Skip to main content

Fr Curzio Nitoglia is an Italian priest who studied at the seminary in Ecône and was ordained by Monsignor Lefebvre in 1984. For several years he collaborated closely with Fr Francesco Putti, founder of anti-modernist magazine "Sí Sí No No", and nowadays is a chaplain of the Disciples of the Cenacle of Velletri, a traditionalist community founded by Dom Putti, and linked to the SSPX until the crisis of 2012.

The seriousness of the current situation : from dialogue to agreement

Today we are witnessing the latest ultra-modernist assault against Traditionalists, and this through the trap of “dialogue”1, arriving at a co-existence, after imprudently and almost inadvertently accepting a theological change that is misguided and reckless.

Pope Bergoglio especially is carrying out a more or less occult psychological war against traditionalists, which aims not to destroy but to weaken, gradually, their resistance to modernist (1900-1950), neo-modernist (1950-2013 ) and ultra-modernist (2013-2016) errors.

Apathy and submissiveness of the good

In many traditionalists you will notice the state of a weakened mind, inclined to “just let it go”, a submissiveness, which leads to procrastination, to retreat, to tacit concessions and unfortunately to the final passive and implicit yield, so that we can say, to paraphrase Benedetto Croce, “we cannot say we’re not modernizing”, or “we are all implicit and quietly modernizing “(Rahner and Schillebeeckx).

A bergoglian theological manipulation

The bergoglian tactic against traditionalists is initially that of pure “talk”, discuss, walk together, know each other, meet, even without coming to an explicit agreement, theoretical, signed and written. Marxism, especially the euro/communism version (Gramsci, Bloch, Togliatti and Berlinguer), employed with considerable success this tactic against “naively adult” Catholics, who did not notice that they were undergoing a psychological manipulation by the Marxists; so Bergoglio does not want to notice the traditionalists of being theologically manipulated and carried toward modernism.

Certainly traditionalists in the trenches realize, albeit vaguely, that there’s an evolution going on, a theological passage. But they are deceiving themselves in thinking that this is truly a voluntary and benign passage, a real deepening, a proper maturation, even if it is with the help of this “nice and generous entity” : a “modernism with the human face of Bergoglio”, to which you can’t say no, but which will soon will throw it’s mask and make them all slaves of the “synthesis of all heresies”, as does the devil when he tempts us under the appearance of good, all dressed up as an angel of light. This way of acting and of being manipulated I call an “unnoticed theological shift”, through which we pass from tradition to modernism.

Natural reaction to modernist irrealism and implicit persuasion

Since the natural good sense, and the sound reason of common sense of our objective human nature poses some resistance to the subjectivist and unrealistic doctrine of the modernist Kantianism (according to which it is “I” who create reality), the latter, together with Francis I, is avoiding an explicit persuasion of Traditionalists (a written and signed protocol of surrender and acceptance of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Mass) and has started the tactic of an implicit persuasion, which is nothing new, but which was already used by the devil in paradise when, in the form of a serpent, he told Eve that if she ate the forbidden fruit she would not die but would become like a “god”, having knowledge of good and evil (Gen., III, 5). But those Catholics who are firmly anti-modernist and not willing to dialogue and compromise, they would try to marginalize, disorganize, discourage and to silence them through the Orwellian “psycho-clerical-police”.

The “hostile fifth column”

A “hostile fifth column”, although under the appearance of being “sympathetic”, has infiltrated inside the traditionalist world, which ultimately showed a certain spirit of superficiality and a carefree optimism about the crisis that is afflicting the ecclesiastical sphere and the whole world, and exerts on it an implicitly “modernizing” influence, so as to accept in exchange for a “dish of pottage” (the “canonical arrangement” and “full communion”) the goodness of Vatican II, the Mass of Paul VI and the neo-religion of the Holocaust, mind you - according to the hermeneutic of continuity - in the light of Tradition. This “fifth column” is much more effective when it presents itself as seemingly anti-modernist.

From resignation to failure

All of this has made most of the traditionalist world “anesthetized”, with arms crossed and submissively inclined to keep out of the way of modernists, which for the moment are progressing slowly in order not to arouse shock and reactions. From resignation one proceeds to a slightly favorable expectation and then to a full sympathy, a sympathy for the “modernist with a human face”, until one reaches a practical collaboration and finally the acceptance of the at least implied principles which were previously deemed unacceptable. “Nemo repente fit pessimus” [No one does evil suddenly].

From this state of inertia and resignation we pass insensibly to an “unnoticed theological shift”. It is the sad reality of our time of “Great Apostasy”, in which only the omnipotence of God can save the situation by shortening the trials (See Mt. XXIV, 15-35).

You can lose a battle and be defeated by a wicked enemy, but no one should ever kneel before the wicked temporary winner in order to get from him a “fraudulent pardon” (Monsignor Antonio de Castro Mayer) that allows us a way of life, which however implies the at least practical renunciation of our principles, in order to avoid exclusion and excommunication, that is the separation from the modern world, which is not a penalty but a grace, as this “persecution” is the highest of the “beatitudes” as Jesus taught us in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew, V, 3-12).

Necessity of theological disputes

When under the guise of prudence, which is actually a “prudence of the flesh”, you give up the debate or the theological dispute to refute errors and to prove truth, you commit a doctrinal larceny, in other words, you steal the truth that God has revealed to us supernaturally and that human reason can grasp naturally. It is hidden and can not be given to those who are hungry for truth and justice. This is equivalent to bury the “talent” that the Lord gave us. The Church, following the example of Jesus, who rebuked the Pharisees, has always struggled against false philosophical and theological systems that have appeared in all ages of human history. Faced with error uttered in public, silence means consent.

The utopia of “Paradise on Earth”

The naturalists believed that man was good by nature, without original sin. Today’s neo-modernist anthropocentrism returns to the “cult of man”. Unfortunately, some traditionalists are seduced by this human utopia. They believe that now with Francis I at the top, the Vatican is headed by a “man of good will,” and thus you can lead with him a sort of co-existence, a living together peacefully, in which disagreements are overcome without fighting, through “unconscious repression”, through dialogue, through meetings and “walking together”. This is the spirit of anarchistic and sentimental utopianism, prepared for the Republic and the Universal Temple, and wanted by the Masons for almost sixty-eight years since Vatican II.

The slogan of Freemasonry and dialoguing modernists (See John XXIII) is as follows: “we must look for what unites us and not for what divides us.” Instead Pius XII, condemning neo-modernism, has taught : “… there are many who.., through an imprudent zeal for souls, .. advocate an “irenicism” according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma.” (Encyclical Humani generis, August 12, 1950). This fantasy, or rather this delusion of going along with ecumenism, dialogue, experimenting, walking together and universal getting along, opens up the way to irenicism, to subjectivist relativism and to the New World Order.

In fact, such passion to achieve universal and global harmony leads to the desire to diminish the importance of the value of the points of difference between people and religions (eg Islam and Judaism, with which it dialogues as monotheistic religions, ignoring their denial of the Trinity of the divine Persons and the divinity of Christ, both of which are two main truths of the Christian faith). And so they will relativize the value of all opinions, certainties and dogmas, ending in optimism and consequently in denying truth and ignoring objective error. This is an emotional and sentimental state, a sort of drowsiness of right reason, typical of the post-modern era, which modernism makes use of to lead us to relativism and to absolute irenicism, daydreaming of a “heaven on earth “, in which all think and act well and in union.

The modernist or “semi-conservative” utopian begins to consider evil, error, struggle and suffering as something absurd that must be eliminated from this world. In this way, we lose sight of the supernatural life, and the fact that life on earth is only a test meant for us to deserve Paradise through fighting and persecution for the truth; so the naive and vaguely or implicitly utopian traditionalist starts to talk, to meet and come to terms with the “modernist with a human face”, which finally, after the ruthlessness of Paul VI, opened the doors of the house, as also did the wolf in “Little Red Riding Hood”.

Unfortunately the irenicist/traditionalist, hasty and irritable like every utopian, does not listen to reason or advice, and rages against anyone who tries to prevent him from falling into the trap of an “unnoticed theological shift”, and so, like Pinocchio that crushed Jiminy Cricket, he falls victim to himself and to the “modernist with a human face.”

Here we perceive the Hegelian dialectic (thesis / antithesis / synthesis) between two opposing and contradictory theses, which does not discard the false thesis, but instead arrives at a new thesis which in turn, is contradicted by another one, only to give rise to a new synthesis, through which you constantly, steadily and indefinitely live in an evolution of natural truth and revealed dogma. In short, it is the motion of perpetual mental frenzy.

In religion, today’s danger truly is relativism, which is now rampant and pervasive, which was a threat from John XXIII to Francis I, with a “motus in fine velocior” [time speeds up in time of a crisis], especially in Catholicism. The true faithful Catholic and anti-modernist must fight especially against this pacifist irenicism which numbs the conscience and decreases the purity of the faith, which must be preserved intact, since the denial of a single article or a dogma of faith entails the total loss of it .

Raise the bastions

We must preserve the intact and pure the meaning of our faith, so that no one can be in any doubt about what divides us dogmatically, morally, disciplinary and liturgically. Only clarity in thought and in the exposition of the whole truth, and not of half-truths, which is the most dangerous of open errors, leads to true unity (compatible with reality, with what’s good and beautiful) instead of to lots of confusion.

Dialogue is necessary

In 2000, “to not dialogue”, according to the modernists, is to be backwards, outmoded, prehistoric, while “to dialogue” is to be updated, modernized, up to date. Hence the hatred and the antipathy nurtured by the neo-modernists toward the Catholic who debates theology with arguments that defend the truth and refute error. The modernist, full of “greasy zeal”, loves all the enemies of God but vehemently [like Cain] hates the one that should be his “brother in faith”, considers him devoid of charity, animated by a “bitter zeal”, and then considers him as the only one that can not and must not be forgiven, except if he shows signs of repentance and openness to dialogue, namely, yielding towards the “unnoticed theological shift”. Otherwise you have to use all the psycho-police tactics against the non-dialoguing “obstinate” : the conspiracy of silence, calumny, slander, ostracism, insults. In short, everything against him is permitted, even what is unlawful and seriously immoral. All contact with him is strictly prohibited, as a theological plague which is to be completely avoided.

We must keep an eye on what separates us and not only on what unites us

And so, from John XXIII to Francis I, the most capable, the most fervent, the most honest and disinterested faithful are excluded from the main positions in the Church militant, while the traitors are being promoted, the heretics, the apostates, the slothful and the degenerate.

In order to eradicate this deadly disease of dialogue to the bitter end, which inevitably leads to an “unnoticed theological shift”, we must keep well in mind the true and valid principle, which is diametrically opposed to the irenistic : “we need to look at what separates us and not only at what unites us”. On the contrary the irenic, modernist and even “open” traditionalist sees, squinting, only what unites according to outsiders and the heterodox and, like the ostrich who hides its head in the sand, does not want to notice what separates us from them, even in matters of faith and morals.

Do not be conformed to this world

The worldly, seeking to reconcile the Gospel with the three concupiscences, love anything that promotes absolute optimism, love of peace as the ultimate goal, even at the cost of dulling the spirit of faith. Francis I has (or seems to have) all the characteristics that appeal to the worldly : benevolence, kindness, smiles, joy, cheerfulness, greasy zeal, joking, oh so nice but trivial. He is the “mercenary prophet”, who announces a rosy future, full of successes, if all goes well. This apparent “sympathy”, which is really unpleasant and nauseating, opens the way to fame, it is always on the “front page” and he can commit no “crime”, whatever he says, even if it’s the most absurd2. All men of the “beautiful world” love to speak well of him, no one (or almost no one) is critical, they repeat his jokes, his gestures, his smiles, thinking they can solve the most intricate issues through dialogue, smiles, sympathy, putting a clown nose on and daydreaming to eliminate world poverty, wars, conflict, strife, the Patrie [?], religious differences, borders, walls and barriers, force, coercion (even though they exercise this ruthlessly towards the non-aligned), even prisons.

In fact, for the utopian irenicist, all men are immaculate and without original sin, therefore they are always well meaning and differences that arise are accidents, the result of misconceptions and misunderstandings, which can be eliminated through meeting, dialogue and walking together.


Be careful ! We are only half Christians, even implied or anonymous modernists, when our choices are indecisive, when we are submissive and reluctant to take sides, when we fear difficulties, isolation and temporary defeat, when we are ready to compromise and dialogue with error and with evil, when we dare not tell the whole truth, but only half-truths, which are the most harmful of explicit errors.

d. Curzio Nitoglia


  • 1. Similar terms are “ecumenism”, “irenicism”, “peace at all costs”, “coexistence.”
  • 2. Lately he not only called for a general pardon for prisoners, but also said that prisons should be closed (although he locked up Fr. Manelli) … even Merlin didn’t go that far, but stopped at “brothels”.