood from time immemorial or he is simply not a Catholic.

Who says so?

Well, let's take a little look:

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

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

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

There is no wiggle room here at all.

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

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

The English and Irish Martyrs knew that this was so. Why is it so difficult for most Catholics today to recognize heresy and apostasy when it is staring them in the very face?

Perhaps it is good to remember that the so-called "Church of England" began because a lecherous king could not keep his marriage vows. Although Pope Urban VII rejected King Henry VIII's request for a decree of marital nullity from his true wife, Catherine of Aragon, it is very clear that things would have been different for the lustful, murderous tyrant if Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of revolutionaries were on the scene at the time. Indeed, I think that is possible for the conciliar revolutionaries to do so in an ex post facto manner posthumously so as to put their official stamp of approval on the heretical and schismatic "Church of England" once and for all. Please note that I said "possible," not probable. At this point, though, anything is possible with Argentine Apostate and his demolition crew.

Ah, that "Church of England" was the result of King Henry VIII's having Parliament enact an unjust law naming him as the “supreme head of the church in England,” requiring every Englishman to take an oath in support of it. Saint Thomas More, though he kept his peace about the oath until his trial, resigned his position as the Chancellor of the Realm as he knew that he could not take an oath to support a declaration that was false and had no binding force upon God or man. It was only after the perjured testimony of Richard Rich that Saint Thomas More discharged his mind concerning the injustice of the supremacy law and of his own trial:

In good faith, Master Rich, I am sorrier for your perjury than for mine own peril, and you shall understand that neither I nor any man else to my knowledge ever took you to be a man of such credit in any matter of importance I or any other would at any time vouchsafe to communicate with you. And I, as you know, of no small while have been acquainted with you and your conversation, who have known you from your youth hitherto, for we long dwelled together in one parish. Whereas yourself can tell (I am sorry you compel me to say) you were esteemed very light of tongue, a great dicer, and of no commendable fame. And so in your house at the Temple, where hath been your chief bringing up, were you likewise accounted. Can it therefore seem likely to your honorable lordships, that I would, in so weighty a cause, so unadvisedly overshoot myself as to trust Master Rich, a man of me always reputed for one of little truth, as your lordships have heard, so far above my sovereign lord the king, or any of his noble counselors, that I would unto him utter the secrets of my conscience touching the king's supremacy, the special point and only mark at my hands so long sought for?

A thing which I never did, nor ever would, after the statute thereof made, reveal unto the King's Highness himself or to any of his honorable counselors, as it is not unknown to your honors, at sundry and several times, sent from His Grace's own person unto the Tower unto me for none other purpose. Can this in your judgment, my lords, seem likely to be true? And if I had so done, indeed, my lords, as Master Rich hath sworn, seeing it was spoken but in familiar, secret talk, nothing affirming, and only in putting of cases, without other displeasant circumstances, it cannot justly be taken to be spoken maliciously; and where there is no malice there can be no offense. And over this I can never think, my lords, that so many worthy bishops, so many noble personages, and many other worshipful, virtuous, wise, and well-learned men as at the making of the law were in Parliament assembled, ever meant to have any man punished by death in whom there could be found no malice, taking malitia pro malevolentia: for if malitia be generally taken for sin, no man is there that can excuse himself. Quia si dixerimus quod peccatum non habemus, nosmetipsos seducimus, et veritas in nobis non est. [If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.] And only this word, "maliciously" is in the statute material, as this term "forcibly" is in the statute of forcible entries, by which statute if a man enter peaceably, and put not his adversary out "forcibly," it is no offense, but if he put him out "forcibly," then by that statute it is an offense, and so shall be punished by this term, "forcibly."

Besides this, the manifold goodness of the King's Highness himself, that hath been so many ways my singular good lord and gracious sovereign, and that hath so dearly loved and trusted me, even at my first coming into his noble service, with the dignity of his honorable privy council, vouchsafing to admit me; and finally with the weighty room of His Grace's higher chancellor, the like whereof he never did to temporal man before, next to his own royal person the highest office in this whole realm, so far above my qualities or merits and meet therefor of his own incomparable benignity honored and exalted me, by the space of twenty years or more, showing his continual favors towards me, and (until, at mine own poor suit it pleased His Highness, giving me license with His Majesty's favor to bestow the residue of my life wholly for the provision of my soul in the service of God, and of his special goodness thereof to discharge and unburden me) most benignly heaped honors continually more and more upon me; all this His Highness's goodness, I say, so long thus bountifully extended towards me, were in my mind, my lords, matter sufficient to convince this slanderous surmise by this man so wrongfully imagined against me....

Forasmuch, my lord, as this indictment is grounded upon an act of Parliament directly oppugnant to the laws of God and his holy church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him, as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual preeminence by the mouth of our Savior himself, personally present upon the earth, to Saint Peter and his successors, bishops of the same see, by special prerogative granted; it is therefore in law amongst Christian men, insufficient to charge any Christian man....

More have I not to say, my lords, but that like as the blessed apostle Saint Paul, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles, was present and consented to the death of Saint Stephen, and kept their clothes that stoned him to death, and yet be they now twain holy saints in heaven, and shall continue there friends forever: so I verily trust and shall therefore right heartily pray, that though your lordships have now in earth been judges to my condemnation, we may yet hereafter in heaven merrily all meet together to our everlasting salvation. (See Saint Thomas More's Speech in Defense of Himself, at his Trial.)

The conciliar "popes" do not believe that the Church of England is based on laws repugnant to God and man. They celebrate what the English and Irish Martyrs died to oppose.

We must remember that Our Lady told Jacinta and Francisco Marto in the Cova da Iria, near Fatima, Portugal, on July 13, 1917, that “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph”:

"To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world." (Our Lady's words at Fatima.)

We must continue to pray, fast and to make many sacrifices for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter who will proceed to fulfill Our Lady’s Fatima Message no matter how many people believe that is either unnecessary or that it would not do any good. Our Lady told us what would happen, namely, that her Immaculate Heart will triumph.” Why do we doubt that this is so?

Praying our Rosaries as we beseech Saint Joseph, the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful, to protect us in these times of great peril, may we fly unto his Most Chaste Spouse, to surrender to everything, including our liberty if this is to be taken away from us, to serve Christ the King as soldiers in His holy army in our battle with the forces of the adversary in our lives and in the world-at-large.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the 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.