Centenary of Cristero War: Conciliar Sect’s Betrayal of Martyrs’ Legacy
The EWTN News article commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Cristero War superficially recounts the Mexican government’s persecution of Catholics while omitting the conciliar sect’s ongoing betrayal of the martyrs’ sacrifice. Though accurately describing the 1917 Constitution’s anticlerical articles and Plutarco Calles’ tyrannical “Calles Law,” the analysis remains trapped within the modernist framework that equates “religious freedom” with state-sanctioned pluralism rather than Christus Rex’s sovereign claim over nations (Pius XI, Quas Primas).
Naturalistic Reduction of Supernatural Martyrdom
The article reduces the Cristeros’ struggle to a conflict over “religious liberty,” framing it as a contest between state power and private conscience. This ignores the societas perfecta doctrine upheld by Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX, which declares the Church’s divine right to govern independently of secular interference (Mirari Vos, 1832; Syllabus of Errors, 1864). By stating the Cristero War began due to “the suspension of religious services,” the narrative obscures the deeper theological reality: Mexico’s laws constituted formal apostasy by subordinating Christ’s Church to revolutionary ideology.
When the article quotes historian Jean Meyer’s observation that Cristero peasants “didn’t have much theology” but fought out of “love for their faith,” it inadvertently highlights the sensus fidei of the faithful rejecting modernist compromises. Yet EWTN undermines this by celebrating figures like “St.” José Sánchez del Río and “Blessed” Anacleto González Flores—canonized by the antipope Wojtyła (John Paul II), whose 1983 Code of Canon Law legitimized religious indifferentism (Dignitatis Humanae).
1929 “Agreements”: Prelude to Vatican II’s Apostasy
The so-called “Agreements” of 1929—brokered by Archbishop Leopoldo Ruiz y Flores under Pius XI—are presented as a pragmatic resolution. In reality, they embodied the fatal error of ostpolitik later enshrined at Vatican II: surrendering divine law to secular demands. Meyer correctly notes that “more people died after the ‘Agreements’ than during the war,” as the hierarchy’s capitulation abandoned Cristeros to state-sanctioned slaughter. This betrayal foreshadowed the conciliar sect’s 1992 recognition of Mexico’s blasphemous constitution, which still claims ownership of every church built before that year—including the Guadalupe Basilica.
The article’s claim that “relations between church and state were formally reestablished” in 1992 exposes the conciliar heresy: The Church cannot coexist with regimes that deny Christ’s social kingship. Pius IX’s Quanta Cura (1864) anathematized the notion that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Syllabus, Error 55).
Language of Apostasy: From “Religious Liberty” to Human Rights
Mexican bishops quoted in the article ask whether Catholics have “lost our sense of the sacred” and “become complacent in a culture that wants to relegate faith to the private sphere.” This rhetorical question is hypocrisy from prelates who tolerate “Masses” using the invalid Novus Ordo rite and recite the Prayer of the Jews with heretics. Their concern for the “private sphere” echoes the conciliar heresy of religious liberty condemned by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: “A right that does not come from God cannot exist” (They Have Uncrowned Him, 1988).
The article’s uncritical use of “blessed” and “saint” for Wojtyła’s canonizations further demonstrates submission to the anti-church. True martyrs like Fr. Miguel Pro died in odium fidei, not for a false “religious freedom” divorced from Catholic integralism.
Omissions Exposing Modernist Complicity
Nowhere does the article mention that the Cristeros fought under banners of Viva Cristo Rey!, explicitly rejecting the secular state’s authority. It ignores that Calles was a Freemason implementing the Masonic program outlined in Alta Vendita documents—a fact documented by Pius IX’s encyclicals (Humanum Genus, 1884). Most damningly, it omits the eternal sacrifice of the Mass as the Cristeros’ central cause, reducing their struggle to a dispute over “rights.”
The conciliar sect’s commemorative message—asking “Are we willing to defend our faith with the same radical commitment?”—rings hollow while its “bishops” withhold the Traditional Latin Mass and collaborate with Mexico’s socialist government. As the Cristero martyr Blessed Luis Bátis Sáinz declared before his execution: “Long live Christ the King! Down with the enemies of the Church!” This cry remains unintelligible to a hierarchy that worships “dialogue” and “tolerance.”
Symptomatic Silence on the Third Secret
The Cristero martyrs’ witness confirms the subversion of the Church by internal enemies—precisely the crisis Our Lady of La Salette warned of in 1846. Yet EWTN, loyal to the antipopes, suppresses this connection. Its narrative aligns with the “False Fatima” propaganda (as exposed in the provided theological critique), which diverts attention from modernist apostasy to external threats like communism.
True Catholics honor the Cristeros by rejecting the conciliar sect’s false peace and returning to the Lex Orandi of the Immemorial Mass—the same Mass for which the martyrs died. As St. Pius X declared: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists” (Notre Charge Apostolique, 1910).
Source:
100 years since the Cristero War in Mexico: What you should know (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 20.01.2026