Source: http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/unsurprising-hatred-catholic-truth-part-two
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:43:29+00:00

Document:
Revolutionaries hate history. Indeed, they must make war against in order to overthrow history. They, the revolutionaries, are the authors of a “new” or a “real” history that is based upon feeding the masses propaganda about the past in order to create a “false memory” for those who lived through it and to assure the young that the “new way” is far better with the “bad” past.
This is what the Protestant Revolutionaries did and continue to do. Most Protestants today are absolutely without any knowledge of what happened in Europe prior to 1517, that it was the Catholic Church that evangelized various pagan and barbaric tribes in Europe during the First Millennium. Having been fed a steady dose of absolute untruths and reprehensible distortions of history, the average Protestant does not know, for example, it was Saint Benedict of Nursia and the Western monasticism he started that kept learning alive in the aftermath of the Barbaric invasions. Indeed, most Protestants know nothing about the Middle Ages, and the little that they think they know is false.
The same is true in the case of social revolutionaries, who are most adept at flushing the truth about past down the memory hole. Almost the entire of what passes for “education” in our contemporary centers of brainwashing (sometimes referred to as “public schools”) is based upon the demonization of the past as the “enlightenment” of the present is heralded. Influenced by the methods perfected by Communist propagandists in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, those responsible for assuring that children and adolescents are taught to accept the prevailing “party line” (which refers in this instance to socialism, relativism, evolutionism, environmentalism, feminism, materialism, naturalism, hedonism, narcissism) without complaint.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the conciliar revolutionaries have gone to great lengths to throw out Holy Mother Church’s true history. Their success in this regard has been extraordinary as only a relatively small percentage of Catholics alive today have any true understanding of Catholic history or of much, if anything, to do with Catholic Faith, Worship and Morals.
First, the authors make it appear that any kind of “religion” is as good as another, but the real point they are making is to demonstrate their preference for no kind of religious influence in public affairs.
Second, the authors must ignore the simple fact that “religion,” to use their word, has been front-and-center of American politics from even before the promulgation of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, which itself was driven in large measure by the fear of one particular religion, Catholicism, despite the fact that some Catholics then living in the thirteen English colonies up and down the Atlantic seaboard did not see that this was so.
It was this hatred of Catholics that caused colonists to consider the Quebec Act as “intolerable” as it was a sign, at least to them, that the British were beginning to slacken in their resolve against “popery” when the truth of the matter was the act demonstrated British pragmatism in the face of a populace more numerous and prosperous than were the Acadians who were dispersed in Nova Scotia.
Look at those names. John Adams. Samuel Adams. Alexander Hamilton. Paul Revere. These are not men to admire. They hated Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church, she that is the one and only means of personal salvation and social order.
They had little to fear, however. Eager to be accepted by their fellow colonists, the leading Catholics of the colonies did not want to convert them to Catholicism. They simply desired the “freedom” to practice their Faith without persecution which is the only thing that the Quebec Act had guaranteed French Catholics in Quebec. Indeed, one could say that the Quebec Act was an incubator of the heresy of “religious liberty” just as much as had been the approach taken by the first Catholics who had arrived in Maryland in 1634 and the pragmatic tack taken by William Penn, who was no friend of Catholicism, in the Colony of Pennsylvania.
If any man can be regarded as the Father of the American Church, it is John Carroll of Maryland. Bearer of a respected American name, ordained in a Society which had planted the faith on the shores of the Chesapeake, he took charge of the infant Church as naturally and firmly as a man bringing order to his own household. To the handful of ex-Jesuits demoralized by the suppression of their order he brought inspiration and direction, while guiding the Church from the Penal Age and into the sunlight of religious freedom. John Carroll organized the American Church. Under him, its diverse and disparate elements were unified, and by his establishment of a seminary and schools, its future was assured.
Although his administrative ability was indeed great, coming at a time when it was most needed, his insights into the American character may have been even of more value to the Church. He realized that in the matter of religion the genius of the new American political system was the separation of church and state. His writings and his speeches are full of encomiums not on behalf of toleration, for that presumes an established church, but for complete religious freedom. It may be that, like the Calverts before him, this attitude was born of expediency; that Catholicism had more to gain from religious freedom than any other American creed. True enough, but so also did the Founding Fathers of the United States have the most to gain from independence.
There is a lot of truth contained in the three paragraphs cited above from the late Robert Leckie's American and Catholic, but not that intended by Mr. Leckie or by the man he praised so much, Archbishop John Carroll, who became the first bishop of the United States of America when he was consecrated on August 15, 1790, by Bishop Charles Walmseley, O.S.B., in Lulworth Castle, Dorsetshire, England. There is, I should say (apologies to the late Ralph McPherson Kiner for using this phrase that he repeated so much in the early days of broadcasting games for the New York Mets in the 1960s), a lot of unintended truth in the three paragraphs cited above.
Archbishop John Carroll did assure the future of the Catholic Church in the United States of America by his embrace of "religious freedom." Carroll's embrace of "religious freedom" in the belief that the civil rights of individual Catholics and the institutional rights of Holy Mother Church was erroneous as "religious freedom" for one is "religious freedom" for all. Lacking an ultimate arbiter ordained by God to resolve disputes between Church and State that were bound to emerge over the course of time as such disputes occurred frequently even during the period of Christendom itself.
Carroll, presaging the giddy optimism of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII concerning the need for an "opening to the world" (Roncalli/John XXIII's much vaunted "updating" or, in Italian, aggiornamento), could not foresee areas of conflict between Church and State in the framework of the "genius" of Constitution of the United States of America. Archbishop Carroll truly believed that the Catholic Church, though she might have suffer persecution from individual Protestants and unbelievers and in states where the roots of "religious liberty" had not yet taken root, would be respected by officials of the Federal government to carry out her apostolic duties without interference.
Quite instead, of course, religious liberty and separation of Church and State, both of which Carroll thought were guarantees of the life of the Church in the United States of America, opened the doors wide to the persecution Catholic immigrants from Ireland began to suffer in the 1820s, although he had died on December 3, 1815, and thus never saw this persecution. Carroll's naive trust and full-throated endorsement of these twin errors came despite the fact that it was within his own lifetime that the first two papal condemnations of them were pronounced. Those pronouncements did not matter to him. The United States of America was "different." It was "special." It was "exceptional." The "good" and "tolerant" Protestants and Freemasons and others who just wanted to "live together" as Americans would never seek to the double-edged sword of "religious liberty" and "separation of Church and State" against the Catholic Church, right?
Within ten years of his death, the persecution of Irish immigrants, who were very eager to prove their Americanism, was in fever pitch, and it was endorsed by many politicians, which puts the lie to the contention made by Spadaro and Figueroa that it has been only in more recent decades that “religion” has sought to play a role in politics and public policy decision-making. Nonsense. A particular “religion,” Protestantism, used all of the levers of power available to them to make sure that the “unwashed” Irish immigrants, beholden to a foreign potentate, the pope, were not able to influence politics and policy in this country.
The first means used by Protestants and, it should be noted, Freemasons to blunt the influence of the new immigrants was the standardize public schools into systems of Protestant propaganda and the inculcation of American values sentiments, starting with religious indifferentism itself.
(1) Fifth Annual Report (1841). Mann argued successfully that economic wealth would increase through an educated public. It was therefore in the self interest of business to pay the taxation for public education.
(2) Seventh Annual Report (1843). Horace Mann inspected and appraised favorably the Prussian school system. This report led to widespread improvement .of education through the educational theories of Pestalozzi, Herbart and eventually Froebel.
(3) Tenth Annual Report (1846). Mann asserted that education was a natural right for every child. It is a necessary responsibility of the State to insure that education was provided for every child. This report led to the adoption of the first State law requiring compulsory attendance in school in 1852.
The development of Horace Mann's thought was influenced heavily by the "Prussian Education System" that had its origins in the Eighteenth Century and whose own "evolution" over the course of the decades thereafter convinced him to use it as a model for Massachusetts, which, in turn, could be a model to "standardize" his brainwashing standards for the rest of the nation. Indeed, Mann, who belonged to the extinct species of naturalist organized crime known as the Whig Party, convinced his fellow party adherents to become "true believers" in the "Prussian Education System." Mann even traveled to Prussia in 1843 to see the system for himself. The People's Republic of New York was one of the first to follow the model that Mann established in the neighbor statist stronghold of Massachusetts, and it is absolutely no accident at al that these two states remain two of the most hostile states to home schooling parents in the United States of America at this time (Maryland, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont round out the ranks of the states whose regulations are designed to make home schooling very difficult as parents are monitored at every turn).
One of the keys to the "Prussian Education System" was the passage of laws to compel the attendance of children in state-run institutions of thought-control. The Prussians of the Eighteenth Century, however, were simply implementing the idea of a former Augustinian monk, a man named Martin Luther, who believed that it was necessary to require children to go to school in order that they learn how to read the Protestant version of the Bible to make sure that all remnants of Catholicism could be eradicated from the German states influenced by his revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to Him through the Catholic Church and to organize society under the Social Reign of Christ the King, which, of course, Luther, much like another German, a priest from Bavaria who was ordained on June 29, 1951 (Father Joseph Ratzinger), rejected out of hand and that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes was wrong both in theory and in fact.
By the way, the likes of Horace Mann, much like Luther three hundreds years before him, desired compulsory so that those children of Catholic immigrants would be exposed to the "truth" in the blasphemous "King James" version of the Bible. We must remember that each and every Protestant "bible" is worthless it contains false translations and omit Sacred Books contained in the Canon of Sacred Scripture, thereby blaspheming God the Holy Ghost, under whose inspiration each word contained in Holy Writ was written. Do not permit yourselves into believing one of naturalism's greatest lies: that it doesn't matter what version of the Bible one reads. This belief is from the devil himself.
Compulsory attendance in state-run institutions of thought-control was essential to American "educational reformers" such as Horace Mann for many of the same reasons, although the Prussian system that they admired so much had made explicit what was implicit in Luther's call for "compulsory education:" the belief that the civil state has the "right" and thus the "duty" to educate children, not parents, thereby violating the precepts of the Fourth Commandment and denying the graces inherent in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that equip every father and mother with the graces necessary to fulfill the primary end of their wedded union in Christ the King: the procreation and education of children.
Alarmed that the efforts to “educate” the children of Catholic immigrants might not be enough, many influential Protestants in the 1840s and 1850s sought to blunt their growing political influence. So much for the false, self-serving narrative spun by Spadaro and Figueroa that “religion” has had more of an influence on politics and public policy in recent decades than in the past here in the United States of America.
The Know-Nothings, a new society, began to be organized about 1852. Theirs was a secret order, which bound its members by a solemn oath. It was formed, ostensibly, to defend the rights of the poor against European invasion. “America is for Americans” was its slogan. With this object in view, they endeavored to have severe naturalization laws enacted against the new arrivals from Europe, and exclude citizens born of foreign parents from holding public offices. In reality, these fanatics combated no so much the foreign immigration as the fidelity of Europeans, especially the Irish, to the Church of Rome. To base calumnies they added murder, pillage, incendiarism, and, before long, found an occasion for opening the campaign. In the spring of 1853 the Papal Nuncio to Brazil, Archbishop Bedini, arrived in New York, bringing the Sovereign Pontiff’s blessing to the faithful in the United States. He was charged, moreover, to investigate the conditions of Catholicism in the great Republic.
This was not taught in American history classes fifty years ago when I was in high school, and it is certainly not being taught today, and is not something that “Father” Spadaro and Senor Figueroa want to admit as it would defeat their effort to show that an “ecumenism of hate” is what binds Catholics to “evangelical fundamentalists” in support of President Donald John Trump and his policies. Behold the true “ecumenism of hatred” that existed in the Nineteenth Century in the United States of America that was directed at Catholics by an alliance of Protestants, Jews and Freemasons.
Interestingly, the aforementioned the Know Nothing Party (or American Party), was actually formed in 1845 by the first Talmudist elected to Congress, Lewis Charles Levin. Levin formed the Know Nothings not to oppose immigration in general but to protest the influx of German and Irish Catholic immigrants to the United States of America. In other words, the Know Nothing Party was founded by a Jew to oppose the immigration of Catholics to this country because he wanted to preserve the "American way," which, of course, provides plenty of space for the devil and his false religions, starting with Talmudism, of course, while seeking to intimidate Catholics in this country from knowing anything about, no less proclaiming openly, the Social Reign of Christ the King over men and their nations. Americanism is thus an expression of the Talmudic ethos that celebrates error while scorning the truth incluing Truth Incarnate Himself.
Part of the larger "Know Nothing" movement (named not for fictional Sergeant Hans Schultz of Hogan's Heroes, but for members of this movement saying that they "knew nothing" about its activities when questioned) that sponsored mob riots against Catholics in various areas, including the attacking and killing of individual Catholics and the burning of Catholic church buildings and schools. Know Nothings won control of the Massachusetts General Court in the elections of 1854, being successful as well in electing their candidates as mayors of the cities of Chicago, Illinois, and San Francisco, California. Ohio was a particular stronghold of the Know-Nothings, who nominated former President Millard Fillmore, who had succeeded to the presidency of the United States of America upon the death of President Zachary Taylor on July 9, 1850, and served the remainder of Taylor's term (which ended on March 4, 1853), for president in 1856.
The Blaine amendments, named after the virulently anti-Catholic James G. Blaine (R-Maine), who, in additional to being the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States of America in 1884, served in the United States House of Representatives (where he was the Speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875), in the United States Senate and served two different terms in two different presidencies as the United States Secretary of State, prohibited the use of public funding of any kind to subsidize schools operated by religious organizations.
That notwithstanding, however, none other than the infamous Americanist, Archbishop John Ireland of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Minnesota, sought to encourage Catholics to join the leave the Democratic Party, which had served as the means by which Catholic immigrants from all over Europe, especially after the War between the States to achieve upward economic mobility and political influence, in order to join the Republican Party precisely because he, Ireland, wanted to show his support for public schools as the means to “Americanize” Catholic immigrants from Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe.
John Ireland was also not above interfering in political matters outside of the State of Minnesota.
To wit, As is well known, Bishop Bernard McQuaid of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, conflicted with the infamous Americanist archbishop of Saint Paul, Minnesota, John Ireland, who took it upon himself in the Spring of 1894 to write letters to the members of the New York State Legislature to urge them to vote for Father Sylvester Malone, a supporter of suspended priest Father Edward McGlynn, who promoted the Knights of Labor, which had been condemned by the Vatican in a letter Elzear-Alexandre Cardinal Tascherau, the Archbishop of Quebec from March 19, 1871, to April 12, 1898 (a condemnation Americanists contended applied only to Canada and thus defied, later petitioning the Vatican successfully in the person of the longtime Americanist Archbishop of Baltimore, James Cardinal Gibbons to reverse), rather than for McQuaid for what was called the "Catholic seat" on the New York State Board of Education. Malone won, angering McQuaid and the Archbishop of New York, Michael Corrigan, another anti-Americanist of Irish descent. Ireland was a support of public schools as a means of "Americanizing" Catholic students. McQuaid and Corrigan wanted the Faith to be protected against the secularizing elements of a culture that they knew posed dangers to the life of the faithful. Sound familiar.
The McQuaid-Ireland dispute occurred when all diocesan bishops, quite of course, had ordinary, territorial jurisdiction, something that no traditional Catholic bishop possesses (unless one accepts the claims made by Bishop Louis Vezelis, who, ironically, is located in Rochester, New York). And the McQuaid-Ireland dispute flared up anew later in 1894 when Ireland absented himself from his archdiocese for a month to campaign for Republican Party candidates in the State of New York, appearing alongside such notorious Masons as then United States Senator William McKinley (R-Ohio) and the then head of the United States Civil Service Commission, Theodore Roosevelt. McQuaid denounced Ireland from the pulpit in Rochester. That was a little much for the papal delegate, Monsignor (later Cardinal) Francesco Satolli, who wrote to McQuaid to tell him to stop the public criticism of Ireland, who was, to be sure, no favorite of Rome's.
If we are to believe the newspapers, Minnesota stands in great need of being purified and His Grace might have found ample scope there for the exercise of his political zeal. But...it was not love of good government which induced Archbishop Ireland to spend so many weeks in New York, away from his diocese, where the law relative to residence obliged him to be.
No, McQuaid insisted, Ireland came "to acquit himself of a debt to the Republican party [for electing Fr. Malone to the board of regents.]" McQuaid added that an appeal to Rome might be necessary to teach the "conspirators" - his term for Ireland, Gibbons, Keane, and O'Connell - to stay home and tend their respective flocks. To forestall action by Rome, Ireland wrote to Propaganda [i.e., The Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, established for dealing with all ecclesiastical affairs in missions of the Latin rite throughout the world and having jurisdiction over all foreign missions - Ed.] about McQuaid's pique: "My letters, had...more effect than all the effort he and his friends made in their own state. He was defeated, and he won't forgive me for that."
“Religion” has played an important role in American politics and public-policy decision-making only in more recent decades?
Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa are either intellectually dishonest or just entirely ignorant of the true history of the political activity of the American bishops long before the rise of the “moral issues” that they believe have to be viewed in the context of “climate change,” “income inequality” and “justice” for lawbreakers who cross borders illegally.
Despite all of efforts of the Americanist bishops to prove their bona fides to non-Catholics, efforts to persecute the Church at the state level continued throughout the Twentieth Century, noting also that the administration of former President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro sought to make Catholic institutions—which are under conciliar control, of course—to provide health insurance coverage for contraception, abortion, sterilization and other “family planning services” as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaDeathCare).
Catholic bishops in the Twentieth Century in Oregon and North Dakota had to oppose state-sponsored efforts to impose Masonically-inspired upon Catholics.
To wit, members of the Grand Orient Masonic lodge of Oregon, using all of their considerable clout, joined forces with their great ally, the Ku Klux Klan, and others to sponsor an initiative (a referendum that, if approved by voters, becomes law as though it had been passed by a state legislature) to amend the Compulsory Education Act to, in effect, outlaw Catholic schools in the State of Oregon by mandating that all children be "educated" in public schools. This effort was rendered unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Pierce v. Society of Sisters, June 1, 1925. (See America's Concentration Camps).
Moreover, Catholic bishops supported statists such as Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a virulent anti-Catholic and the thirty-third degree Freemason named Franklin Delano Roosevelt time and time again. After all, it was the "party" that mattered.
Oh, it was too bad that Wilson supported the slaughter of Catholics in Mexico. Catholics just voted for the Democratic Party, which permitted Franklin Roosevelt, who, unlike his statist predecessor, Woodrow Wilson, in whose administration he worked as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, cultivated friendships with Catholic prelates in order to coopt them into supporting his own statist plans, to unleash a veritable campaign team of Catholic bishops and priests, starting with Francis Cardinal Spellman, the Archbishop of New York from 1939 to 1967. to denounce any "conservative" Catholic who dared to criticize his policies. As noted in We're Not in Kansas Any More in January of 2009, Roosevelt unleashed the "Right Reverend New Dealer," Monsignor John A. Ryan, to denounce the courageous Father Charles Coughlin for him during his re-election campaign in 1936. And Francis Cardinal Spellman was known as "FDR's errand boy in a miter."
It was, however, after World War II that fissures began to break in the solid Catholic support for the Democratic Party. The threat posed by the spread of the Soviet Union into Eastern Europe and the fall of China to the forces of Mao Zedong in 1949 led some Catholics to turn more and more to the Republican Party, convincing themselves that they could purge that stronghold of anti-Catholic Masons and nativists and transform it into a bastion of "conservatism" to turn back the New Deal and to win the Cold War.
The fissures in Catholic support became more pronounced in the years after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, especially during the years of the administration of President Ronald Wilson Reagan. Having convinced themselves that electoral politics was the means to "transform" the country, well-meaning Catholics of the "conservative" bent engaged in what could be termed a Manichean struggle with Catholics of the "leftist" bent, each side armed with "bishops" who supported their own particular brand of Americanism, each convinced that the "other" side was composed of "bad guys" as they represented the '"true" interpretation of the Constitution and the "rights" of Catholics in a pluralistic society.
Just as Democrats and Republicans agree on the basic naturalistic, anti-Incarnational, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian principles of the American founding, disagreeing on the specifics as to the conduct of public policy in light of those principles, so is it the case that "liberal" and "conservative" Catholics accept those same false principles as they diverge on the specifics of public policy according to the political "camp" which they believe represents the best means of achieving various goals. Both "liberal" and "conservatives" Catholics are as one in rejecting these simple truths of the Catholic Faith as binding upon their consciences and that they apply to the concrete circumstances to be found in the United States of America, believing that their naturalistic or non-denominational ideas and plans and strategies can "win the day" for their respective cause.
The fissures between the false opposites of the “left” and the “right” were reflected after the “Second” Vatican Council in the “hierarchy” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism here in the United States of America as the “social justice” “bishops” fought the “pro-life” “bishops” at the annual meetings of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference (now called the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops). The “social justice” types (Joseph Bernardin, Francis Mugavero, Howard Hubbard, John Dearden, Thomas Gumbleton, Roger Mahony, Peter Rosazza, Donald Wuerl, Raymond Hunthausen, Rembert Weakland, Matthew Clark, Joseph Sullivan of Brooklyn, John Raymond McGann, Joseph Imesch, Daniel Leo Ryan, Joseph Fiorenza, William Borders, Thomas Kelly, John Roach, John May, et al.) made sure to hire all manner of lay bureaucrats who were of like mind, including many who supported the agenda of the homosexual collective and/or were active participants in it, feminists, and out-and-out pro-aborts. Each was a statist to the core in support of an increase in the size, the scope, and the power of the Federal government of the United States of America.
These “social justice” bishops enabled one pro-abortion Catholic politician after another in the decades after the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton, January 22, 1973, but Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa gave no attention to this at all precisely because it is their own intention—and that of Jorge Mario Bergoglio—to indemnify the very sorts of figures in public life such as the ones named just above.
Perhaps this is the kind of "religious influence" that is acceptable to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his apologists, Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa.
Today’s Pontius Pilates with whom "Pope Francis" has so much in common had lots and lots of help from true bishops and true priests in the 1960s and 1970s as their consciences were massaged to make it possible for them to support each of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa’s contention that it was only with the rise of “evangelical fundamentalists” that religion played more of a role in American politics and public policy decision-making is a reprehensible feat of intellectual dishonesty that they have committed in order to make it appear that the alliance of some Catholics with “evangelical Protestants” is something “evil.” One of the ironies about this alliance, however, is that it arose precisely because the “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and their “bishops,” many of whom have long supported pro-abortion and, more recently, pro-perversity statists for elected office, have done nothing to discipline Catholics in public life who support sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.
Many “conservative” and even fully traditional Catholics in the past forty years have looked to the likes of the late Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or James Dobson for “guidance” as to how to vote to turn back the tide in support of decriminalized baby-killing and the acceptance of the unspeakable perversity that is “marriage” for those engage in unnatural acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. The “bishops” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are responsible for this alliance as the ultra-progressives among their ranks have been promoting one leftist scheme after another while support the statist agenda of such nefarious evil-doers as William Jefferson Blythe Clinton, Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., John F. Kerry, Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., and, among so many others, Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton.
What these revolutionaries who hate the past would have their readers believe, however, is that anyone who allies with “evangelical fundamentalists” to oppose “social issues” while ignoring the supposed “reality” of “climate change” and the nonexistent “right” of noncitizens to enter one’s country illegally is guilty of agreeing with these Protestants’ endorsements of segregation and their inherent support of Protestant “dominionism.” This is demagoguery worthy of their master, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and is to advance his agenda that Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa wrote their article for La Civilta Cattolica.
As I have noted in my own many commentaries on the farce of naturalism that masquerades as “elections,” none of those who have been supported by Spadaro’s and Figueroa’s “ecumenism of hatred” (Ronald Wilson Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, George Walker Bush) in the past did anything substantive to retard the advance of evils that are but the consequence, proximately speaking, of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, And Donald John Trump is led this way and that at a moment’s notice as he has no true core beliefs of any kind, which is why, incidentally, neoconservatives such as Generals John Kelly and James Mattis, are working with National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster to use Trump as a Trojan horse to continue the “global war against terrorism” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The alleged “ecumenism of hatred” has simply enabled one set of naturalists as opposed to another. Nothing good ever comes from naturalism.
Indeed, far from waging any kind of “Manichean” campaign against Mohammedanism, which is evil in and of itself as it is a false religion and is based on a blasphemous text called the Koran that calls for the death of infidels, America’s “war on global terrorism” is all about seeking to make the world safe for the Zionist State of Israel and for the American military-industrial complex. George Herbert Walker Bush and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro each called Mohammedanism a "religion of peace." Bush the Lesser's "axis of evil" was not aimed at Mohammedanism.
Noting this, though, takes nothing away from Spadaro and Figueroa’s accurate description of the essential beliefs of the various strands of “evangelical Protestantism,” each of which is false in and of itself, of course, because Protestantism itself is false and is thus evil in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity. There is no redeeming value to Protestantism of any stripe as each of its sects has contributed mightily to the decay of the Western world in the past five hundred years.
Well, let's face facts, starting with the fact that a world steeped in the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity must produce more conflict, more hatred and more violence than has ever existed in the world before.
Admitting that ethnic and national hatreds existed during the era of Christendom as a result of Original Sin and the Actual Sins, the rise of various “nationalist” groups and the true hatred that they have for those they blame for social problems of one sort or the another is the result of the lack of unity in the world that has been caused by Martin Luther’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King (see From Luther to Sanger to Ferguson and Innocent Blood Must Flow Absent Christ the King). Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. Everything else is evil, including the false religious beliefs that Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his crew of blaspheming revolutionaries who indemnify every kind of wicked deed and perverse sin imaginable want Catholics to accept without question as consonant with belief in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His true Church.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio heads a false religious sect that hates Catholic truth, and this is a hatred of God Himself, He Who canst neither deceive nor be deceived, and of the souls of whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem. Bergoglio has used various individuals, including Oscar Andres Maradiaga “Cardinal” Rodriguez and Christoph “Cardinal” Schonborn, to serve as his “wing men” in his serial acts of deception as circumstances necessitate. The Argentine Apostate believed that current circumstances “necessitated” a hit piece on the American president, a man who knows next-to-nothing and is steeped in one naturalist error after another while serving frequently as his own worst enemy, and this is what Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa provided him.
(6) the continued proliferation of the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion for divorced and remarried Catholics who lack even a decree of nullity from conciliar chancery offices according to the “teaching” expressed in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016 (see Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: A Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men: Another Brief Overview, Jorge's Exhortaion of Self-Justification Before Men, part three, The Conciliar Chair of Disunity and Division, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part four, Inspector Jorge Wants to See Documents, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part five, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part six, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part seven, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part eight, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part nine, Jorge's Exhortation of Self-Justification Before Men, part ten, THE END!).
(10) the further mainstreaming of the agenda of the Homosexual Collective in the very fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, something that has been occurring with lightning speed within the past four years, five months since Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s ascent to power as the sixth in the current line of antipopes.
To the coming of the Antichrist as Jorge Mario Bergoglio preaches a false gospel of false joy contradicts the entire patrimony of the Catholic Church. Bergoglio's false gospel of false joy and false “mercy” leads straight to Hell.
What does he care about this?
One day, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is going to have to face Christ the King as his Divne Judge. The little reprobate from Buenos Aires is entirely unprepared for this judgment, heedless as he is of how his own public hatred of Catholic truth and the harm that he has done to souls has earned him, objectively speaking, the deepst and darkest pit in hell.
7. "The judgment sat, and the books were opened. ”(Dan. vii. 10.) The books of conscience are opened, and the judgment commences. The Apostle says, that the Lord”will bring to light the hidden things of darkness." (1 Cor. iv. 5.) And, by the mouth of his prophet, Jesus Christ has said: ”I will search Jerusalem with lamps." (Soph. i. 12.) The light of the lamp reveals all that is hidden.
9. Worldlings now regard as fools the saints who led mortified and humble lives; but then they shall confess their own folly, and say: "We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honour. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints." (Wis. v. 4, 5.) In this world, the rich and the noble are called happy; but true happiness consists in a life of sanctity. Rejoice, ye souls who live in tribulation;”our sorrow shall be turned into joy." (John xvi. 20.) In the valley of Josaphat you shall be seated on thrones of glory.
11. Then sinners will not be able to hide themselves but, with insufferable pain, they shall be compelled to appear in judgment. "To lie hid” says St. Anselm, “will be impossible to appear will be intolerable." The devils will perform their office of accusers, and as St. Augustine says, will say to the Judge: “Most just God, declare him to be mine, who was unwilling to be yours. ” The witnesses against the wicked shall be first, their own conscience. "Their conscience bearing witness to them, ”(Rom. ii. 15); secondly, the very walls of the house in which they sinned shall cry out against them”The stone shall cry out of the wall," (Hab. ii 11); thirdly, the Judge himself will say "I am the judge and the witness, saith the Lord." (Jer. xxix 23 ) Hence, according to St. Augustine, "He who is now the witness of .your life, shall be the judge of your cause. ” (Lib. x. de Chord., c. ii.) To Christians particularly he will say: "Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida; for if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the miracles that have been wrought in you, they had long ago done penance in sackcloth and ashes”(Matt. xi. 21.) Christians, he will say, if the graces which I have bestowed on you had been given to the Turks or to the Pagans, they would have done penance for their sins; but you have ceased to sin only with your death. He shall then manifest to all men their most hidden crimes. "I will discover thy shame to thy face. ” (Nahum iii. 5.) He will expose to view all their secret impurities, injustices, and cruelties. ”I will set all thy abominations against thee”(Ezech. vii. 3.) Each of the damned shall carry his sins written on his forehead.
12. What excuses can save the wicked on that day? Ah! they can offer no excuses. ”All iniquity shall stop her mouth." (Ps. cvi. 42.) Their very sins shall close the mouth of the reprobate, so that they will not have courage to excuse themselves. They shall pronounce their own condemnation.
13. St. Bernard says, that the sentence of the elect, and their destiny to eternal glory, shall be first declared, that the pains of the reprobate may be increased by the sight of what they lost. ”Prius pronunciabitur sententia electis ut acrius (reprobi) doleant videntes quid amiserunt." (Ser. viii., in Ps. xc.) Jesus Christ, then, shall first turn to the elect, and with a serene countenance shall say: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. ”(Matt. xxv. 34.) He will then bless all the tears shed through sorrow for their sins, and all their good works, their prayers, mortifications, and communions; above all, he will bless for them the pains of his passion and the blood shed for their salvation. And, after these benedictions, the elect, singing alleluias, shall enter Paradise to praise and love God eternity.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio and apologists of his such as Antonio Spadaro and Miguel Figueroa do not believe this, which is why they have no fear of their own Particular Judgment and its public manifestation on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living the dead.
Each of us must hate his sins for love of God. We must not take our own Particular Judgment for granted.
Our Lady, she who was conceived without stain of Original Sin and thus never committed an Actual Sin, saw how the effects of sin caused her Divine Son, Christ the King, to suffer unspeakably in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross. She suffered the effects of sin in her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart as she suffered with Him as the Queen of Martyrs, she who is our Mediatrix, Co-Redemptrix and Advocate.
We must rely upon Our Lady's assistance to send us the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into our hearts and souls through her hands as the Mediatrix of All Graces to be firm in resolve to have nothing to new with the counterfeit church of conciliarism and to recognize that to seek to "reconcile" conciliarism with Catholicism or to believe that no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter can believe in that which has been condemned by Holy Church, no less to seek to do so by publicly promoting as good that which is offensive to God, deleterious to the salvation of souls and thus disruptive of all true social order and authentic world peace.
May Our Lady, she who is Our Queen Assumed into Heaven, help us to love God, hate our sins and to pray for the conversion of one and all, starting with ourselves, so that she may stand as our protectress at the terrible moment of our own Particular Judgment after a life of serving her Divine Son as His consecrated slaves through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, especially by the fervor with which we assist at Holy Mass, if at all possible in this time of apostasy and betrayal, and pray her own Most Holy Rosary with fervor and devotion.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.