Wednesday, April 30, 2014


FROM Jorge’s Preferential Option for Heresy and Those Who Profess It Posted on April 30, 2014 Fresh off of his “canonization” of “Saints John XXIII” and “Saint John Paul II” three days ago now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio went on something called “Twitter” to write the following: “Inequality is the root of social evil.” (See Inequality Root of all Social Evil.) Sigh. Heavy sigh. This man is obsessed. He is a 1960s/1970s revolutionary who, despite all of his protestations to the contrary, has a Marxist view of the world. Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio has repeated this mantra of “inequality is the root of social evil” repeatedly throughout the course of the past thirteen months, seventeen days, including in Evangelium Gaudium, November 26, 2013, this obsession is just another sign of his absolutely manifest rejection of the Catholic Faith. Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not realize that inequality is inherent in the nature of created things. God ordered the Nine Choirs of Angels according to a hierarchy, assigning to each a specific function. Archangels, Angels, and Principalities have been assigned to watch over the ordering of the universe down to its smallest detail, including the eternal and temporal welfare of human beings. Powers, Virtues, and Dominations have been assigned to watch over the multiplicity of causes that govern the universe. Thrones, Cherubim and Seraphim contemplate the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity. God made inequality inherent in the nature of the world and in all created things. There are distinctions between males and females, distinctions that can no amount of sloganeering or surgical mutations can eliminate. While God cares equally for all creatures, whether great or small (cf. Wisdom 6: 8), He metes out his punishment as unequally as He distributes various gifts and talents, expecting more from those to whom more has been given, thus making their punishment more severe for the misuses of that which had been given unto them. (with permission of Dr. Droleskey I have copied the above excerpts)


As we know only too well, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a mocker of doctrinal purity, claiming that the only thing that matters to God is his kind of “concern” for “the poor.” This is why he has no problem “rehabilitating” so-called “theologians whose support of unrepentant sin was so blatant that they were disciplined by the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Indeed, Bergoglio considers it his duty to “liberate” free thinkers from the confines of “small minded” would-be clerics who, he believes, live lives from that detached from the “people in the streets.” This is why he has seen to it that sanctions upon an octogenarian Irish priest who has argued for decades that moral truth can “change” were lifted: Pope Francis is believed to have intervened directly with the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) to have all sanctions on silenced Irish priest Fr Sean Fagan (86) lifted. It was confirmed to The Irish Times in Rome last night that Marist priest Fr Fagan, who has been subject to sanction by the Vatican for six years, is no longer so. The superior general of the Marist congregation in Rome, Fr John Hannan, said last night that Fr Fagan is now “a priest in good standing” where the church is concerned. It has also emerged that the change in Fr Fagan’s circumstances may have involved direct intervention by both Pope Francis and the former President of Ireland Mary McAleese. The Irish Times has learned that Mrs McAleese, who is away from Rome at the moment, wrote to Pope Francis last December requesting that he directly intervene where Fr Fagan’s case was concerned. Receipt of the letter was acknowledged by the Pope’s secretary. It is understood that the Marist congregation was informed of Fr Fagan’s changed situation at Easter. Others understood to have been approached to intervene with the Vatican on Fr Fagan’s behalf include his own congregation, the Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin, the papal nuncio Archbishop Charles Brown and the former head of the Dominicans Fr Timothy Radcliffe. For many years Fr Fagan, who has suffered ill health for some time, had been critical of rigid stances by the Vatican on issues to do with conscience and sexual morality notably in letters to this newspaper. In 2003 he published the book Does Morality Change? And in 2008 Whatever Happened to Sin? In 2010 he was informed by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that he would be laicised should be write for publication any material it considered contrary to Church teaching and should he disclose this to media. Remaining copies of his book were bought up by the Marist congregation whose website last night still carried a statement first posted in February of last year which reads that “ the writings of Fr. Sean Fagan in the book What Happened to Sin do not have the approval of or represent the views of the Society of Mary. (From

Wednesday, April 23, 2014


all news calendar SSPX news & events You are here:homenews-eventsnews"we vigorously protest these canonizations" "We vigorously protest these canonizations" April 22, 2014 District of the USA In his newest Superior General's Letter, Bishop Fellay explains the double problem behind the canonizations of Popes John XXIII and John Paul II due to take place on April 27th. Letter to Friends and Benefactors no. 82 Dear friends and benefactors, If on April 27th John XXIII and John Paul II are canonized, the act will present a double problem to the Catholic conscience. Firstly, the problem of the canonization itself: how can it be possible to offer to the whole Church as an example of sanctity the instigator of Vatican Council II and the Pope of Assisi and human rights? But there is also the deeper problem of what will appear to be an unprecedented recognition of catholicity: how is it possible to put the Church’s stamp of approval and sanctity on the teachings of such a Council, which inspired all of Karol Wojtyla’s action and whose rotten fruits are the indisputable indication of the Church’s self-destruction? This second problem offers the solution: the errors contained in the documents of Vatican Council II and in the reforms that followed, especially in the liturgical reform, could not possibly be the work of the Holy Ghost, who is at once the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Holiness. That is why it seems necessary to us to recall the principal errors and the fundamental reasons for which we cannot subscribe to the novelties of the Council and of the reforms that came of it, any more than to these canonizations that hope to “canonize” Vatican II. For this reason, as we vigorously protest these canonizations, we wish to denounce the undertaking that has denatured the Church since Vatican Council II. Here are its principal elements. I. The Council Whereas the Council was prepared itself to be a shining light in today’s world (if those pre-conciliar documents in which we find a solemn profession of safe doctrine with regard to today’s problems, had been accepted), we can and we must unfortunately state that, in a more or less general way, when the Council has introduced innovations, it has unsettled the certainty of truths taught by the authentic Magisterium of the Church as unquestionably belonging to the treasure of Tradition. […] On all these fundamental points the traditional doctrine was clear and unanimously taught in Catholic universities. Now numerous texts of the Council on these truths will henceforward permit doubt to be cast upon them. […] Thus driven to this by the facts, we are forced to conclude that the Council has encouraged, in an inconceivable manner, the spreading of Liberal errors.[1] II. An ecumenical conception of the Church The expression “subsistit in” (Lumen gentium, 8) means that the Church of Christ has in the separate Christian communities a presence and an action that are distinct from the Church of Christ’s subsistence in the Catholic Church. Taken in this sense, the expression denies the strict necessity of identifying the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, which had always been taught, especially by Pius XII, both in Mystici corporis[2] and Humani generis[3]. The Church of Christ is present and active as such, that is, as the unique ark of salvation, only where the Vicar of Christ is present. The Mystical Body of which he is the visible head is strictly identical to the Roman Catholic Church. The same declaration (LG, 8) also recognizes the presence of “salvific elements” in non-Catholic Christian communities. The decree on ecumenism goes even further, adding that “the Spirit of Christ does not refrain from using these churches and communities as means of salvation, which derive their efficacy from the fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.” (UR, 3) Such statements are irreconcilable with the dogma “No salvation outside of the Church,” which was reaffirmed by a Letter of the Holy Office on August 8, 1949. A separated community cannot cooperate with the action of God, since its separation is a resistance to the Holy Ghost. The truths and the sacraments that it may maintain can have good effects only in opposition to the erroneous principles on which these communities are founded and which separate them from the Mystical Body of the Catholic Church, whose visible head is the Vicar of Christ. The declaration Nostra aetate says that non-Christian religions “often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men,” although such men must find in Christ “the fullness of religious life;” it also “regards with sincere respect those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and doctrines.” (NA, 2) Such a claim must be criticized just as the preceding one. When coupled with heresy or schism, the sacraments, the partial truths of the Faith, and Scripture are in a state of separation from the Mystical Body. That is why, even though using such means, the sect as such cannot be a mediator of grace or contribute towards salvation, for it is deprived of supernatural grace. The same must be said for the ways of thinking, living, and acting that are found in non-Christian religions. These texts of the Council already favor the latitudinarian conception of the Church condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium animos, as well as the religious indifferentism that was also condemned by all the Popes from Pius IX to Pius XII.[4] All the initiatives inspired by ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, the most visible example being the Assisi meeting in 1986, are only the practical application, “the visible illustration, the concrete lesson, a catechesis that can be understood by all” (John Paul II) of these conciliar teachings. But they also express the indifferentism denounced by Pius XI, when he reproved the hope that it would one day be possible to lead the peoples without difficulty, in spite of their religious differences, to a brotherly agreement on the profession of certain doctrines considered as a common basis of the spiritual life. […] Joining in with the partisans and propagators of such doctrines means turning completely away from the divinely revealed religion.[5] III. A collegial and democratic conception of the Church 1. After having shaken the Church’s unity of Faith, the texts of the Council also disturbed the Church’s unity of government and hierarchical structure. The expression “subjectum quoque” (LG, 22) means that the college of bishops united to the Pope as to their head is also, besides the Pope alone, the habitual and permanent subject of the supreme and universal power of jurisdiction in the Church. This is an open door to a decrease in the Sovereign Pontiff’s power, or even to its being challenged, at the risk of endangering the unity of the Church. This idea of a permanent double subject holding primacy is in fact contrary to the Church’s teaching and practice, especially to the constitution Pastor aeternus of Vatican I (DS 3055) and Leo XIII’s encyclical Satis cognitum. Only the pope holds in a habitual and constant manner the supreme power, which he communicates only in special circumstances to councils, when so doing appears opportune to him. 2. The expression “common priesthood” proper to all baptized souls, distinct from the “ministerial priesthood,” (LG, 10) does not explain that only the latter can be taken in the true and proper sense of the word, while the former can be taken in a mystical and spiritual sense only. This distinction was clearly stated by Pius XII in his speech on November 2, 1954. It is absent from the texts of the Council and opens the door to a democratic orientation of the Church, condemned by Pius VI in the bull Auctorem fidei (DS 2106 [Denzinger]). This tendency of having the people participate in the exercise of power is seen also in the multiplication of all sorts of organizations, in conformity with the new canon law (canon 129 §2). It loses sight of the distinction between the clergy and the laity, a distinction which is of divine right. IV. False natural human rights The declaration Dignitatis humanae makes the false claim that men have a natural right in religious matters. Until now the Tradition of the Church unanimously recognized that non-Catholics have the natural right not to be forced by the civil power to adhere (by intention in the internal forum and by practice in the external forum) to the one true religion. It also authorized, at least in some circumstances, a certain tolerance for the exercise of false religions in the public external forum. Vatican II recognized as the natural right of every man not to be prevented by the civil authorities from practicing a false religion in the external public forum. The Council claimed that this natural right of freedom from constraint by the civil authorities was also a civil right. The only laws limiting this right would pertain to the purely civil order of secular society. Thus the Council obliged civil governments no longer to discriminate for religious motives and to establish a juridical equality between the true and false religions. This new social doctrine is opposed to the teachings of Gregory XVI in Mirari vos and of Pius IX in Quanta cura. It is based on a false conception of human dignity as something purely ontological, and not moral. Consequently, the constitution Gaudium et spes teaches the principle of the temporal domain’s autonomy (GS, 36), i.e., the denial of the social kingship of Christ that was taught by Pius XI in Quas primas, and it opens the door to temporal society’s independence from the commandments of God. V. The Protestantization of the Mass The new rite of the Mass, “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent.”[6] By its omissions and equivocations, the new rite of Paul VI attenuates the identification of the Mass with the sacrifice of the Cross to such an extent that the Mass seems much more a simple memorial than a sacrifice. This reformed rite also obscures the role of the priest, putting the accent on the action of the community of the faithful. It gravely diminishes the expression of the propitiatory end of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is expiation and reparation for sin. These defects forbid us to consider this new rite as legitimate. On January 11th and 12th of 1979, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked Archbishop Lefebvre the following question: Do you maintain that a faithful Catholic can think and claim that a sacramental rite, particularly that of the Mass approved and promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff, can be inconsistent with the Catholic Faith, or favens haeresim? He answered: This rite does not in itself profess the Catholic Faith as clearly as the old Ordo missae, and therefore it can favor heresy. But I do not know to whom it should be attributed or whether the Pope is responsible. What is unbelievable is that a Protestant-leaning, and therefore favens haeresim, Ordo missae can have been issused by the Roman Curia.[7] These grave defects forbid us from considering this new rite as legitimate, from celebrating it, and from advising anyone to assist at it or participate positively in it. VI.The New Code, expression of the Conciliar novelties According to the very words of John Paul II, the new Code of Canon Law of 1983 represents “a great effort to translate into canonical language”[8] the teachings of Vatican Council II, including—and especially—the seriously faulty points we have already mentioned. “Among the elements which characterize the true and genuine image of the Church,” explained John Paul II: we should emphasize especially the following: the doctrine which considers the Church as the People of God, and hierarchical authority as a service; the doctrine which considers the Church as a communion and which, therefore, determines the relations which should exist between the particular churches and the universal Church, and between collegiality and the primacy; the doctrine which teaches that all the members of the People of God, each in his proper way, participate in the threefold office of Christ: the priestly, prophetic and royal offices. To this teaching is attached the one concerning the duties and rights of the faithful, and particularly of the laity; and finally, the Church’s commitment to ecumenism. This new code of law underscores a false ecumenism of the Church by allowing the reception of the sacraments of penance, holy eucharist, and extreme unction from non-Catholic ministers (canon 844), and by encouraging ecumenical hospitality in authorizing Catholic ministers to administer the sacrament of holy eucharist to non-Catholics. Canon 336 repeats and accentuates the idea of a double permanent subject of the primacy. Canons 204 §1, 208, 212 §3, 216 and 225 stress the equivocal notion of the common priesthood and the correlative idea of the People of God. Lastly, there is also a false definition of marriage in this new Code, in which the precise object of the matrimonial contract and the hierarchy of its ends no longer appear. Far from encouraging the Catholic family, these novelties open a breach in matrimonial morality. VII. A new conception of the Magisterium 1. The constitution Dei Verbum states imprecisely that, With the passing of time, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth, until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her. (DV, 8) This lack of precision opens the door to the error of a living and evolving Tradition, which was condemned by St. Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi and the Anti-modernist Oath. For the Church can “move toward the fullness of divine truth” only in that it gives a more precise expression of the truth, not in the sense that the dogmas proposed by the Church could receive “a different meaning from that which the Church meant and still means.” (Dei Filius, DS 3043) 2. Benedict XVI’s speech on December 22, 2005 attempted to justify this evolutionary conception of a living Tradition and thus to clear the Council of responsibility for any rupture with the Tradition of the Church. Vatican II wished “to redefine the relationship between the faith of the Church and certain essential elements of modern thought.” And in order to do so, its teachings …reviewed or even corrected certain historical decisions. But in this apparent discontinuity the Council actually preserved and deepened the inmost nature and true identity [of the Church], which is that of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us; it is a subject that increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God. This explanation supposes that the unity of the Church’s Faith reposes not upon an object (for there is a discontinuity, at least on the points we have underlined, between Vatican II and Tradition), but upon a subject, in the sense that the act of faith is defined much more by the believers than by the truths believed. This act becomes principally the expression of a collective conscience, and no longer a firm adherence of the intelligence to the truths revealed by God. Yet Pius XII taught in Humani generis that the Magisterium is the “immediate and universal rule of truth in matters of faith and morals,” the objective truth of the deposit of the Faith, whose sources are Holy Scripture and Tradition. And the constitution Dei Filius of Vatican Council I also taught that this deposit is not “a philosophical invention that can be completed by human ingenuity,” but that it was “confided to the Spouse of Christ that she might guard it holily and declare it infallibly.” (DS 3020) 3. Pope John XXIII’s opening speech (October 11, 1962) and his allocution to the Sacred College on December 23, 1962, obviously attribute to Vatican Council II a very particular, so-called “pastoral” intention, by which the Magisterium is supposed to “express the Faith of the Church according to the modalities of investigation and literary formulation of modern thought.” Paul VI’s encyclical Ecclesiam suam (August 6, 1964) repeats this idea, saying that the Magisterium of Vatican II aims to inject the Christian message into the stream of modern thought, and into the language, culture, customs, and sensibilities of man as he lives in the spiritual turmoil of this modern world (#68); in particular, in announcing the truth, there will be no thoughts of external coercion. Instead we will use the legitimate means of human friendliness, interior persuasion, and ordinary conversation. We will offer the gift of salvation while respecting the personal and civic rights of the individual. (#75) The pastoral constitution Gaudium et spes maintained that the Council, first of all, wishes to assess in this light those values which are most highly prized today and to relate them to their divine source. Insofar as they stem from endowments conferred by God on man, these values are exceedingly good. Yet they are often wrenched from their rightful function by the taint in man’s heart, and hence stand in need of purification. (GS, 11) From these values of the world came the three great novelties introduced by Vatican II: religious liberty, collegiality, and ecumenism. 4. So on the authority of this immediate and universal rule of the revealed truth that is the constant Magisterium, we contest the new doctrines that are contrary to it. That is exactly the criterion given by St. Vincent of Lerins: The criterion of truth and, moreover, of the infallibility of the Pope and of the Church, is its conformity to Tradition and to the deposit of the Faith. Quod ubique, quod semper—That which is taught everywhere and always, in space and in time.[9] But Vatican II’s doctrine on ecumenism, collegiality and religious liberty is a new doctrine, contrary to Tradition and to the public law of the Church, which is itself based on divinely revealed principles, which are thus immutable. We conclude from this that the Council, having wished to propose these novelties, is deprived of a constraining magisterial authority, to the very extent that it proposes them. Its authority is already doubtful because of the new so-called “pastoral” intention mentioned in the preceding paragraph. It seems moreover certainly null and void in the matter of the various points on which it contradicts Tradition (see above, I to VII, 1). Faithful to the constant teaching of the Church, along with our venerated founder Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and following his example, we have never ceased to denounce the Council and its major texts as one of the principal causes of the crisis shaking the Church from top to bottom, penetrating into her “very entrails” and her “veins,” to use the forceful language of St. Pius X. The more we study the matter, the more we realize just how accurate was the analysis Archbishop Lefebvre presented with an extraordinary clarity in the Aula on September 9, 1965. Allow us to use his own words concerning the conciliar constitution on “The Church in Today’s World” (Gaudium et spes): This pastoral Constitution is not pastoral, nor does it emanate from the Catholic Church. It does not feed Christian men with the Apostolic truth of the Gospels and, moreover, the Church has never spoken in this manner. We cannot listen to this voice, because it is not the voice of the Bride of Christ. This voice is not that of the Spirit of Christ. The voice of Christ, our Shepherd, we know. This voice we do not know. The clothing is that of the sheep. The voice is not the voice of the Shepherd, but perhaps that of the wolf.[10] The fifty years that have gone by since speech have only confirmed his analysis. Already on December 7, 1968, only three years after the closing of the Council, Paul VI had to admit that: “The Church is in a time of anxiety, of self-criticism; one might even say of self-destruction.” And on June 29, 1972, he recognized that “By some crack the smoke of Satan has entered into the temple of God; it is doubt, incertitude, problems, anxiety, confrontation.” He realized it, but did nothing. He continued the conciliar reform whose promoters had not hesitated to compare it to the French Revolution of 1789, or the Russian Revolution of 1917. We cannot remain passive; we cannot be accomplices to this self-destruction. That is why we invite you, dear friends and benefactors, to remain firm in the Faith, not to let yourselves be troubled by these novelties of one of the most terrible crises that the Holy Church must undergo. May the Passion of Our Lord and His Resurrection comfort us in our fidelity, in our unshakeable love for God, for Our Lord, true God and true Man, for His Holy Church, divine and human, in an unfailing hope… in Te speravi non confundar in aeternum. May the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary deign to protect us all, and may her triumph soon come! Winona, Palm Sunday, April 13, 2014 +Bernard Fellay

Wednesday, April 16, 2014


Father Benedict Baur, O.S.B, wrote of the events of this day, Spy Wednesday, in The Light of the World: The Church suffers with Christ. She has suffered similar experiences, for often in the course of her history many of her children have proved traitors to their Lord and Redeemer. This is as mysterious as it is terrifying–an apostle turned traitor. He who had been selected from among millions for the special love and esteem of Christ, sells his benefactor for thirty pieces of silver. He who stands, “let him take heed, lest he fall” (1 Cor. 10:12). “Watch ye and pray that ye enter not into temptation” (Matt. 26:41). Christ sees the traitor approaching, and although He knows his foul plan, He does not withdraw. He offers His cheek to be kissed. He has feelings only of love and kindness even for this traitor. He even calls him friend. In effect He says: Even if you no longer love Me, I will love you and am prepared to forgive you the injury you are doing to Me. Christ shows no bitterness; He has no harsh reproach even for Judas. For this fallen apostle He has only sympathy. What did Judas gain? Thirty pieces of silver and the curse of God. He received a small temporal reward for his treachery and was burdened with a remorse of conscience that drove him to eternal damnation. This is the mysterium iniquitatis, the mystery of iniquity. Sin, the blindness and perversity of the human heart, is indeed a mystery. If the Lord were not so full of kindness and understanding, if He did not love us much beyond our deserts, what would become of us? Even an apostle can become a traitor. The Church makes a recompense to Christ for the disgrace heaped upon Him by Judas. “In the name of Jesus let every knee bow of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth; for the Lord become obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father” (Introit). He is obedient to the Father, even submitting to the traitor. That was the will of the Father, and it was sufficient for Christ. Why has the traitor come to betray Christ? What has brought Him? Poor blind apostle! Poor blind Christians! Why do they expend their energies on everlasting worries? Why do they toil so eagerly for money? Why do they seek so avidly for offices, high positions, and the esteem of men? Very often to achieve their ambitions they jeopardize their chances for eternal happiness. Often they forsake religion and neglect the sacraments. What remains to them from all the temporal advantages they may gain? They soon prove empty; this discovery drove Judas to despair and suicide. “Simon, sleepest though? Could thou not watch one hour with Me?” With these words, spoken by Christ to Peter, the Church calls upon us at Lauds not to leave the Savior alone in His suffering and humiliation. At least during Holy Week let us remain close to Christ. That this may be easier for us, we are led to St. Mary Major. Behold the mother. Behold how Mary suffers with Jesus. Mary represents the Church suffering with Christ. Each of us should imitate Mary in her suffering with her Son.With her we should follow Him with sympathetic hearts and stand under His cross on Calvary. May not Christ address us the sad words “Couldst thou not watch one hour with Me? . . . He does not sleep, but hastens to betray Me to the Jews” (Responsory at Matins). It is often true that the friends of Jesus sleep while His enemies are hard at work. (Father Benedict Baur, The Light of the World, Volume I, pp. 420-421) We must, of course, recognize that the lords of conciliarism play the role of Judas Iscariot, perhaps without even realizing it, every day of their lives as they betray the Holy Faith and hand over countless souls to the devil as a result. This is just one of the many reasons that we can never be “una cum” any of the apostates in the false church of conciliarism who see fit to blaspheme God on deceive souls with one falsehood after another on a daily basis. We must be sorry for our sins, making an especially good and thorough Confession of them this Holy Week, remembering that we are not better than–and are probably very much worse than–most others. As much as we may have done the bidding of the devil in our lives, however, the adversary knows that those of us who are trying to reform our lives are not his friends, that we hate our sins and that we want to grow in holiness so as to be more pleasing in the sight of the Most Blessed Trinity at all times and thus better able to oppose the schemes of the enemies of Christ the King in the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are always so hard at work to betray the true Faith by their unswerving fealty to the apostasies and blasphemies and sacrileges of their false religion. We must pray to Our Lady for the courage to flee from the Judases in the counterfeit church of conciliarism so that we will not become their enablers in their constant betrayals of the Catholic Faith, begging her to help us to pray extra Rosaries for the conversion of the modern Judases, each of whom is loved by her Divine Son with an infinite love that wills their eternal salvation and would welcome them back to the fold of the true Faith if they repented of their crimes and abjured their errors before they died. Our Lady is the archetype of Holy Mother Church. She is without stain of sin or the least trace of error of any kind. So is Holy Mother Church. Holy Mother Church takes refuge in the arms of Our Lady in her Basilica in Rome today, Saint Mary Major. Holy Mother Church rushes into the arms of the Blessed Mother to make reparation for the infidelity of the traitor Judas Iscariot and to plead for her children to be faithful always unto the point of their dying breaths. Holy Mother Church can no more give us error or blasphemy or sacrilege or be a participate in various apostasies than can the Blessed Virgin Mary. What more proof do we need that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is a Judas “church” filled with modern-day Judases, for whom we must pray but with whom we must have no association in the slightest at any time for any reason whatsoever. The hour of shadows approaches. We are about to enter into the Paschal Triduum of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection. May reject the ways of Judas Iscariot once and for all as we cleave to Our Lady with the purity of Saint John the Evangelist and the penitent spirit of Saint Mary Magdalene, praying as many Rosaries during this days on which our sins subjected the God-Man to unspeakable horrors and caused our dear Blessed Mother to be pierced through and through with the Fourth through Seventh Swords of Sorrow. Finally, please do remember to pray today for the repose of the soul of late Cyndi Adele Frances Cain, whose Requiem Mass will be offered in San Diego, California, by Father Gerard McKee, CMRI, at 10:30 a.m., Pacific Daylight Saving Time, remembering to keep her husband, Michael Cain, and their two sons, Kellin and Kevin, in your prayers as well. Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon her. May her soul and all of the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen. Our Lady of Sorrows, Pray for us.

Saturday, April 12, 2014

Where is the Bishop while this is happening?

While their diocese in St. Paul Minneapolis is being destroyed, and this is happening all over the USA. Where is the accountability to the USCCB? Is there any? Or can Priest, PASTORS, and Deacons follow the sheep instead of being shepherds and leading the sheep as Jesus wanted? Watch this, and now you will see why our Catholic Church is falling apart . *Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis Contact Information: Father Michael Tegeder's regular Transubstantiation of the Blessed Earthen Rock Ceremony done as a part of the Roman Catholic Mass of all time that is done on a regular basis in Minneapolis Minnesota as part of the Native American Pagan Esoteric Mass Ceremony to Honor Holy Mother Earth. "In this video, a priest and deacon in good standing with the Archdiocese, engage in occult pagan rituals. The rocks here being blessed by Deacon Joseph Damiani and Father Michael Tegeder...They are said to be the bones of the "Earth Mother" and are heated up by fire for the use in sweat lodges and accompanying spirit journeys."

Saturday, April 5, 2014


From, and the genius of Dr Droleskey: It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . . It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

Wednesday, April 2, 2014


April 2, 2014, Article (FROM Posted on April 2, 2014 April 2, 2014, Feast of Saint Francis of Paola and the Commemoration of Wednesday in the Fourth Week of Lent: Today’s new article, Jorge Keeps It Kosher, reviews the extent to which the kitchen staff at the Casa Santa Marta had to follow the directions of a Talmudic rabbi to make the kitchen oven and utensils acceptable for use in the preparation of a Kosher meal that was served on January 16, 2014, to a group of Argentine Talmudists including the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Abraham Skorka, who were being hosted by none other than Rabbi Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself. Bergoglio knows how to keep a Kosher kitchen, and his “doctrine,” such as it is, is perfectly in accord with the “reform” branch of Talmudism. This is relevant now as the false “pontiff” will be visiting the Holy Land from May 24, 2014, to May 26, 2014. He’s got a schedule jam-packed filled with opportunities to display his great affection for the beliefs, symbols, practices and places of worship of false religions. Then again, he should know. He’s got the beliefs, symbols, practices and places of worship of his own false religion, conciliarism. Finally, I ask prayers for the repose of the soul of Mr. Pierre Delfausse, who died in Carmel-by-Sea, California, at the age of ninety-seven on March 14, 2014. I received word of his death from my eldest first cousin, who turned seventy years of age on March 4, 2014. Pierre was my father’s first cousin, making him my first cousin once removed. I met Pierre, who was born on January 10, 1917, in Woodhaven, Queens, New York, in Carmel in 2000 when speaking in California. He told me upon greeting me, “You have your grandfather’s [his own Uncle Ed's] gait.” Well, that was the first time I was told that I had carried myself like Edward Martin Droleskey! Pierre kept a very good log of the Delfausse family tree. I had a fascinating visit with nearly fourteen years ago. Please join us in praying for the repose of the soul of Mr. Pierre Delfausse. Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May his soul and all of the souls of the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014


FROM THE ObamaDeathCare It would be very tempting to offer regular commentaries on the insanity taking place in the world of naturalism. Perhaps more than half of the over two hundred articles published on this site in calendar year 2012 covered the quadrennial farce that is an American campaign for the office of President of the United States of America. This year, however, there have been fewer such commentaries as the threat to souls--and thus of the entirety of all social order itself--posed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio is greater than that posed by other figures of Antichrist in the world today, such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro. Mind you, this is not to minimize the real danger posed by Obama/Soetoro himself to the eternal welfare of souls. Not at all. It is, however, to state yet again that Obama/Soetoro's rise to power has been made more possible by the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "official reconciliation" with the anti-Incarnational principles of the modern civil state that is utterly defenseless against the triumph of statism as it does not recognize any authority above "the people" and the text of whatever constitution, written or unwritten, that is supposed to govern its operation. If one can, though, deconstruct, if not ignore, the plain words of Sacred Scripture as Protestants and Modernists do it is fairly easy to deconstruct, if not ignore, the plain words of a constitution of even of an unjust immoral law itself. The laws of God and of men mean nothing to men who are gods and laws unto themselves, and such men have nothing to fear whatsoever from Jorge Mario Bergoglio as long as they "serve the poor." (Ed. note obamacare is following Englands National Health Care, which euthanized 136,000 people in 2010 according to their own website That was enough to sicken me, and I have not checked since 2011 to see their updates)

The effect of Pope Francis' Meeting with the Argentinian dictator

EXCEPTS FROM www.newchristorchaos, from its brilliant founder. "Married Lesbian couple" to have daughter baptized - and first the "two mothers" will be confirmed in the Cathedral Where else? In Argentina, ¡naturalmente! From La Voz: Daughter of two mothers will be baptized in the Cathedral Next Saturday, April 5, Umma Azul will be baptized in the Cathedral [of Córdoba, Province of Córdoba, Argentina] and president Cristina Fernández [de Kirchner] could be the godmother. She is the daughter of Karina Villarroel and Soledad Ortiz, the two Cordoba women who contracted matrimony a little over a year ago, and regarding whom a controversy came about due to the request for leave [for matrimonial reasons] in the Provincial Police by the first one. [The civil "marriage" of same-sex couples has been legal in Argentina since 2010.] ... Karina and Soledad had to demand the authorization of the Archdiocese. "I had an audience with Archbishop Carlos Ñáñez so that he would give the order, and he confirmed to me that there will be no problem in the Cathedral," she explained. [The Cathedral] Parish priest Carlos Varas will preside at er the ceremony The two ladies will receive Confirmation on the same day and, at 10:30 the baptism of Umma Azul will take place, with a godfather who is a friend of the family and two godmothers, the President and a friend. ... Meanwhile, Karina, who belongs to the police force of the Province, is still struggling for the recognition of a legal demand of a 180-day maternity leave, even though she was not the pregnant mother. ... The Police assured that the woman abandoned the job. La Nación adds that "this will be, according to Church sources, 'the first baptism of the child of a homoparental [sic] family' to be celebrated in a Catholic building in the country." Now, we are all in favor of early baptism - but is not there something in baptism related to the probability of the child being raised in the Catholic faith... faithfully? Canon 868, §1, n. 2, of the Code of Canon Law is clear: Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly: 1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent; 2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason. The Córdoba Archdiocese told La Nación that "the prelate asked Varas [the pastor] to inform the couple, made up of two women, to place 'special attention' in the election of the sponsors, so that the child 'may grow in the' Catholic 'faith'." [sic!] Speaking to news agency "DyN, Church sources recognized that the procedure to authorize a baptism with such characteristics "WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE COMPLICATED IF JORGE BERGOGLIO WERE NOT POPE"