Léo dit “Vive la révolution!” (Leo Says “Vive la Revolution”)

You just can’t make any of this up even though I have been trying to explain for over twenty years now that the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s view of the world is based upon the bloodthirsty principles of the anti-Theistic and hence anticlerical French Revolution as “baptized” by The Sillon.

Oh, never mind the fact that Pope Saint Pius X condemned The Sillon’s “reconciliation” with the false principles of the French Revolution.

No, the conciliar revolutionaries have dispensed with most of the Catholic past with a revolutionary fervor that continues to have all the truly ferocious diabolical hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and of a “bourgeois morality” they believe was based upon “rigid” principles that do not take account of how people actually live.

Obviously, the then Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger told us in as many words that the text of Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, was a “counter-syllabus” to Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, and that it represented an “official reconciliation” with Modernity, which is, after all, based upon the anti-Incarnational principles of Judeo-Masonry that were embodied in the French Revolution:

Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, the ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of the remarkable meeting of the Church and the world. Basically, the word "world" means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church's group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation. From this perspective, too, we can understand the different emphases with which the individual parts of the Church entered into the discussion of the text. While German theologians were satisfied that their exegetical and ecumenical concepts had been incorporated, representatives of Latin American countries, in particular, felt that their concerns, too, had been addressed, topics proposed by Anglo-Saxon theologians likewise found strong expression, and representatives of Third World countries saw, in the emphasis on social questions, a consideration of their particular problems. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 381-382)

The deceased “new theologian” was not just a whistlin’ Deutschland uber alles.

Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, a true son of the conciliar revolution, used the slogan of the French Revolution—liberty equality, fraternity—while praising French “contributions” to the development of “human dignity” in his address to civic officials yesterday, September 25, 2026, the first day of his four day anti-apostolic journey to France:

It is a joy for me to be with you today. I am particularly grateful, Mr President, for your gracious invitation to visit France, and I thank you for your words of welcome. Through you, I extend my greetings to all those who live in this country, with its immense cultural and religious patrimony. Together, they make up a people whose diverse origins have enlivened and enriched the nation and its democracy. I would assure you, Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, that France is frequently in the Pope’s prayers, as he has not forgotten his family’s origins in Normandy and Béarn.

My visit to France begins in Paris, the country’s capital, often known as the City of Light. For centuries, France has served as a cultural, artistic and spiritual beacon, not only for Europe but also for the whole world.  With its cathedral schools, universities and academies dedicated to the pursuit of truth, France has helped to shape the outlook of peoples far beyond its borders. The many brilliant French scholars who were also faithful Catholics demonstrates clearly how the sciences and the arts, literature and philosophy, can contribute to the good of humanity when they are directed toward the pursuit of beauty, goodness and truth, that the world may have life.

French expertise is synonymous with excellence in numerous fields. This was particularly evident in the vast project of restoring the cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris, in which numerous private and public institutions were involved from the outset, and to which you, Mr President, were especially committed. For this, I thank you.  I express my deep appreciation to the many artists, builders, technicians and skilled workers who took part in the restoration. The cathedral’s reopening for the celebration of divine worship, and its embrace of visitors from around the world, was not only an impressive technical achievement but also a symbol of renewed hope.  It showed that something considered irreparably destroyed can be reborn through mutual cooperation, and it bore eloquent witness to the unity born of commitment to a common cause.  May this remarkable achievement encourage all those responsible for the country’s political, social and religious life to work tirelessly and as one, inspired by a firm and lively hope.

France is a land with deep Christian roots. From the time of Saint Irenaeus and the baptism of Clovis, the soul of the nation has drawn from Christianity a rich spiritual, cultural, intellectual, artistic and missionary élan that continues to be felt in our world today.  So it was that humanism flourished in sixteenth century France, as a means of uniting the heritage of classical Greece and Rome with the Christian faith. With the great thinkers of the Renaissance, and later of the Grand Siècle, succeeded by those of the Enlightenment, France was responsible for significant advances in our world, including the recognition of human rights grounded in the nature of the human person, particularly religious freedom.  This constant focus on the dignity inherent in every person is echoed in your national motto. Liberty, equality and fraternity are not simply words emblazoned on the front of your public buildings; they refer to universal ethical imperatives that also find in the Gospel message an inexhaustible source of inspiration and fulfillment. (Meeting with the Authorities, Civil Society and the Diplomatic Corps at the Élysée Palace, Paris, 25 September 2026.)

This one paragraph is an intellectual, historical, and theological mess as Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV was attempting to appeal to France’s historical ties to Catholicism, albeit without noting that there would have been no French nation without Catholicism, while at the same time praising the principles of the French Revolution, especially the lie of “religious freedom,” without referring to the revolution explicitly.

Any attempt to reconcile the principles of the French Revolution—liberty, equality, and fraternity—with the maxims of the Gospel of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is blasphemous and is precisely what the Sillonists did at the turn of the Twentieth Century.

Pope Saint Pius X condemned any and all efforts to reconcile the principles of the French Revolution with the truths of the Holy Faith:

However, let not these priests be misled, in the maze of current opinions, by the miracles of a false Democracy. Let them not borrow from the Rhetoric of the worst enemies of the Church and of the people, the high-flown phrases, full of promises; which are as high-sounding as unattainable. Let them be convinced that the social question and social science did not arise only yesterday; that the Church and the State, at all times and in happy concert, have raised up fruitful organizations to this end; that the Church, which has never betrayed the happiness of the people by consenting to dubious alliances, does not have to free herself from the past; that all that is needed is to take up again, with the help of the true workers for a social restoration, the organisms which the Revolution shattered, and to adapt them, in the same Christian spirit that inspired them, to the new environment arising from the material development of today’s society. Indeed, the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries, nor innovators: they are traditionalists. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The French Revolution’s concept of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” did not apply to anyone who dissented from its leaders. There was no “liberty, equality, and fraternity” for bishops, priests, consecrated religious, or ordinary lay Catholics who were deemed to be “enemies of the people” to be found guilty in public show trials and then guillotined to death.

There was no “human dignity” or “solidarity” with the relics of Saint Louis IX or those of Saint Vincent de Paul, the Apostle of Charity, and the hatred of French history, which was completely intertwined with the Catholic Faith, has manifested itself anew in the conciliar sect with its hatred of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals.

Insofar as the “joys” of “religious freedom” are concerned, suffice it to note the prophetic warnings issued by Popes Pius VI and VII about this heresy as promoted in France have been validated by all that has happened in the past two hundred thirty-seven years:

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“).

The Catholic Church: 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)

What was condemned by a true pope as a deplored heresy became an inherent “human right” in Dignitatis Humanae, December 7, 1965.

Contrary to the great praise that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV lavished human the ideals of Modernity championed by the “enlightenment” and hence the French Revolution, 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.

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.)

To be fair to the American Modernist from Dolton, Illinois, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, he did reaffirm the “right to life” in his address to French civic leaders yesterday, although he did so without mentioning the immutable laws of God that must shape not only the consciences of Catholics but of all men everywhere, and it is the duty of the Catholic Church of the simple fact that the common temporal good must be pursued in light of man’s Last End, something that the conciliar revolutionaries simply do not believe.

Indeed, for all his endless blather about “human dignity” yesterday, there was not one word spoken about the rights of God and His Holy Church as Prevost/Leo sought to praise am responsible secularity,” which was called a “healthy secularity” by Karol Jozef Wojtyla/John Paul II, in which what he thinks is the Catholic Church can make its contribution:

Nowadays there is a temptation to expect science to eliminate or alleviate every form of suffering. This often brings the risk of self-delusion. For when science and technology are not guided by a deeper wisdom, they can offer immediate solutions that apparently address people’s wishes and their pain, but can seriously divert them from the greater good to which they aspire. I am concerned at times by those trends in society that risk turning science and technology into profit-driven ventures promoting genetic manipulation, surrogacy, the trade in human organs or the possibility of arranging one’s own death.  Let us not forget that mutual respect and the protection of every human life is a duty incumbent upon each and every one of us. It is a duty that begins with the conversion of our minds and hearts, and requires a sincere and selfless commitment to the good of our brothers and sisters.

How can we fail to see such a commitment as an expression of the authentic “secularity” (laïcité) of the earthly city? A Christian engaged in public service and is guided by the light of his or her conscience illumined by faith, cannot be considered a proselytizer or a threat to the unity of the nation. Indeed, authentic secularity does not exclude religion but is capable of valuing it as an educational resource (cf. Address to Participants in the National Meeting of Catholic Religion Teachers, 25 April 2026).

That is precisely why Catholic schools have a rightful place in the educational landscape of a country like France.  This is part of a broader issue essential to any dialogue, in schools and in society as a whole: learning to know and love ourselves, in order to be able to encounter others with respect and openness (cf. ibid.).

An authentic secularity, then, consists not in excluding religion from the public sphere or from education, but in striving to ensure that the State and religious institutions maintain dialogue and join forces in the service of the common good, that the world may have life. In this regard, I express my appreciation for the work being carried out within the framework of the Dialogue Forum between the Holy See, the Catholic Church in France, and the French Government. The contribution of the Catholic Church, through its network of activities and institutions, is surely praiseworthy and beneficial to society as a whole.  Such forms of cooperation are a good illustration of the healthy complementarity described by the Second Vatican Council, inasmuch as the political community and the Church “are both at the service of the personal and social vocation of the same individuals, though under different titles.  Their service will be more efficient and beneficial to all if both institutions develop better cooperation” (SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 76). Meeting with the Authorities, Civil Society and the Diplomatic Corps at the Élysée Palace, Paris, 25 September 2026.)

That the “world may have life”?

Well, that’s a new turn of Judeo-Masonic philosophy.

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ told us in the Gospel according to Saint John that He had “come that they may have life, and may have it more abundantly,” meaning the life of Sanctifying Grace in the immortal souls of the baptized as a preparation for the joys of eternal life in an unending Easter Sunday of Paradise in Heaven.

Our Lord did not come so that the “world may have life.”

Moreover, the fact that a putative “pope” had to remind leaders of France, the eldest daughter of the Church, about the importance of Catholic education and call for “cooperation” and “dialogue” between Church and State is but a sad testament to conciliarism’s reconciliation with principles of strict separation of Church and State that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907:

Our soul is full of sorrowful solicitude and Our heart overflows with grief, when Our thoughts dwell upon you. How, indeed, could it be otherwise, immediately after the promulgation of that law which, by sundering violently the old ties that linked your nation with the Apostolic See, creates for the Catholic Church in France a situation unworthy of her and ever to be lamented? That is, beyond question, an event of the gravest import, and one that must be deplored by all the right-minded, for it is as disastrous to society as it is to religion; but it is an event which can have surprised nobody who has paid any attention to the religious policy followed in France of late years. For you, Venerable Brethren, it will certainly have been nothing new or strange, witnesses as you have been of the many dreadful blows aimed from time to time by the public authority at religion. You have seen the sanctity and the inviolability of Christian marriage outraged by legislative acts in formal contradiction with them; the schools and hospitals laicized; clerics torn from their studies and from ecclesiastical discipline to be subjected to military service; the religious congregations dispersed and despoiled, and their members for the most part reduced to the last stage of destitution. Other legal measures which you all know have followed: the law ordaining public prayers at the beginning of each Parliamentary Session and of the assizes has been abolished; the signs of mourning traditionally observed on board the ships on Good Friday suppressed; the religious character effaced from the judicial oath; all actions and emblems serving in any way to recall the idea of religion banished from the courts, the schools, the army, the navy, and in a word from all public establishments. These measures and others still which, one after another really separated the Church from the State, were but so many steps designedly made to arrive at complete and official separation, as the authors of them have publicly and frequently admitted.

2. On the other hand the Holy See has spared absolutely no means to avert this great calamity. While it was untiring in warning those who were at the head of affairs in France, and in conjuring them over and over again to weigh well the immensity of the evils that would infallibly result from their separatist policy, it at the same time lavished upon France the most striking proofs of indulgent affection. It has then reason to hope that gratitude would have stayed those politicians on their downward path, and brought them at last to relinquish their designs. But all has been in vain-the attentions, good offices, and efforts of Our Predecessor and Ourself. The enemies of religion have succeeded at last in effecting by violence what they have long desired, in defiance of your rights as a Catholic nation and of the wishes of all who think rightly. At a moment of such gravity for the Church, therefore, filled with the sense of Our Apostolic responsibility, We have considered it Our duty to raise Our voice and to open Our heart to you, Venerable Brethren, and to your clergy and people-to all of you whom We have ever cherished with special affection but whom We now, as is only right, love more tenderly than ever.

3. That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. “Between them,” he says, “there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-“Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur.” He proceeds: “Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them…. As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. — “Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere…. Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error.”[1]

4. And if it is true that any Christian State does something eminently disastrous and reprehensible in separating itself from the Church, how much more deplorable is it that France, of all nations in the world, would have entered on this policy; France which has been during the course of centuries the object of such great and special predilection on the part of the Apostolic See whose fortunes and glories have ever been closely bound up with the practice of Christian virtue and respect for religion. Leo XIII had truly good reason to say: “France cannot forget that Providence has united its destiny with the Holy See by ties too strong and too old that she should ever wish to break them. And it is this union that has been the source of her real greatness and her purest glories…. To disturb this traditional union would be to deprive the nation of part of her moral force and great influence in the world.”[2]

5. And the ties that consecrated this union should have been doubly inviolable from the fact that they were sanctioned by sworn treaties. The Concordat entered upon by the Sovereign Pontiff and the French Government was, like all treaties of the same kind concluded between States, a bilateral contract binding on both parties to it. The Roman Pontiff on the one side and the Head of the French Nation on the other solemnly stipulated both for themselves and their successors to maintain inviolate the pact they signed. Hence the same rule applied to the Concordat as to all international treaties, viz., the law of nations which prescribes that it could not be in any way annulled by one alone of the contracting parties. The Holy See has always observed with scrupulous fidelity the engagements it has made, and it has always required the same fidelity from the State. This is a truth which no impartial judge can deny. Yet to-day the State, by its sole authority, abrogates the solemn pact it signed. Thus it violates its sworn promise. To break with the Church, to free itself from her friendship, it has stopped at nothing, and has not hesitated to outrage the Apostolic See by this violation of the law of nations, and to disturb the social and political order itself — for the reciprocal security of nations in their relations with one another depends mainly on the inviolable fidelity and the sacred respect with which they observe their treaties.

6. The extent of the injury inflicted on the Apostolic See by the unilateral abrogation of the Concordat is notably aggravated by the manner in which the State has effected this abrogation. It is a principle admitted without controversy, and universally observed by all nations, that the breaking of a treaty should be previously and regularly notified, in a clear and explicit manner, to the other contracting party by the one which intends to put an end to the treaty. Yet not only has no notification of this kind been made to the Holy See, but no indication whatever on the subject has been conveyed to it. Thus the French Government has not hesitated to treat the Apostolic See without ordinary respect and without the courtesy that is never omitted even in dealing with the smallest States. Its officials, representatives though they were of a Catholic nation, have heaped contempt on the dignity and power of the Sovereign Pontiff, the Supreme Head of the Church, whereas they should have shown more respect to this power than to any other political power — and a respect all the greater from the fact that the Holy See is concerned with the eternal welfare of souls, and that its mission extends everywhere.

7. If We now proceed to examine in itself the law that has just been promulgated, We find, therein, fresh reason for protesting still more energetically. When the State broke the links of the Concordat, and separated itself from the Church, it ought, as a natural consequence, to have left her independence, and allowed her to enjoy peacefully that liberty, granted by the common law, which it pretended to assign to her. Nothing of the kind has been done. We recognize in the law many exceptional and odiously restrictive provisions, the effect of which is to place the Church under the domination of the civil power. It has been a source of bitter grief to Us to see the State thus encroach on matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Church; and We bewail this all the more from the fact that the State, dead to all sense of equity and justice, has thereby created for the Church of France a situation grievous, crushing, and oppressive of her most sacred rights.

8. For the provisions of the new law are contrary to the constitution on which the Church was founded by Jesus Christ. The Scripture teaches us, and the tradition of the Fathers confirms the teaching, that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, ruled by the Pastors and Doctors (I Ephes. iv. II sqq.) — a society of men containing within its own fold chiefs who have full and perfect powers for ruling, teaching and judging (Matt. xxviii. 18-20; xvi. 18, 19; xviii. 17; Tit. ii. 15; 11. Cor. x. 6; xiii. 10. & c.) It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. St. Cyprian, Martyr, expresses this truth admirably when he writes: “Our Lord, whose precepts we must revere and observe, in establishing the episcopal dignity and the nature of the Church, addresses Peter thus in the gospel: “Ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus,” etc. Hence, through all the vicissitudes of time and circumstance, the plan of the episcopate and the constitution of the Church have always been found to be so framed that the Church rests on the Bishops, and that all its acts are ruled by them. — “Dominus Noster, cujus praecepta metuere et servare debemus, episcopi honorem et ecclesiae suae rationem disponens, in evangelio loquitur et dicit Petro: Ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus, etc…. Inde per temporum et successionum vices Episcoporum ordinatio et Ecclesiae ratio decurrit, ut Ecclesia super Episcopos constituatur et omnis actus Ecclesiae per eosdem praepositos gubernetur” (St. Cyprian, Epist. xxvii.-xxviii. ad Lapsos ii. i.) St. Cyprian affirms that all this is based on Divine law, “divina lege fundatum.” The Law of Separation, in opposition to these principles, assigns the administration and the supervision of public worship not to the hierarchical body divinely instituted by Our Savior, but to an association formed of laymen. To this association it assigns a special form and a juridical personality, and considers it alone as having rights and responsibilities in the eyes of the law in all matters appertaining to religious worship. It is this association which is to have the use of the churches and sacred edifices, which is to possess ecclesiastical property, real and personal, which is to have at its disposition (though only for a time) the residences of the Bishops and priests and the seminaries; which is to administer the property, regulate collections, and receive the alms and the legacies destined for religious worship. As for the hierarchical body of Pastors, the law is completely silent. And if it does prescribe that the associations of worship are to be constituted in harmony with the general rules of organization of the cult whose existence they are designed to assure, it is none the less true that care has been taken to declare that in all disputes which may arise relative to their property the Council of State is the only competent tribunal. These associations of worship are therefore placed in such a state of dependence on the civil authority that the ecclesiastical authority will, clearly, have no power over them. It is obvious at a glance that all these provisions seriously violate the rights of the Church, and are in opposition with her Divine constitution. Moreover, the law on these points is not set forth in clear and precise terms, but is left so vague and so open to arbitrary decisions that its mere interpretation is well calculated to be productive of the greatest trouble.

9. Besides, nothing more hostile to the liberty of the Church than this Law could well be conceived. For, with the existence of the associations of worship, the Law of Separation hinders the Pastors from exercising the plenitude of their authority and of their office over the faithful; when it attributes to the Council of State supreme jurisdiction over these associations and submits them to a whole series of prescriptions not contained in the common law, rendering their formation difficult and their continued existence more difficult still; when, after proclaiming the liberty of public worship, it proceeds to restrict its exercise by numerous exceptions; when it despoils the Church of the internal regulation of the churches in order to invest the State with this function; when it thwarts the preaching of Catholic faith and morals and sets up a severe and exceptional penal code for clerics — when it sanctions all these provisions and many others of the same kind in which wide scope is left to arbitrary ruling, does it not place the Church in a position of humiliating subjection and, under the pretext of protecting public order, deprive peaceable citizens, who still constitute the vast majority in France, of the sacred right of practicing their religion? Hence it is not merely by restricting the exercise of worship (to which the Law of Separation falsely reduces the essence of religion) that the State injures the Church, but by putting obstacles to her influence, always a beneficent influence over the people, and by paralyzing her activity in a thousand different ways. Thus, for instance, the State has not been satisfied with depriving the Church of the Religious Orders, those precious auxiliaries of hers in her sacred mission, in teaching and education, in charitable works, but it must also deprive her of the resources which constitute the human means necessary for her existence and the accomplishment of her mission.

10. In addition to the wrongs and injuries to which we have so far referred, the Law of Separation also violates and tramples under foot the rights of property of the Church. In defiance of all justice, it despoils the Church of a great portion of a patrimony which belongs to her by titles as numerous as they are sacred; it suppresses and annuls all the pious foundations consecrated, with perfect legality, to divine worship and to suffrages for the dead. The resources furnished by Catholic liberality for the maintenance of Catholic schools, and the working of various charitable associations connected with religion, have been transferred to lay associations in which it would be idle to seek for a vestige of religion. In this it violates not only the rights of the Church, but the formal and explicit purpose of the donors and testators. It is also a subject of keen grief to Us that the law, in contempt of all right, proclaims as property of the State, Departments or Communes the ecclesiastical edifices dating from before the Concordat. True, the Law concedes the gratuitous use, for an indefinite period, of these to the associations of worship, but it surrounds the concession with so many and so serious reserves that in reality it leaves to the public powers the full disposition of them. Moreover, We entertain the gravest fears for the sanctity of those temples, the august refuges of the Divine Majesty and endeared by a thousand memories to the piety of the French people. For they are certainly in danger of profanation if they fall into the hands of laymen.

11. When the law, by the suppression of the Budget of Public Worship, exonerates the State from the obligation of providing for the expenses of worship, it violates an engagement contracted in a diplomatic convention, and at the same time commits a great injustice. On this point there cannot be the slightest doubt, for the documents of history offer the clearest confirmation of it. When the French Government assumed in the Concordat the obligation of supplying the clergy with a revenue sufficient for their decent subsistence and for the requirements of public worship, the concession was not a merely gratuitous one — it was an obligation assumed by the State to make restitution, at least in part, to the Church whose property had been confiscated during the first Revolution. On the other hand when the Roman Pontiff in this same Concordat bound himself and his successors, for the sake of peace, not to disturb the possessors of property thus taken from the Church, he did so only on one condition: that the French Government should bind itself in perpetuity to endow the clergy suitably and to provide for the expenses of divine worship.

12. Finally, there is another point on which We cannot be silent. Besides the injury it inflicts on the interests of the Church, the new law is destined to be most disastrous to your country. For there can be no doubt but that it lamentably destroys union and concord. And yet without such union and concord no nation can live long or prosper. Especially in the present state of Europe, the maintenance of perfect harmony must be the most ardent wish of everybody in France who loves his country and has its salvation at heart. As for Us, following the example of Our Predecessor and inheriting from him a special predilection for your nation, We have not confined Ourself to striving for the preservation of full rights of the religion of your forefathers, but We have always, with that fraternal peace of which religion is certainly the strongest bond ever before Our eyes, endeavored to promote unity among you. We cannot, therefore, without the keenest sorrow observe that the French Government has just done a deed which inflames on religious grounds passions already too dangerously excited, and which, therefore, seems to be calculated to plunge the whole country into disorder.

13. Hence, mindful of Our Apostolic charge and conscious of the imperious duty incumbent upon Us of defending and preserving against all assaults the full and absolute integrity of the sacred and inviolable rights of the Church, We do, by virtue of the supreme authority which God has confided to Us, and on the grounds above set forth, reprove and condemn the law voted in France for the separation of Church and State, as deeply unjust to God whom it denies, and as laying down the principle that the Republic recognizes no cult. We reprove and condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations, and fidelity to treaties; as contrary to the Divine constitution of the Church, to her essential rights and to her liberty; as destroying justice and trampling underfoot the rights of property which the Church has acquired by many titles and, in addition, by virtue of the Concordat. We reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of this Apostolic See, to Our own person, to the Episcopacy, and to the clergy and all the Catholics of France. Therefore, We protest solemnly and with all Our strength against the introduction, the voting and the promulgation of this law, declaring that it can never be alleged against the imprescriptible rights of the Church. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1905.)

These passages summarize the correct relationship between Holy Mother Church and the civil state, and they note the Holy Father’s bitterness at seeing the trust that Pope Leo XIII had placed in the French anti-clericalists shattered shortly after he, Pope Saint Pius X, had ascended to the Throne of Saint Peter. Pope Saint Pius X manfully articulated right principles while at the same time enumerating the specific ways in which the leaders of the French Third Republic were attempting to subjecting everything about the life of the Church in France to their own arbitrary whims. The religiously indifferentist civil state, including the government of the United States of America, leads to spiritual and temporal ruin as practical atheism becomes the lowest common denominator over time.

Anyone who thinks that one is voting oneself out of a chastisement is a fool. One must know the signs of the times, and those who ignore the fact that even most “conservatives” support at least some surgical killings of innocent preborn children and overwhelming support the denial of the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage by means of contraceptive pills and devices, to say nothing of speaking impurely and/or blasphemously, dressing indecently, and believing in religious indifferentism is not facing the world as it is. Sin maketh nations miserable. The restoration of a just social order cannot be built upon a foundation of unrepentant sins that multiply daily. With Pope Saint Pius X, you see, we pray and work for the restoration of all things in Christ the King.

The leaders of the French Third Republic, being French, of course, responded with arrogant indignation to Pope Saint Pius X’s Vehementer Nos, prompting Pope Saint Pius X to issue his second encyclical letter, Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907:

Venerable Brethren and Beloved Sons, Health and Apostolic Benediction.

Once again the serious events which have been precipitated in your noble country compel Us to write to the Church of France to sustain her in her trials, and to comfort her in her sorrow. When the children are suffering the heart of the Father ought more than ever to go out to them. And so, now that We see you suffer, from the depths of our fatherly heart floods of tenderness break forth more copiously than ever, and flow to you with the greater comfort and sweetness.

2. These sufferings, Venerable Brethren and beloved sons, now find a sorrowful echo throughout the whole Catholic Church; but We feel them more deeply still and We sympathize with a pity which grows with your trials and seems to increase day by day.

3. But with these cruel sorrows the Master has, it is true, mingled a consolation than which none can be dearer to our heart. It springs from your unshakable attachment to the Church, from your unfailing fidelity to this Apostolic See, and from the firm and deeply founded unity that reigns amongst you. On this fidelity and union We confidently reckoned from the first, for we were too well aware of the nobleness and generosity of the French heart to have any fear that on the field of battle disunion would find its way into your ranks. Equally great is the joy that We feel at the magnificent spectacle you are now giving to the world; and with our high praise of you before the whole Church, We give thanks from the depths of Our heart to the Father of mercies, the Author of all good.

4. Recourse to God, so infinitely good, is all the more necessary because, far from abating, the struggle grows fiercer and expands unceasingly. It is no longer only the Christian faith that they would uproot at all costs from the hearts of the people; it is any belief which lifting man above the horizon of this world would supernaturally bring back his wearied eyes to heaven. Illusion on the subject is no longer possible. War has been declared against everything supernatural, because behind the supernatural stands God, and because it is God that they want to tear out of the mind and heart of man. (Pope Saint Pius X, Une Fois Encore, January 6, 1907.)

Yes, war was declared and has been continued to be waged “against everything supernatural, because behind the supernatural stands God, and because it is God that they want to tear out of the mind and heart of man.”

This is truer now than it was one hundred nineteen years, eight months, twenty days ago, but the conciliar “popes,” including Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, not only believe that this is so but believe that pagans and atheists can all contribute to a mythical common good that does not take into account man’s First Cause and Last End.

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 have been championed by the lords of Modernity, including those of the ever-so-tolerant France of revolutionary principles who have welcomed Mohammedans into their country with great liberality only to suffer liberally at their hands.

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 lords of Judeo-Masonry in the world 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.

The revolutionary spirit that the devil unleashed by means of the Protestant and the French Revolutions continues to poison the world at this present time, and it is that revolutionary spirit with which the counterfeit church of conciliarism “reconciled” itself to at the “Second” Vatican Council and the decades that have followed it. The Jacobins/Bolsheviks of conciliarism unleashed a monstrous war against Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals whose contempt for all that was held sacred prior to the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, the Feast of Saints Denis, Rusticus, and Eleutherius (yes, the very same Saint Denis who was martyred at the age of one hundred by beheading and then walked with his head in his hands as he preached for over six miles to Paris before he died.

There is no other way out of this morass except through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Keeping ever close to Our Lady, therefore, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, may we beg her to bring us closer to her Divine Son with every beat of our hearts, consecrated as they must be to her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart through His Most Sacred Heart.

Remember, God has known from all eternity that we would be alive in these times, which means that, with the help of the graces that Our Lady sends us, there is work for us to do to plant the seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and for the restoration of all things in Christ the King through His true Church.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!  

Our Lady, Mother of God, 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 Isaac Jogues, S.J., pray for us.

Saint Rene Goupil, S,J.,  pray for us.

Saint John Lalande, S,J., pray for us.

Saint Gabriel Lalemant, S.J., pray for us.

Saint Noel Chabanel, S.J., pray for us.

Saint Charles Garnier, S.J., pray for us.

Saint Anthony Daniel, S.J.,  pray for us.

Saint John De Brebeuf, S.J., pray for us.

Saints Cyprian and Justina, pray for us