Victims of the Revolution They Championed, part one

Much commentary has been written in the past three days since three masked Mohammedan stormed into the offices of a satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, in Paris, France, and executed twelve carefully chosen people on Thursday, January 8, 2015, before being two of them were killed yesterday, Friday, January 9, 2015, one of them in a printing plant north of Paris and the other near a Kosher delicatessen in Paris. The third assassin surrendered after his name and face became plastered all over “social media.” A fourth suspect, though, who is wanted as an accomplice is still-at-large.

Readers of this site will not be surprised to learn that I find the commentaries written thus far demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the root causes of this latest display of “tolerance” on the part of adherents of that “religion of peace,” Mohammedanism. Moreover, many of the commentaries have exalted “freedom of the press” and “freedom of speech” even though it is these contemporary “rights” helped to create the very conditions of total disregard for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural that exist in almost every country on the face of this earth at this time.

Once Catholic France, the eldest daughter of Holy Mother Church, is the victim of its own exaltation of blasphemy against Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother that began to popularized in the salons of the “philosophes,” the pseudo-philosophers, in the centuries leading up to the explosion of blasphemy and sacrilege associated with the French Revolution that began on July 14, 1789. France has never recovered from the effects of this Revolution, whose progenitors issued a Judeo-Masonic “Declaration of the Rights of Man” to propagate falsehoods that are directly responsible for the de-Catholicization of France and the rise of the chaos that faces her today.

The ultimate effects of the French Revolution were foreseen by our true popes, who prophetically denounced the wicked falsehoods that had been raised to poison the minds and the hearts of men. Pope Pius VI was the first to denounce these falsehoods after the issuance of the “Declaration of Rights of Man” in 1789, which were “revised and expanded” in 1793:

The necessary effect of the constitution decreed by the Assembly is to annihilate the Catholic Religion and, with her, the obedience owed to Kings. With this purpose it establishes as a right of man in society this absolute liberty that not only insures the right to be indifferent to religious opinions, but also grants full license to freely think, speak, write and even print whatever one wishes on religious matters – even the most disordered imaginings. It is a monstrous right, which the Assembly claims, however, results from equality and the natural liberties of all men.

But what could be more unwise than to establish among men this equality and this uncontrolled liberty, which stifles all reason, the most precious gift nature gave to man, the one that distinguishes him from animals?

After creating man in a place filled with delectable things, didn’t God threaten him with death should he eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil? And with this first prohibition didn’t He establish limits to his liberty? When, after man disobeyed the command and thereby incurred guilt, didn’t God impose new obligations on him through Moses? And even though he left to man’s free will the choice between good and evil, didn’t God provide him with precepts and commandments that could save him “if he would observe them”? …

Where then, is this liberty of thinking and acting that the Assembly grants to man in society as an indisputable natural right? Is this invented right not contrary to the right of the Supreme Creator to whom we owe our existence and all that we have? Can we ignore the fact that man was not created for himself alone, but to be helpful to his neighbor? …

“Man should use his reason first of all to recognize his Sovereign Maker, honoring Him and admiring Him, and submitting his entire person to Him. For, from his childhood, he should be submissive to those who are superior to him in age; he should be governed and instructed by their lessons, order his life according to their laws of reason, society and religion. This inflated equality and liberty, therefore, are for him, from the moment he is born, no more than imaginary dreams and senseless words.” (Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791; Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right“).

France has not recovered from the revolutionary spirit that overtook her in 1789 and was unleashed again and again with great fury in 1830, 1848, and 1871. The anti-Theistic revolution undertaken in the name of the "people" and the "rights of man" was a violent outpouring of hatred of God and His Catholic Church. Relics of countless saints, including the patron saint of Paris, Saint Genevieve, and Saint Vincent de Paul were destroyed by the fierce hatred of these revolutionaries with whose "principles" the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger explained to us in Principles of Catholic Theology the text of Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, was meant to serve as an "official reconciliation." The blood of the innocent was shed freely as the mob reigned supreme, asserting the supposed "rights of man."

Father Denis Fahey, writing in his The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, explained how the diabolical "Declaration of the Rights of Man," proclaimed in 1789 and expanded in 1793, was the polar opposite of the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)

According to the “companion” of Charlie Hebdo editor, Stephane Charbonnier, who was among the massacred two days ago, her friend “symbolized secularism … the combat against fundamentalism”:

Charlie Hebdo planned a special edition next week, produced in the offices of another paper. Editor Stephane Charbonnier, known as Charb, who was among those slain, "symbolized secularism ... the combat against fundamentalism," his companion, Jeannette Bougrab, said on BFM-TV.

"He was ready to die for his ideas," she said. (Yemen terror group claims it directed Paris massacre after cops kill gunmen; US issues worldwide travel warning.)

The “freedoms” let loose by means of the French Revolution included that of blaspheming Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother, something that Charlie Hebdo did when publishing a satirical cartoon just before Christmas last month. No one is “free” to blaspheme the Divine Redeemer and His Most Blessed Mother. As tragic as the murders of Stepahne Charbonnier and his coworkers at Charlie Hebdo are, it is entirely possible that the true God of Divine Revelation used infidels to punish them for their blasphemy against Him and Our Lady.

One of the saddest commentaries of our times is that Mohammedans, adherents of a false, blasphemous religion that was born in violence and bloodshed, are more outraged about blasphemies committed against their false “prophet,” Mohammed, than Catholics are about blasphemies committed against Our Lord and Our Lady and the Holy Faith in the name of “freedom of the press” and “freedom of speech.” Believing Mohammedans take the precepts of their false religion quite seriously, and those precepts teach them to kill to avenge their false “prophet.” Far too many Catholics in the world, having been brainwashed by conciliarism’s “opening to the world,” enjoy blasphemous attacks on Our Lord, Our Lady, Saint Joseph and everything to do with the Holy Faith.

Then again, it is entirely unsurprising that Catholics accept blasphemies against the Divine Redeemer and His Most Immaculate Mother in the name of “freedom of the press” and “freedom of speech” when their “popes” and “bishops” have given them a steady stream of blasphemous words and sacrilegious actions over the course of fifty-six years. How is it possible for ordinary Catholics to recognize and reject blasphemy when the men who are their “leaders” are blasphemers and countenance blasphemy, indecency, immodesty and vice under cover of the civil of law and all throughout what passes for “popular culture.” The situation is so bad today that Catholics don’t even think about making reparation for acts of blasphemy against Our Lord, Our Lady and Holy Mother Church.

Unlike Mohammedans and other infidels, Catholics do not seek to kill those who blaspheme the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, although it was once the case in Catholic France that such blasphemers were punished by the civil authority (noting that Saint Louis IX accepted papal correction from Pope Clement IV for the harsh measures he, Saint Louis, had taken against blasphemers). Catholics seek to pray for the conversion of those who blaspheme as they spend time in prayer, if possible, before the Most Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, for their conversion and to make reparation for these offenses against the Divine majesty.

Pope Pius VII, who had been the prisoner of the man who exploited the “principles” of the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte, explained what would happen in France because of the religious liberty granted by  the Constitutional Charter that had been approved by King Louis XVIII at the behest of the Congress of Vienna in 1814:

For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic, this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two - from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution, but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of "religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you, to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all "religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St. Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, POST TAM DIUTURNAS)

Pope Saint Pius X, writing to condemn the complete separation of Church and State in France in 1905, explained the bitter consequences would befall the French people by refusing to submit humbly to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by His true Church:

17. The vague and ambiguous-wording of some of its articles places the end pursued by our enemies in a new light. Their object is, as we have already pointed out, the destruction of the Church and the dechristianization of France, but without people's attending to it or even noticing it. If their enterprise had been really popular, as they pretend it to be, they would not have hesitated to pursue it with visor raised and to take the whole responsibility. But instead of assuming that responsibility, they try to clear themselves of it and deny it, and in order to succeed the better, fling it upon the Church their victim. This is the most striking of all the proofs that their evil work does not respond to the wishes of the country.

18. It is in vain that after driving Us to the cruel necessity of rejecting the laws that have been made -- seeing the evils they have drawn down upon the country, and feeling the universal reprobation which, like a slow tide, is rising round them -- they seek to lead public opinion astray and to make the responsibility for these evils fall upon Us. Their attempt will not succeed.

19. As for Ourselves, We have accomplished Our duty, as every other Roman Pontiff would have done. The high charge with which it has pleased Heaven to invest Us, in spite of Our unworthiness, as also the Christian faith itself, which you profess with Us, dictated to Us Our conduct. We could not have acted otherwise without trampling under foot Our conscience, without being false to the oath which We took on mounting the chair of Peter, and without violating the Catholic hierarchy, the foundation given to the Church by our Savior Jesus Christ.

We await, then, without fear, the verdict of history. History will tell how We, with Our eyes fixed immutably upon the defense of the higher rights of God, have neither wished to humiliate the civil power, nor to combat a form of government, but to safeguard the inviolable work of Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. It will say that We have defended you, Our beloved sons, with all the strength of Our great love; that what We have demanded and now demand for the Church, of which the French Church is the elder daughter and an integral part, is respect for its hierarchy and inviolability of its property and liberty; that if Our demand had been granted religious peace would not have been troubled in France, and that, the day it is listened to that peace so much desired will be restored in the country.

20. And, lastly, history will say, that if, sure beforehand of your magnanimous generosity. We have not hesitated to tell you that the hour for sacrifice had struck, it is to remind the world, in the name of the Master of all things, that men here below should feed their minds upon thoughts of a higher sort than those of the perishable contingencies of life, and that the supreme and intangible joy of the human soul on earth is that of duty supernaturally carried out, cost what it may and so God honored, served and loved, in spite of all. (Pope Saint Pius X, Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907.)

The verdict of history is clearly on the side of the great Pope Saint Pius X. Pope Saint Pius X manfully defended the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been abandoned and flushed down the Orwellian memory hole by the conciliar revolutionaries. The conciliar “popes” have celebrated the triumph of the very false principles condemned by our true popes and that were championed so liberally by the editors of Charlie Hebdo.

Prophetically, Pope Saint Pius X condemned the efforts on the part of The Sillon to “reconcile” the “spirit of the French Revolution” with the Catholic Faith. Pope Saint Pius X’s prophetic words condemned conciliarism’s adoption of The Sillon’s “spirit of reconciliation” that have seen conciliar “popes” and “cardinals” extol Mohammedanism and is “role” to promote “religion” in civil society:

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.

This being said, what must be thought of the promiscuity in which young Catholics will be caught up with heterodox and unbelieving folk in a work of this nature? Is it not a thousand-fold more dangerous for them than a neutral association? What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all the unbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the social sphere in a sort of apologetic contest? Has not this contest lasted for nineteen centuries in conditions less dangerous for the faith of Catholics? And was it not all to the credit of the Catholic Church? What are we to think of this respect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic to all the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so that they may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces? What are we to think of an association in which all religions and even Free-Thought may express themselves openly and in complete freedom? (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Conciliarism’s respect for the false principles of “liberty, equality, fraternity” have played a very significant role in de-Catholicizing France. The contraception and abortion of the Holy Faith in this once great Catholic kingdom led French Catholics to practice contraception and to have abortions to such an extent that a need for non-French workers, including were Mohammedans who came from formerly French colonies or territories after having fought for France against various independence movements, arose. The Mohammedans thus were able to vanquish France by means of lax immigration laws and the cowardice of her own agnostic politicians, thus winning by means of public policies and by procreation what they had lost to Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours (Poitiers) on October 10, 732.

Pope Pius X explained in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, that Modernism leads ultimately to the triumph of all false religions in the world, thus paving the way for the triumph of the secularism heralded by the editors of Charlie Hebdo and the scions of conciliarism alike:

How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever? Certainly it would be either on account of the falsity of the religious .sense or on account of the falsity of the formula pronounced by the mind. Now the religious sense, although it maybe more perfect or less perfect, is always one and the same; and the intellectual formula, in order to be true, has but to respond to the religious sense and to the believer, whatever be the intellectual capacity of the latter. In the conflict between different religions, the most that Modernists can maintain is that the Catholic has more truth because it is more vivid, and that it deserves with more reason the name of Christian because it corresponds more fully with the origins of Christianity. No one will find it unreasonable that these consequences flow from the premises. But what is most amazing is that there are Catholics and priests, who, We would fain believe, abhor such enormities, and yet act as if they fully approved of them. For they lavish such praise and bestow such public honor on the teachers of these errors as to convey the belief that their admiration is not meant merely for the persons, who are perhaps not devoid of a certain merit, but rather for the sake of the errors which these persons openly profess and which they do all in their power to propagate. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X’s description of Modernism’s respect for false religions has been demonstrated by each of the conciliar “popes” as they have lavished upon heretics and infidels without distinction.

In particular, of course, the conciliar “popes” have gone to great lengths to indemnify Talmudists and Mohammedans in their murderous ways, refusing to accept any claim that violence is inherent in each. The conciliar “popes” and “bishops,” echoing the likes of Presidents George Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, have called Mohammedanism a “religion of peace” that is “defamed” by supposed “extremists” who are, of course, nothing other than faithful, believing disciples of the false “prophet” Mohammed.

This is exactly what the conciliar “archbishop” of Paris, France, Andre “Cardinal” Vingt-Trois, has done in the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre:

In a letter dated Saturday, January 10^th and appearing in the online pages of the Catholic daily La Croix, Cardinal Vingt-Trois says that the incident is, “a call to rediscover the fundamental values of [the French] republic,” including freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. “A cartoon, however distasteful, cannot be put on the same level as murder,” he writes. “Freedom of the press, whatever the cost,” continues the letter, “is the sign of a mature society.”

Cardinal Vingt-Trois is among a growing chorus of religious and civil leaders, who have condemned the attacks and recalled that, unless freedom of speech protects even that speech, which is offensive and outrageous, then it is meaningless – among them US President Barack Obama, who offered expressions of solidarity with France, his country’s oldest ally. “We grieve with you, we fight alongside you to uphold our values, the values that we share, the universal values that bind us together as friends and as allies,” he said.

The leaders of Germany, Britain, France and Italy announced plans to participate in a vigil in Paris on Sunday called to celebrate French unity in the wake of the violence.

Tensions have been mounting in France in recent times, with as many as 1 thousand 2 hundred of its citizens having left their homes to join Islamic forces fighting in Syria and in Iraq, even as France has emerged as a leader in the effort to counter the rise of Islamic militancy, sending troops to Africa and joining the United States in air combat missions targeting the Islamic State in Iraq. (Apostate's Message to Paris Catholics )

Vingt-Trois’s insane call for a “rediscovery” of the “values” of the French republic is, of course, identical to the tack used by conciliar “bishops” of the United States of America to give the appearance of something approaching opposition to ObamaCare’s mandate for all employers, including those affiliated with religious institutions, to provide health insurance coverage for “family planning services.” The American “bishops” were and remain insane to use the very falsehood, religious liberty, that produced the likes of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Andre Vingt-Trois is insane to believe that the very falsehoods that gave rise to Mohammedan hegemony over large parts of French law and culture can bring about a “peaceful coexistence” in France.

Believing Mohammedans, however, are not interested in “coexistence.” They are interested in conquest, nothing else, and to this end they are taking full advantage of the blindness of both the lords of Modernity in the world and those of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The ultimate expression of this conquest will be nothing short of Rome itself, which has already become the seat of Antipopes, who are preparing the way very able for the coming of Antichrist himself.

As we know so very well, the conciliar revolutionaries are celebrating the virtual conquest of Europe by the Mohammedans, using the slogan of "multiculturalism" to do so, going so far as to praise the "inculturation" of Mohammedanism on the soil of once Catholic Europe. The conciliar "bishops" of Italy have been particularly aggressive in this regard lately. Here is a reminder of what transpired in Turin, Italy, nearly four years ago now:

The second meeting of delegates from the Bishops Conferences in Europe for relations with Muslims in Europe took place in Turin (Italy) from May 31 to June 2, 2011.  The Council of the Bishops’ Conferences of Europe (known by its French initials CCEE) brings together the presidents of the 33 European bishops’ conferences.  Presiding over this meeting was Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard, Archbishop of Bordeaux and vice-president of the CCEE.  Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, President of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, was also present.

On June 1, Archbishop Maroun Lahham, Archbishop of Tunis, spoke, emphasizing that the number of initiatives from the Muslim side in the Islamic-Christian dialogue is clearly increasing.  “In this there is an overcoming of a psychology of fear or doubt with regard to a topic,” he remarked somewhat optimistically.  Archbishop Lahham does not forget that there are violent demonstrations when an Islamic personage or dogma is called into question (caricatures of Muhammad, the pope’s lecture in Regensburg….), while noting that this sort of violent action is becoming less frequent.  But he declared:  “the family, the school and the mosque do not educate people in a basic view of equality between Arab Christian and Arab Muslim.”  Later in his talk he added, “We must not forget that Islam presents itself as a unique, all-encompassing system in which everything is related (faith, worship, family, children, morality, prophet, economic life, inheritance, etc.).  Therefore it is enough to touch just one point in this larger system, and Islam per se feels that is it threatened or offended.”  In the same way, the notion of religious freedom has quite different meanings for Christians and Muslims.  According to Abp. Lahham, “In Muslim countries (with rare exceptions), the Christian minorities have freedom of worship, in other words, the freedom to practice their faith, in private and in public.  Now the Christian concept of religious freedom, especially after Vatican II, means freedom of conscience, in other words, the freedom to choose one’s religion or to choose not to have any religion.”

After this second meeting, the delegates of the Bishops’ Conference published a newsletter online on the CCEE’s website.  The bishops confirm that the Catholic Church is following with much interest the “progressive enculturation of Islam in Europe, with a tendency to manifest more its religious and moral than its political dimension.”  And that “in order to provide their religious leaders – imams or teachers – with a theological and cultural formation that will allow them suitably to play their religious role in the European context.”  In the perspective of the creation of a chair of Islamic theology in the State universities, the Church – they go on to say – is in favor of confessional teaching of religion in public schools being made available to other religious traditions, including Islam.

The bishops candidly declare that they “share with sympathy in the expressions of a desire for democracy, freedom,  and of a call for respect of persons, of which the youth from different Arab countries have made themselves the promoters during these months of great political changes, and they express a wish that the process underway may lead to the establishment of a true freedom of religion in these countries, so that Arabian Christians may also enjoy this freedom in the context of an egalitarian citizenship.” – Which only goes to show that, far from what Archbishop Lahham claims, freedom of religion is not guaranteed to the Christian minorities in these countries.

These delegates next claim to have made “a critical evaluation of the term ‘islamophobia’ used to describe the reactions of hostility towards Islam”, and to prefer the terms ‘fear’ and ‘hostility’.  They also “exhort Muslims to form positive and transparent relations”…in order to dissipate a hostile attitude towards them.  To conclude, the bishops repeated “their conviction that the Catholic Church will pursue the dialogue with the Muslims with renewed commitment, in the footsteps of Vatican Council II and following the teaching of Benedict XVI”, in which Christians and Muslims are finally called to express their faith sincerely without imposing it. – No comment.

One goal among others of the Counsel of the Episcopal Conferences of Europe (CCEE), is to assure the exercise of collegiality in the hierarchical communion cum et sub romano pontifice; the promotion of the new evangelization on the European level; the support for the ecumenical collaboration in Europe, and to reestablish the unity of Christians.  These meetings generally take place every three years, and examine the principal questions related to evangelization and the enculturation of the Gospel in the European context. (sources: ccee/apic – DICI#236, June 11, 2011) (Conciliar "Bishops" in Italy Favor "Inculturation of Islam" in Europe.)

Rather than call for prayers and sacrifices to effect the conversion of non-Catholics such as Talmudists and Mohammedans, the “popes” and “bishops” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have extolled the “virtues” of those who are said to believe in the “one God” without believing that He is a Trinity of Divine Persons and as they blaspheme the Holy Name of Jesus and His Most Blessed Mother.

This is how the ever-insane Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is about to embark on a trip to Sri Lanka and The Philippines, which means at least two new interviews and endless screeds about “religious liberty” and a respect for the demigod of the “environment,” addressed Mohamemdans during Ramadan in 2013:

To Muslims throughout the World

It gives me great pleasure to greet you as you celebrate ‘Id al-Fitr, so concluding the month of Ramadan, dedicated mainly to fasting, prayer and almsgiving.

It is a tradition by now that, on this occasion, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue sends you a message of good wishes, together with a proposed theme for common reflection. This year, the first of my Pontificate, I have decided to sign this traditional message myself and to send it to you, dear friends, as an expression of esteem and friendship for all Muslims, especially those who are religious leaders.

As you all know, when the Cardinals elected me as Bishop of Rome and Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church, I chose the name of “Francis”, a very famous saint who loved God and every human being deeply, to the point of being called “universal brother”. He loved, helped and served the needy, the sick and the poor; he also cared greatly for creation.

I am aware that family and social dimensions enjoy a particular prominence for Muslims during this period, and it is worth noting that there are certain parallels in each of these areas with Christian faith and practice.

This year, the theme on which I would like to reflect with you and with all who will read this message is one that concerns both Muslims and Christians: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.

This year’s theme is intended to underline the importance of education in the way we understand each other, built upon the foundation of mutual respect. “Respect” means an attitude of kindness towards people for whom we have consideration and esteem. “Mutual” means that this is not a one-way process, but something shared by both sides.

What we are called to respect in each person is first of all his life, his physical integrity, his dignity and the rights deriving from that dignity, his reputation, his property, his ethnic and cultural identity, his ideas and his political choices. We are therefore called to think, speak and write respectfully of the other, not only in his presence, but always and everywhere, avoiding unfair criticism or defamation. Families, schools, religious teaching and all forms of media have a role to play in achieving this goal.

Turning to mutual respect in interreligious relations, especially between Christians and Muslims, we are called to respect the religion of the other, its teachings, its symbols, its values. Particular respect is due to religious leaders and to places of worship. How painful are attacks on one or other of these!

It is clear that, when we show respect for the religion of our neighbours or when we offer them our good wishes on the occasion of a religious celebration, we simply seek to share their joy, without making reference to the content of their religious convictions.

Regarding the education of Muslim and Christian youth, we have to bring up our young people to think and speak respectfully of other religions and their followers, and to avoid ridiculing or denigrating their convictions and practices. 

We all know that mutual respect is fundamental in any human relationship, especially among people who profess religious belief. In this way, sincere and lasting friendship can grow.

When I received the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See on 22 March 2013, I said: “It is not possible to establish true links with God, while ignoring other people. Hence it is important to intensify dialogue among the various religions, and I am thinking particularly of dialogue with Islam. At the Mass marking the beginning of my ministry, I greatly appreciated the presence of so many civil and religious leaders from the Islamic world.” With these words, I wished to emphasize once more the great importance of dialogue and cooperation among believers, in particular Christians and Muslims, and the need for it to be enhanced. 

With these sentiments, I reiterate my hope that all Christians and Muslims may be true promoters of mutual respect and friendship, in particular through education.

Finally, I send you my prayerful good wishes, that your lives may glorify the Almighty and give joy to those around you. Happy Feast to you all! (Francis the Self-Caricaturist to Muslims for end of Ramadan: Promoting Mutual Respect through Education.) 

Consider also what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI said twenty-seven months ago when he visited Lebanon:

Only in this way can there be growth in understanding and harmony between cultures and religions, and in genuine mutual esteem and respect for the rights of all. In Lebanon, Christianity and Islam have lived side by side for centuries. It is not uncommon to see the two religions within the same family. If this is possible within the same family, why should it not be possible at the level of the whole of society? The particular character of the Middle East consists in the centuries-old mix of diverse elements. Admittedly, they have fought one another, sadly that is also true. A pluralistic society can only exist on the basis of mutual respect, the desire to know the other, and continuous dialogue. Such dialogue is only possible when the parties are conscious of the existence of values which are common to all great cultures because they are rooted in the nature of the human person. This substratum of values expresses man’s true humanity. These values are inseparable from the rights of each and every human being. By upholding their existence, the different religions make a decisive contribution. It cannot be forgotten that religious freedom is the basic right on which many other rights depend. The freedom to profess and practise one’s religion without danger to life and liberty must be possible to everyone. The loss or attenuation of this freedom deprives the person of his or her sacred right to a spiritually integrated life. What nowadays passes for tolerance does not eliminate cases of discrimination, and at times it even reinforces them. Without openness to transcendence, which makes it possible to find answers to their deepest questions about the meaning of life and morally upright conduct, men and women become incapable of acting justly and working for peace. Religious freedom has a social and political dimension which is indispensable for peace! It promotes a harmonious life for individuals and communities by a shared commitment to noble causes and by the pursuit of truth, which does not impose itself by violence but rather “by the force of its own truth” (Dignitatis Humanae, 1): the Truth which is in God. A lived faith leads invariably to love. Authentic faith does not lead to death. The peacemaker is humble and just. Thus believers today have an essential role, that of bearing witness to the peace which comes from God and is a gift bestowed on all of us in our personal, family, social, political and economic life (cf. Mt 5:9; Heb 12:14). The failure of upright men and women to act must not permit evil to triumph. It is worse still to do nothing. (Meeting with members of the government, institutions of the Republic, the diplomatic corps, religious leaders and representatives of the world of culture (May 25th Hall of the Baabda Presidential Palace, 15 September 2012.)

We can see how detached  heretics such as Ratzinger and Bergoglio and their fellow conciliar fiends are from the reality of Mohammedanism as they cling to myths about this “religion of peace” and a belief in “dialogue” and “understanding” that are propagated equally by the likes of Obama/Soetoro and those who serve under him in the most politically “correct” administration in the history of the United States of America. They are as one in seeking to blame a “radicalized Islam” for crimes that are committed in complete fidelity to the true tenets of Mohammedanism. (See the material in Mohammed,  the First Radical Muslim that was contained in my own Silence in the White House and at the Casa Santa Marta.)

Although “freedom of speech” and “freedom of press” is being championed at the present hour in light of the Mohammedan attacks on mockers of all religions, including the one and only true religion, Catholicism, little such freedom exists in the world for believing Catholics.

To wit, try even mentioning the fact that there is something called the Social Reign of Christ the King in a college classroom and that it had been realized in the Middle Ages without running afoul of the “thought police” who boast of their “tolerance” and love of “diversity.” I have had just a bit of first-hand experience with this “tolerance” and love of “diversity.”

Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has proven himself to be very adept at mocking believing Catholics, using all manner of slogans to denounce those who attempt to adhere to everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith in Its Holy Integrity despite their own individual sins and failings. It is really hypocritical for Jorge Mario Bergoglio and minions of his such as Andre Vingt-Trois to attempt to champion “freedom of speech and “freedom of conscience” when they disparage the consciences of believing Catholics who would rather die than to knowingly given any assent to the falsehoods of conciliarism.

Those who were massacred in the offices of Charlie Hebdo three days ago now were willing to shed their blood in behalf of secularism in order to fight “fundamentalism.” How ironic it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has undertaken to fight “fundamentalism,” meaning adherence to Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals, within the structures of his own false church. It is those who refuse to submit to Bergoglio’s false claims of “papal” legitimacy who are to be heralded at this time, not those who blaspheme Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother, thereby signaling a “right” to treat them with the same mockery and scorn that is rightly to be given to the founders and symbols of all false religions.

Without for a second minimizing the horror of the crimes committed by the Mohammedans three days ago, those killed on Thursday, January 8, 2015, were “martyrs” for the very same falsehoods that helped to de-Catholicize France and make it a playground for true infidels and true blasphemers. They were the victims of the very revolution whose false principles they championed so boldly.

Indeed, part two of this commentary will explain how the entire Western world and the conciliar church itself will one day be vanquished by the very falsehoods they have championed and have used to such great effect against the true Faith and those who believe in it without any qualification or reservation whatsoever. Part two will also focus on the some of the proximate causes for Mohammedan anger at Western nations, including, of course, the reflexive support given by the governments of the United States of America to the murderous policies of the Zionist State, Israel.

May we have recourse to the Holy Name of Mary, which we invoke with love one hundred fifty-three times when we pray the three sets of her Most Holy Rosary, whose power was invoked by Pope Saint Pius V to defeat the Mohammedan Turks in the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571, and which was prayed by the Catholic forces under the command of King John Sobieski of Poland on this very day three hundred thirty-one years ago as he defeat the Mohammedan Turks in the Battle of the Gates of Vienna. 

We will observe the ninety-eighth anniversary of Our Lady's Fatima apparitions this year. Our Lady reminded the Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Luica does Santos, to keep praying their Rosaries when she appeared to them on September 13, 1917:

"Continue to pray the Rosary in order to obtain the end of the war. In October Our Lord will come, as well as Our Lady of Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel. Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus to bless the world. God is pleased with your sacrifices. He does not want you to sleep with the rope on, but only to wear it during the daytime."

Lucia then began to put forward the petitions for cures, to be told: "Yes, I will cure some, but not others. In October I will perform a miracle so that all may believe." (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)

Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will triumph over the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Andre Vingt-Trois. . All we have to do is suffer the chastisements of the moment in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves through the same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

It is just up to us to cooperate with graces that Our Lady sends to us to do so.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Ave Maria!

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 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.

Pope Saint Hyginus, pray for us,