Jorge Mario Bergoglio: The End Result of Sixty-Six Years of Falsehoods, part one

Although I have not counted the number of commentaries listed in A Catalogue of Commentaries About Jorge Mario Bergoglio and His False Church, I do know that a great of my time has been spent writing about him, his pronouncements, “encyclical” letters, “apostolic exhortations,” and the gestures he has made in the presence of non-Catholics to hide his pectoral cross and/or to refuse to “offend” non-Catholics by refusing to speak of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Christ while following the footsteps of his predecessors in the conciliar chair of apostasy by refusing to seek the conversion of anyone to the Catholic Faith.

A Summary of the Points Made in This Commentary

Each of the men who have served as the universal public faces of apostasy have offended God by denying, whether explicitly or implicitly, various articles of the Catholic Faith and, quite overtly, by performing acts of apostasy with Protestant and Orthodox clergymen as well as with non-Christian “ministers” (rabbis, shamans, Hindu “priests,” Mohammedan imams, etc.)

1. The honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, which has been profaned by the worldly nature of liturgical rites that are designed to appeal to the “people” and not to reflect the reverence due to Him in the Holy Sacrifice of Mass and the sacrality necessary to raise the people out of the muck and mire of this passing world, The Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service celebrates the world, sacralizes the profane, and profanes all that is holy and sacred (please purchase G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church's Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship if you have done not so already). God’s honor and glory has also been blasphemed and profaned by the abundant praise heaped upon false religions, their false doctrines, their false leaders and by the esteem shown to idols by the conciliar “popes” and “bishops.”
2. God’s immutability, which has been rendered mutable by dogmatic evolutionism’s different contemporary appellations (Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s open embrace of dogmatic evolutionism by means of distorting and misrepresenting the teaching of Saint Vincent Lerins, each of which ignores the condemnations of dogmatic evolutionism found in The Third Council of Constantinople, Singulari Vos, May 15, 1834, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, the Decree on the Doctrine of the Faith issued by the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council, April 24, 1870, Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominicae Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestatia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.
3. The unicity and infallibility of Holy Mother Church, which has been granted a “perfect immunity from error” (e.g., cf. Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)
4. The ends proper to Holy Matrimony, which have been inverted by the conciliar revolutionaries according the “personalism” of Father Herbert Doms and Dietrich von Hildebrand that was condemned directly by Pope Pius XII on April 1, 1944.)
5. The very nature of the papacy itself, which was become an object of derision, ridicule, and abject disobedience in the past fifty years with the recrudescence of the Gallicanism by the Society of Saint Pius X and then by scores of others in the “resist while recognize” movement.

These are only some of the victims of the conciliar revolution, to say nothing about the incalculable harm done to the sanctification and salvation of souls nor Holy Mother Church’s condemnation of “interreligious prayer” services, false ecumenism, Modernist exegeses of Sacred Scripture, religious liberty, and separation of Church and State that have examined in hundreds upon hundreds of detailed commentaries on this site. However, the purpose of this very brief commentary is to review yet again the ways in which the conciliar revolution has destroyed a proper understanding of Catholic doctrine of the papacy, papal primacy, and papal infallibility.

The sections below will try to summarize some of the ways that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has continued and expanded conciliarism's unremitting warfare against Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals. 

I. Bergoglio’s False, Talmudic “God of Surprises

In most, although not in all, matters, the still hospitalized Jorge Mario Bergoglio told us everything he believed within the first year of his becoming the sixth in the current line of antipopes on March 13, 2013, Wednesday of the Fourth Week of Lent. Even Jorge’s fictional “God of surprises” phrase made its first appearance during the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo Easter Vigil travesty on Saturday, March 30, 2013:

We stop short, we don’t understand, we don’t know what to do. Newness often makes us fearful, including the newness which God brings us, the newness which God asks of us. We are like the Apostles in the Gospel: often we would prefer to hold on to our own security, to stand in front of a tomb, to think about someone who has died, someone who ultimately lives on only as a memory, like the great historical figures from the past. We are afraid of God’s surprises. Dear brothers and sisters, we are afraid of God’s surprises! He always surprises us! The Lord is like that. . . .

On this radiant night, let us invoke the intercession of the Virgin Mary, who treasured all these events in her heart (cf. Lk 2:19,51) and ask the Lord to give us a share in his Resurrection. May he open us to the newness that transforms, to the beautiful surprises of God. May he make us men and women capable of remembering all that he has done in our own lives and in the history of our world. May he help us to feel his presence as the one who is alive and at work in our midst. And may he teach us each day, dear brothers and sisters, not to look among the dead for the Living One. Amen. ( 30 March 2013, Fake, Phony, Fraud Abomination of an Easter Vigil.)

We should all know by now that Jorge’s “God of surprises” is, as the Google-deplatformed Call Me Jorge pointed out ten years ago now, a Hasidic phrase that he has employed to signify an unconditional acceptance of those who sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, whether by means of natural or unnatural vice, as well as “reforming” the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “Petrine Ministry” into an office that could be accepted by Protestants and the Orthodox as one among equals.

Indeed, the “God of surprises” has been a phrase to justify Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s unrelenting deconstruction of the vestiges of recognizable Catholic dogmatic theology, moral theology, Scriptural exegesis, ecclesiology, Patristics, pastoral theology, and worship. Although Bergoglio’s demonic work was but a continuation of the work that been undertaken by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, and advanced since then by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Albino Luciani/John Paul I, Karol Josezf Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, he done believing Catholics the great favor of removing all pretense from his open belief in and support for dogmatic evolutionism.

Principally, however, the man who is entirely unsurprising in his projection onto God his own Modernist beliefs has used the phrase “God of surprises” to indemnify hardened sinners in the name of a false concept of “mercy” that excludes any exhortations to them whatsoever to reform their lives lest their immortal souls perish in the flames of hell for all eternity.

Nothing that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done has been in the least bit surprising to him as he has been steadfast in pursuing an agenda that will eradicate the last remaining vestiges of Catholicism from his own false religious sect that claims to be Catholic Church but is in fact her counterfeit ape.

It is also unsurprising that Senor Bergoglio referred once again to the “God of surprises” in his general audience of Wednesday, August 23, 2017, the Feast of Saint Philip Benizi:

We listened to the Word of God in the Book of Revelation, and it says thus: “Behold, I make all things new” (21:5). Christian hope is based on faith in God, who always creates novelties in man’s life, He creates novelties in history and He creates novelties in the cosmos. Our God is the God that creates novelties, because He is the God of surprises. (We Are People of the Spring More Than the Autumnn.)

For this to be correct, of course, the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, must be capable of mutability, of constant change and evolution, and the Catholic Church’s Divine Constitution must be eminently unstable and subject to adaptation to meet the “modern needs” of men. Bergoglio’s predecessor, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, was forever talking about the needs of “modern men” to justify his own embrace of novelty and innovation, an embrace he put into formalized terms in his infamous Christmas address to his conciliar curia on December 22, 2005:

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

Those seeking to find some degree of “difference” between “Pope Francis’s” “God of surprises” and “Pope Benedict XVI’s” “innovation in continuity” will be very disappointed as the two antipopes simply use different terms to refer to the same condemned Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism.

Here is how the Catholic Church has referred to novelty over the centuries:

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

Pope Saint Pius X went to great lengths in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, to decry the novelties of Modernism, starting in its very first paragraph:

One of the primary obligations assigned by Christ to the office divinely committed to Us of feeding the Lord’s flock is that of guarding with the greatest vigilance the deposit of the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane novelties of words and the gainsaying of knowledge falsely so called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body, for owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race, there have never been lacking “men speaking perverse things,”¹ “vain talkers and seducers,”² “erring and driving into error.”³ It must, however, be confessed that these latter days have witnessed a notable increase in the number of the enemies of the Cross of Christ, who, by arts entirely new and full of deceit, are striving to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, as far as in them lies, utterly to subvert the very Kingdom of Christ. Wherefore We may no longer keep silence, lest We should seem to fail in Our most sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser counsels, We have hitherto shown them, should be set down to lack of diligence in the discharge of Our office. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X went on to quote Pope Gregory IX’s own condemnation of novelties:

The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Our last true pope to have been canonized instituted a “Council of Vigilance” that he wanted established in every diocese to guard against every use of language that endorsed the precise thing that the conciliar “popes” have praised from their own very lips and in the writings that they have issued in their names, namely, a desire to adapt doctrine to serve the alleged “needs” of “modern men”:

55. But of what avail, Venerable Brethren, will be all Our commands and prescriptions if they be not dutifully and firmly carried out? In order that this may be done it has seemed expedient to us to extend to all dioceses the regulations which the Bishops of Umbria, with great wisdom, laid down for theirs many years ago. “In order,” they say, ”to extirpate the errors already propagated and to prevent their further diffusion, and to remove those teachers of impiety through whom the pernicious effects of such diffusion are being perpetuated, this sacred Assembly, following the example of St. Charles Borromeo, has decided to establish in each of the dioceses a Council consisting of approved members of both branches of the clergy, which shall be charged with the task of noting the existence of errors and the devices by which new ones are introduced and propagated, and to inform the Bishop of the whole, so that he may take counsel with them as to the best means for suppressing the evil at the outset and preventing it spreading for the ruin of souls or, worse still, gaining strength and growth.” We decree, therefore, that in every diocese a council of this kind, which We are pleased to name the “Council of Vigilance,” be instituted without delay. The priests called to form part in it shall be chosen somewhat after the manner above prescribed for the censors, and they shall meet every two months on an appointed day in the presence of the Bishop. They shall be bound to secrecy as to their deliberations and decisions, and in their functions shall be included the following: they shall watch most carefully for every trace and sign of Modernism both in publications and in teaching, and to preserve the clergy and the young from it they shall take all prudent, prompt, and efficacious measures. Let them combat novelties of words, remembering the admonitions of Leo XIII: “It is impossible to approve in Catholic publications a style inspired by unsound novelty which seems to deride the piety of the faithful and dwells on the introduction of a new order of Christian life, on new directions of the Church, on new aspirations of the modern soul, on a new social vocation of the clergy, on a new Christian civilization, and many other things of the same kind.” Language of the kind here indicated is not to be tolerated either in books or in lectures. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Why is it that so many “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism tolerate the constant references that their false “popes” have made to “the introduction of a new order of Christian life,” “new directions of the Church,” “new aspirations of the modern soul,” “a new social vocation of the clergy,” and “a new Christian civilization”?

Pascendi Dominici Gregis stands as a ringing condemnation and rejection of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “God of surprises” and his predecessor’s “hermeneutic of continuity.”

II. Bergoglio’s Support for Dogmatic Evolutionism

Rather than repeat everything that the critically ill heretic has said and done during his eleven years, eleven months, nineteen days in his the masquerade as “Pope Francis,” the purpose of this multipart commentary is to summarize the wretched apostate’s record thematically, starting with his belief in dogmatic evolutionism, which is the false, philosophically absurd and dogmatic condemned Modernist proposition that contends dogmatic truth is so complex that it can never be expressed adequately or clearly in human language, which itself is historically conditioned and subject to “adjustments” in different epochs. This is an attack upon the immutability of God and is thus an attack upon God’s very nature, thus reducing the true God of Divine Revelation to a historically conditioned Being Whose infallible guidance of His Holy Church is always occluded by the alleged “limitations” and “inadequacies” of human language.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has repeatedly presented the following corrupt interpretation of Saint Vincent Lerins as an advocate of conciliarism’s own dogmatic evolutionism:

I would like to remind those people that indietrismo [being backward-looking] is useless and we need to understand that there is an appropriate evolution in the understanding of matters of faith and morals as long as we follow the three criteria that Vincent of Lérins already indicated in the fifth century: doctrine evolves ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate. In other words, doctrine also progresses, expands and consolidates with time and becomes firmer, but is always progressing. Change develops from the roots upward, growing in accord with these three criteria.

The pope went on to give some examples of the evolution of doctrine in the Catholic Church in recent times. “Today it is a sin to possess atomic bombs; the death penalty is a sin. You cannot employ it, but it was not so before. As for slavery, some pontiffs before me tolerated it, but things are different today. So, you change, you change, but with the criteria just mentioned.”

The first Latin American pope recalled that “Vincent of Lérins makes the comparison between human biological development and the transmission from one age to another of the depositum fidei [deposit of faith], which grows and is consolidated with the passage of time. Here, our understanding of the human person changes with time, and our consciousness also deepens.”

He added, “The other sciences and their evolution also help the Church in this growth in understanding. The view of Church doctrine as monolithic is erroneous.”  (Pope Francis speaks out against his critics in the U.S. Catholic Church.)

Readers of this website know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an open and unapologetic dogmatic evolutionist, which means that he believes that the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity, has revealed nothing that is immutable, which means that God Himself is not immutable. To believe in the dogmatically condemned and philosophically absurd principle of dogmatic evolutionism is to prove oneself to be a pagan intent on projecting onto God whatever it is he wants Him to teach so that the mores of the day can be justified as compatible with Catholic teaching.

Not only has Bergoglio’s undisguised embrace of dogmatic evolutionism been condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, by Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII (see Appendix B for the familiar proofs), his continued misrepresentation of the teaching of Saint Vincent Lerins, is a direct contradiction of what the Saint taught in fidelity to a true Catholic understanding of Tradition:

[56.] In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.

t[57.] For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result—there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind— wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.

Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties.

[58.] For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God's mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly. (Commonitorium, by Saint Vincent of Lerins.) 

Far from proving what Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis desires, the full passage that follows text he cited, as found in the Novus Ordo breviary, contradicts him entirely and condemns everything that he, Bergoglio/Francis contended in his interview was true and necessary.

Saint Vincent of Lerins also stated in the Commonitorium that we must avoid all profane novelties of words, drawing upon the very words of Saint Paul the Apostle to Saint Timothy, which were, after all, written under the divine inspiration of God the Holy Ghost:

[60.] But let us return to the apostle. "O Timothy," he says, "Guard the deposit, shunning profane novelties of words." "Shun them as you would a viper, as you would a scorpion, as you would a basilisk, lest they smite you not only with their touch, but even with their eyes and breath." What is "to shun"? Not even to eat 1 Corinthians 5:11 with a person of this sort. What is "shun"? "If anyone," says St. John, come to you and bring not this doctrine. What doctrine? What but the Catholic and universal doctrine, which has continued one and the same through the several successions of ages by the uncorrupt tradition of the truth and so will continue for ever— "Receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed, for he that bids him Godspeed communicates with him in his evil deeds." 2 John 10

[61.] "Profane novelties of words." What words are these? Such as have nothing sacred, nothing religious, words utterly remote from the inmost sanctuary of the Church which is the temple of God. Profane novelties of words, that is, of doctrines, subjects, opinions, such as are contrary to antiquity and the faith of the olden time. Which if they be received, it follows necessarily that the faith of the blessed fathers is violated either in whole, or at all events in great part; it follows necessarily that all the faithful of all ages, all the saints, the chaste, the continent, the virgins, all the clergy, Deacons and Priests, so many thousands of Confessors, so vast an army of martyrs, such multitudes of cities and of peoples, so many islands, provinces, kings, tribes, kingdoms, nations, in a word, almost the whole earth, incorporated in Christ the Head, through the Catholic faith, have been ignorant for so long a tract of time, have been mistaken, have blasphemed, have not known what to believe, what to confess.

[62.] "Shun profane novelties of words," which to receive and follow was never the part of Catholics; of heretics always was. In truth, what heresy ever burst forth save under a definite name, at a definite place, at a definite time? Who ever originated a heresy that did not first dissever himself from the consentient agreement of the universality and antiquity of the Catholic Church? That this is so is demonstrated in the clearest way by examples. For who ever before that profane Pelagius attributed so much antecedent strength to Free-will, as to deny the necessity of God's grace to aid it towards good in every single act? Who ever before his monstrous disciple Cœlestius denied that the whole human race is involved in the guilt of Adam's sin? Who ever before sacrilegious Arius dared to rend asunder the unity of the Trinity? Who before impious Sabellius was so audacious as to confound the Trinity of the Unity? Who before cruellest Novatian represented God as cruel in that He had rather the wicked should die than that he should be converted and live? Who before Simon Magus, who was smitten by the apostle's rebuke, and from whom that ancient sink of every thing vile has flowed by a secret continuous succession even to Priscillian of our own time,— who, I say, before this Simon Magus, dared to say that God, the Creator, is the author of evil, that is, of our wickednesses, impieties, flagitiousnesses, inasmuch as he asserts that He created with His own hands a human nature of such a description, that of its own motion, and by the impulse of its necessity-constrained will, it can do nothing else, can will nothing else, but sin, seeing that tossed to and fro, and set on fire by the furies of all sorts of vices, it is hurried away by unquenchable lust into the utmost extremes of baseness?

[63.] There are innumerable instances of this kind, which for brevity's sake, pass over; by all of which, however, it is manifestly and clearly shown, that it is an established law, in the case of almost all heresies, that they evermore delight in profane novelties, scorn the decisions of antiquity, and, through oppositions of science falsely so called, make shipwreck of the faith. On the other hand, it is the sure characteristic of Catholics to keep that which has been committed to their trust by the holy Fathers, to condemn profane novelties, and, in the apostle's words, once and again repeated, to anathematize every one who preaches any other doctrine than that which has been received. (Commonitorium, by Saint Vincent of Lerins.)

This should sufficiently prove that Jorge Mario Bergoglio entirely misrepresented the teaching of Saint Vincent of Lerins, which was only simply a reiteration of the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church, thus corrupting it for the purposes of seeking to justify the unjustifiable and to defend the indefensible, the false religion of conciliarism. 

Even if Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “interpretation” of Saint Vincent Lerins had been correct, which it was not, the fact, which is not a fact at all, of course, would mean nothing as God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable, has directed our true popes and twenty authentic general councils to declare that dogmatic truth ever remains the same. These pronouncements “trump,” if I can use that word, the writings even of canonized saints, who are not infallible.

Mind you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s interpretation of Saint Vincent Lerins was an outright misrepresentation, a lie, which, much like the alive but mentally challenged and thankfully retired Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., he was compelled to keep telling again and again and again.

Unlike his predecessors before him who used euphemisms to describe their commitment to dogmatic evolutionism (Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s “living tradition” and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s infamous “hermeneutic of continuity”), Jorge Mario Bergoglio was unapologetic in his open support of dogmatic evolutionism, and so were many of his subordinates.

The boldness of the conciliar revolutionaries is such that the notorious friend all things lavender and a firm supporter of the ideology of biological evolutionism and doctrinal evolutionism, Christoph “Cardinal” Schonborn, who just happens to be a disciple of one Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, can speak openly about “dogmatic evolution” after having discarded the pretense of trying to justify the unjustifiable by calling the heresies of Amoris Laetitia to be nothing other than an “organic development of doctrine”. Consider the following excerpts of an interview Schonborn gave recently to his “pope’s” fellow lay Jesuit, “Father” Anthony Spadaro, the editor of La Civilta Cattolica:

Some have spoken of AL as a minor document, a personal opinion of the Pope (so to speak) without full magisterial value. What value does this Exhortation possess? Is it an act of the magisterium?

This seems obvious, but it is good to specify it in these times, in order to prevent some voices from creating confusion among the faithful when they assert that this is not the case ...

It is obvious that this is an act of the magisterium: it is an Apostolic Exhortation. It is clear that the Pope is exercising here his role of pastor, of master and teacher of the faith, after having benefited from the consultation of the two Synods. I have no doubt that it must be said that this is a pontifical document of great quality, an authentic teaching of sacra doctrina, which leads us back to the contemporary relevance of the Word of God. I have read it many times, and each time I note the delicacy of its composition and an ever greater quantity of details that contain a rich teaching. There is no lack of passages in the Exhortation that affirm their doctrinal value strongly and decisively. This can be recognized from the tone and the content of what is said, when we relate these to the intention of the text – for example, when the Pope writes: “I urgently ask ...”,  “It is no longer possible to say ...”, “I have wanted to present to the entire Church ...”, and so on. AL is an act of the magisterium that makes the teaching of the Church present and relevant today. Just as we read the Council of Nicaea in the light of the Council of Constantinople, and Vatican I in the light of Vatican II, so now we must read the previous statements of the magisterium about the family in the light of the contribution made by AL. We are led in a living manner to draw a distinction between the continuity of the doctrinal principles and the discontinuity of perspectives or of historically conditioned expressions. This is the function that belongs to the living magisterium: to interpret authentically the Word of God, whether written or handed down.  (Schornborn Interview with Antonio Spadaro.)

What was it that Schonborn’s mentor said about attempting to make dogma the product of historically-conditioned expressions that must be reinterpreted in each era according to the circumstances of the times because human language can never fully communicate its supposed nuances?

Let me remind you:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time." (Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.  

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

All right?

Well, Schonborn was right on one point: If It Is In The Acta Apostolicae Sedis, It Is Official Teaching.

Schonborn, emboldened by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, was at least honest enough to throw off his mentor’s efforts to call dogmatic evolutionism by any other name than what it is:

Spadoro: Did some things surprise you? Did other things prompt reflection?

Did you need to read some passages several times?

Schonborn: I was pleasantly surprised by the methodology. In this sphere of human realities, the Holy Father has fundamentally renewed the discourse of the Church – certainly along the lines of

Evangelii gaudium, but also of Gaudium et spes, which presents doctrinal principles and reflections on human beings today that are in a continuous evolution. There is a profound openness to accept reality. (Schornborn Interview with Antonio Spadaro.)

Correction, the counterfeit church of conciliarism has opened one thing: the gates of hell to hardened sinners, whose ranks include the conciliar “popes” and their “bishops” who have embraced and propagated heresies, spoken various blasphemies, presided over sacrilegious ceremonies, and engaged in unspeakably wanton acts of apostasy.

No matter what euphemism has been used in the past to disguise what Christoph Schonborn is now able to admit openly (i.e. dogmatic evolutionism), the Catholic Church has condemned dogmatic evolutionism in no uncertain terms. Although the appendix below provides a review of some of these condemnations, here is an excerpt from Pope Saint Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

No intellectually honest Catholic can claim with a straight face that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has not been intent on waging a carefully planned and calibrated assault upon the last vestiges of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals to be found within the confines of the counterfeit church of conciliarism from the very first moment he stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013.

III. Bergoglio’s False Dichotomy Between Doctrine and Mercy

The Argentine Apostate made it clear in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, that there was a dichotomy between doctrine, which he believes comes from men and not from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and mercy:

161. It would not be right to see this call to growth exclusively or primarily in terms of doctrinal formation. It has to do with “observing” all that the Lord has shown us as the way of responding to his love. Along with the virtues, this means above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you”(Jn 15:12). Clearly, whenever the New Testament authors want to present the heart of the Christian moral message, they present the essential requirement of love for one’s neighbour: “The one who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the whole law… therefore love of neighbour is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:8, 10). These are the words of Saint Paul, for whom the commandment of love not only sums up the law but constitutes its very heart and purpose: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal 5:14). To his communities Paul presents the Christian life as a journey of growth in love: “May the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all” (1 Th 3:12). Saint James likewise exhorts Christians to fulfil “the royal law according to the Scripture: You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (2:8), in order not to fall short of any commandment. . . .

194. This message is so clear and direct, so simple and eloquent, that no ecclesial interpretation has the right to relativize it. The Church’s reflection on these texts ought not to obscure or weaken their force, but urge us to accept their exhortations with courage and zeal. Why complicate something so simple? Conceptual tools exist to heighten contact with the realities they seek to explain, not to distance us from them. This is especially the case with those biblical exhortations which summon us so forcefully to brotherly love, to humble and generous service, to justice and mercy towards the poor. Jesus taught us this way of looking at others by his words and his actions. So why cloud something so clear? We should not be concerned simply about falling into doctrinal error, but about remaining faithful to this light-filled path of life and wisdom. For “defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is forever attempting to posit a false dichotomy between doctrinal fidelity and charity. This effort is unspeakably insidious as true charity starts with love of God, and one cannot truly love God unless one adheres to everything that He has taught to us. To disparage the importance of doctrinal formation in order to seek to replace it with a nebulous kind of social work that is performed to "prove" how "good" and "kind" Christians can be is nothing other than to place a complete seal of approval upon the false principles of The Sillon that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. It is also to make a mockery of the very words of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the entire patrimony of the Catholic Church:

[11] The Jews therefore sought him on the festival day, and said: Where is he? [12] And there was much murmuring among the multitude concerning him. For some said: He is a good man. And others said: No, but he seduceth the people. [13] Yet no man spoke openly of him, for fear of the Jews. [14] Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. [15] And the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned?

[16] Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. [17] If any man do the will of him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him. [19] Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? [20] Why seek you to kill me? The multitude answered, and said: Thou hast a devil; who seeketh to kill thee?  (John 7: 11-20.)

Saint John the Evangelist, the only Apostle who stood at the foot of the Cross along with Our Lady and Saint Mary Magdalene, Mary of Cleophas and Salome, explained that we cannot truly love God unless we keep His Commandments: 

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. (1 John 5: 1-3)

There is no dichotomy between love of doctrinal truth and the provision of the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy as to contend this is to blaspheme the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who inspired the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's true general councils to care for nothing so much as to So the truths of the Holy Faith, condemning doctrinal errors as circumstances required them to do so.

It is very interesting that Bergoglio's quote at the end of Paragraph 194 of Evangelii Gaudium cited above ("“defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them”) came from a conciliar document, Libertatis Nuntius, that was issued on August 6, 1984, by the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith and was signed by none other than, yes, Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger. Here is the full text of the paragraph from which Bergoglio quoted:

18. The defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them. Spiritual conversion, the intensity of the love of God and neighbor, zeal for justice and peace, the Gospel meaning of the poor and of poverty, are required of everyone, and especially of pastors and those in positions of responsibility. The concern for the purity of the faith demands giving the answer of effective witness in the service of one's neighbor, the poor and the oppressed in particular, in an integral theological fashion. By the witness of their dynamic and constructive power to love, Christians will thus lay the foundations of this "civilization of love" of which the Conference of Puebla spoke, following Paul VI. [34] Moreover there are already many priests, religious, and lay people who are consecrated in a truly evangelical way for the creation of a just society. (Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Libertatis Nuntius, August 6, 1984.)

Pope Pius VI explained the methods of innovators such as the conciliar "pontiffs" to promote error in the name of the Catholic Church: 

[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.

"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.

"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.

"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged." (Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.)

To denounce error is not to "pile on" those who propagate it.

No, to denounce error is acquit our duties before God without being respecters of persons, and those who are concerned about "piling on" Jorge Mario Bergoglio ought to be reminded that Successors of Saint Peter can never teach error, which is why it is important to reprise this brief section from Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846:

10. This consideration too clarifies the great error of those others as well who boldly venture to explain and interpret the words of God by their own judgment, misusing their reason and holding the opinion that these words are like a human work. God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation. This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is,[5] and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff,[6] living at all times in his successors and making judgment,[7] providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it.[8] The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.

11. For this mother and teacher[9] of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord. Furthermore, it has taught it to the faithful, showing all men truth and the path of salvation. Since all priesthood originates in this church,[10] the entire substance of the Christian religion resides there also.[11] The leadership of the Apostolic See has always been active,[12] and therefore because of its preeminent authority, the whole Church must agree with it. The faithful who live in every place constitute the whole Church.[13] Whoever does not gather with this Church scatters.[14] (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

Each of our true popes and Holy Mother Church's true general councils had to be wrong to denounce error and to insist on doctrinal formation in catechesis and missionary work for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be correct. This simply cannot be so.

Moreover, Pope Pius IX’s Qui Pluribus reminds us yet again that Holy Mother Church “has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to by to by Christ the Lord,” meaning that it is impossible for heresies to be taught by a true pope in the name of the Catholic Church.

Is God any less offended by the Argentine Apostate’s false dichotomy between doctrine and mercy in Evangelii Gaudium (and in his daily screeds at the Casa Santa Marta as he conducts his Ding Dong School of Apostasy) than by the application of that dichotomy in Amoris Laetitia, March 16, 2016, and the entirety of his antipapal ministry?

Of course not.

IV. Bergoglio’s Indemnification of Hardened Sinners

1. Fornication and Adultery

Amoris Laetitia is nothing other than a “canonization,” if you will, of everything that the lay Jesuit revolutionary, Bergoglio, has believed and practiced throughout the course of his wretched career as a destroyer of Catholic doctrine, liturgy, morality and pastoral praxis. The entire text of this remarkable document of moral relativism serves as the false “pontiff’s” apologia in defense of his false concept of “mercy” as applied to unrepentant sinners, including those engaged in gross acts of perversity. The text of the “exhortation” is a compendium of every shibboleth that Bergoglio has repeated endlessly in his screeds at the Casa Santa Marta, in his general audience addresses, in his various allocutions given from time to time to different groups when visiting the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, and in his addresses during his various pilgrimages around the world.

What is remarkable about the text of Amoris Laetitia is that anyone who has been engaged in the truly penitential task of following Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s words and deeds, including the supposedly “private” meetings that he has had with mutants and perverts—and the phone calls he has made to such people as a woman in Argentine who is civilly married to a divorced man (see, for example, Jorge Cooks the Books), can find nothing in it that he has not said a gazillion times before, albeit with various twists and turns, in scores of different venues. It is truly a document of vintage Jorge, a collection that could be called “Jorge’s Greatest Hits.” The man hath not an original thought in his Modernist mind, which is filled to capacity with everything condemned by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, Pope Pius X’s Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, and his Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.

Although a great deal of attention has been given to the final section of Amoris Latetia dealing with “irregular situations” in the past nine years, it is important, I believe, to note that the theological justification for that final section was provided in paragraphs two and three:

2. The Synod process allowed for an examination of the situation of families in today’s world, and thus for a broader vision and a renewed awareness of the importance of marriage and the family. The complexity of the issues that arose revealed the need for continued open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions. The thinking of pastors and theologians, if faithful to the Church, honest, realistic and creative, will help us to achieve greater clarity. The debates carried on in the media, in certain publications and even among the Church’s ministers, range from an immoderate desire for total change without sufficient reflection or grounding, to an attitude that would solve everything by applying general rules or deriving undue conclusions from particular theological considerations.

3. Since “time is greater than space”, I would make it clear that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium. Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does. Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For “cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

It is fairly clear what this means, is it not?

The work of the so-called “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” on matters of moral teaching was terminated except when it suits Bergoglio’s revolutionary purposes as he rejects “rules” as being too restrictive of the individual circumstances in which hardened sinners find themselves. Room must be provided for God the Holy Ghost to move beyond mere “rules,” an assertion that is blasphemous and heretical as it means that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity can change His mind and has guided Holy Mother Church and such great doctors as the Patron of Moral Theology, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, the Bishop of Agatho and the founder of the Congregation of Most Holy Redeemer, erroneously to stress such “ideals” of purity and to use “harsh” language that calls sin by its proper name.

Indeed, there are no less than nine other occasions in the text of Amoris Laetitia that “Pope Francis” reminds us of his hatred for rules. Here are just two of them:

35. As Christians, we can hardly stop advocating marriage simply to avoid countering contemporary sensibilities, or out of a desire to be fashionable or a sense of helplessness in the face of human and moral failings. We would be depriving the world of values that we can and must offer. It is true that there is no sense in simply decrying present-day evils, as if this could change things. Nor it is helpful to try to impose rules by sheer authority. What we need is a more responsible and generous effort to present the reasons and motivations for choosing marriage and the family, and in this way to help men and women better to respond to the grace that God offers them.    (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

49. Here I would also like to mention the situation of families living in dire poverty and great limitations. The problems faced by poor households are often all the more trying.36 For example, if a single mother has to raise a child by herself and needs to leave the child alone at home while she goes to work, the child can grow up exposed to all kind of risks and obstacles to personal growth. In such difficult situations of need, the Church must be particularly concerned to offer understanding, comfort and acceptance, rather than imposing straightaway a set of rules that only lead people to feel judged and abandoned by the very Mother called to show them God’s mercy. Rather than offering the healing power of grace and the light of the Gospel message, some would “indoctrinate” that message, turning it into “dead stones to be hurled at others”.  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio uses the same shopworn shibboleths of “imposing rules” on others as do leftist ideologues and all of the pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholic statists in public life in the United States of America and around the world.

Moral truths are no more “imposed” upon anyone than are the supernatural truths contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Moral truths exist in the nature of things. Ah, it was clear that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was rejecting the very existence of the Natural Law. He is an egregious liar and demagogue who is, in effect, denying the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Most Precious Blood that flow into the souls of men through the loving hands of Our Lady, she is who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Bergoglio is concerned about hurting the feelings of those who have chosen to live in states of wanton Mortal Sin while he is offending God by giving sanction to sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and can lead souls to Hell for all eternity.

Stricken from Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false “belief system” are these words of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

Stricken from Jorge Mario Bergoglio's false "belief system" are these words written by Saint Paul the Apostle in his First Epistle to the Corinthians:

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

Stricken from Jorge Mario Bergoglio's false "belief system" are these words written by Saint Jude Thaddeus in his Epistle: 

[6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael the archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

Stricken from Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false “belief system” are those words of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Epistle to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Timothy 1: 1-5.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not endure sound doctrine. He has rebelled against it and mocked it his entire life. He has heaped unto himself only those who are his fellow mockers and blasphemers of all that is sacred, all that is pure, all that is just. He is the most prolific manufacturer of fables since Aesop.

Amoris Laetitia authorized ad hoc experiments to be conducted at the local, national and regional levels to interpret moral teaching as seems appropriate to the subjective circumstances in which people find themselves. This is a fancy of way of saying that pastors were to tickle the itching ears of those who are living in states of Mortal Sin as it is now considered to be “unmerciful” even to refer to Mortal Sin and/or to “living in sin”:

For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016. Bergoglio also misrepresented and misapplied the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas in this paragraph, a distortion that will be discussed in my series of explications on his exhortation.)

Alas, this is nothing new. Bergoglio and his “architect,” Victor Manuel Fernandez, merely gave “official” “papal” sanction to what the now retired “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., and his sidekick, “Father” Thomas Rosica, said in a press briefing on October 10, 2014, the Feast of Saint Francis Borgia, to summarize the interventions made on that day in the “extraordinary synod on the family”:

The head of the Holy See press office Fr Federico Lombardi and his assistants spoke of the many different subjects under discussion on the first two days of the Synod, in particular the need for a more sensitive and inclusive language about family life that will not turn people away from the Church. Canadian Fr Tom Rosica gave some specific examples from the English speaking bishops present at the meeting: 

“Language such as ‘living in sin,’ ‘intrinsically disordered,’ or ‘contraceptive mentality’ are not necessarily words that invite people to draw closer to Christ and the Church.”

Synod participants have also been underlining the need to apply the so-called ‘law of graduality’ or ‘stepping stones approach’ as they minister to people living in all kinds of relationships that do not conform to the Church’s ideal of marriage and family life. 

“Questa tema della gradualità è stata ripresa………non si raggiunge ancora questa ideale.” 

Fr Lombardi used an analogy from the Second Vatican Council which led to profound changes in the Catholic Church’s relations with other Christians and people of other religious traditions. During the Council, bishops agreed that while the fullness of Christ’s Church “subsists” only in the Catholic Church, important elements of truth and holiness also exist in other churches and faith communities. In a similar way, he said, valid and important elements of true love and holiness can also exist in a relationship that does not conform to the full vision of an ideal Catholic marriage.

English Cardinal Vincent Nichols and Lebanese Cardinal Bechara Boutros Rai also shared impressions from the Synod Hall, including the call for a special message for families being persecuted for their Christian faith Iraq. They spoke about Synod Fathers who live in countries where Catholics are a tiny minority and who say the Church has much to learn from the wisdom and experience of other religious traditions.

Cardinal Nichols also described the very open and relaxed atmosphere of the Synod and the importance of hearing married couples share details of their relationships, including the pivotal role that sex plays in the life of most married couples:

“The Australian couple were quite explicit and developed in their thought and emphasis on the central role of sexuality and sexual intercourse in their marriage – now that’s not what we bishops talk about mostly! But to hear that as the opening contribution did open up an area which others followed and it was a recognition that it is often central to the wellbeing of a marriage.”

Cardinal Nichols pointed out it’s too early to draw any conclusions from these first sessions, yet it does seem clear that this first Synod of Francis’ pontificate is shaping up for a much more honest and down-to-earth discussion than most bishops have experienced here in the Vatican over recent decadess. (Sons of Martin Luther and Henry Tudor Meet to Accommodate Unrepentant Sinners.)

Ah, yes, stricken from the false "belief system" of a completely counterfeit church are these words contained in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori's sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday, which is to be found in its entirety in Appendix A below:

The Devil brings sinners to hell by closing their eyes to the dangers of perdition. He first blinds them, and then leads them with himself to eternal torments. If, then, we wish to be saved, we must continually pray to God in the words of the blind man in the gospel of this day,” Lord, that I may see." Give me light: make me see the way in which I must walk in order to save my soul, and to escape the deceits of the enemy of salvation. I shall, brethren, this day place before your eyes the delusion by which the devil tempts men to sin and to persevere in sin, that you may know how to guard yourselves against his deceitful artifices.  

2. To understand these delusions better, let us imagine the case of a young man who, seized by some passion, lives in sin, the slave of Satan, and never thinks of his eternal salvation. My son, I say to him, what sort of life do you lead? If you continue to live in this manner, how will you be able to save your soul? But, behold! the devil, on the other hand, says to him: Why should you be afraid of being lost? Indulge your passions for the present: you will afterwards confess your sins, and thus all shall be remedied. Behold the net by which the devil drags so many souls into hell. “Indulge your passions: you will hereafter make a good confession." But, in reply, I say, that in the meantime you lose your soul. Tell me: if you had a jewel worth a thousand pounds, would you throw it into a river with the hope of afterwards finding it again? What if all your efforts to find it were fruitless? God! you hold in your hand the invaluable jewel of your soul, which Jesus Christ has purchased with his own blood, and you cast it into hell! Yes; you cast it into hell; because according to the present order of providence, for every mortal sin you commit, your name is written among the number of the damned. But you say.” I hope to recover God’s grace by making a good confession." And if you should not recover it, what shall be the consequences? To make a good confession, a true sorrow for sin is necessary, and this sorrow is the gift of God: if he does not give it, will you not be lost for ever?  ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 118-119.)

Jorge’s implicit rejection of the Natural Law earlier in his exhortation became explicit in one of the later passages therein as he explained that moral decision-making is not a matter of “black and white”:

305. For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would bespeak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families”.349 Along these same lines, the International Theological Commission has noted that “natural law could not be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making decisions”.350 Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.351 Discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits. By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God. Let us remember that “a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties”.352 The practical pastoral care of ministers and of communities must not fail to embrace this reality.  (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

Even this is nothing new. He spoke in almost the exact same terms before the Congress of the United States of America on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, as he condemned “fundamentalists” who reduced everything to “good and evil”:

All of us are quite aware of, and deeply worried by, the disturbing social and political situation of the world today.  Our world is increasingly a place of violent conflict, hatred and brutal atrocities, committed even in the name of God and of religion.  We know that no religion is immune from forms of individual delusion or ideological extremism.  This means that we must be especially attentive to every type of fundamentalism, whether religious or of any other kind.  A delicate balance is required to combat violence perpetrated in the name of a religion, an ideology or an economic system, while also safeguarding religious freedom, intellectual freedom and individual freedoms.  But there is another temptation which we must especially guard against: the simplistic reductionism which sees only good or evil; or, if you will, the righteous and sinners.  The contemporary world, with its open wounds which affect so many of our brothers and sisters, demands that we confront every form of polarization which would divide it into these two camps.  We know that in the attempt to be freed of the enemy without, we can be tempted to feed the enemy within.  To imitate the hatred and violence of tyrants and murderers is the best way to take their place.  That is something which you, as a people, reject. (Bergoglio's Address to U.S. Congress.)

Once again, especially for those who are relatively new to this site or who may have forgotten, it was our last true pope, Pope Pius XII, who described Bergoglio’s false “belief system” when exactitude in an address that he gave to the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus in September of 1957:

The more serious cause, however, was the movement in high Jesuit circles to modernize the understanding of the magisterium by enlarging the freedom of Catholics, especially scholars, to dispute its claims and assertions. Jesuit scholars had already made up their minds that the Catholic creeds and moral norms needed nuance and correction. It was for this incipient dissent that the late Pius XII chastised the Jesuits’ 30th General Congregation one year before he died (1957). What concerned Pius XII most in that admonition was the doctrinal orthodoxy of Jesuits. Information had reached him that the Society’s academics (in France and Germany) were bootlegging heterodox ideas. He had long been aware of contemporary theologians who tried “to withdraw themselves from the Sacred Teaching authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them in error” (Humani generis).

In view of what has gone on recently in Catholic higher education, Pius XII’s warnings to Jesuits have a prophetic ring to them. He spoke then of a “proud spirit of free inquiry more proper to a heterodox mentality than to a Catholic one”; he demanded that Jesuits not “tolerate complicity with people who would draw norms for action for eternal salvation from what is actually done, rather than from what should be done.” He continued, “It should be necessary to cut off as soon as possible from the body of your Society” such “unworthy and unfaithful sons.” Pius obviously was alarmed at the rise of heterodox thinking, worldly living, and just plain disobedience in Jesuit ranks, especially at attempts to place Jesuits on a par with their Superiors in those matters which pertained to Faith or Church order (The Pope Speaks, Spring 1958, pp. 447-453). (Monsignor George A. Kelly, Ph.D.,The Catholic College: Death, Judgment, Resurrection. See also the full Latin text of Pope Pius XII's address to the thirtieth general congregation of the Society of Jesus at page 806 of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 1957: AAS 49 [1957]. One will have to scroll down to page 806.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies.  Amoris Latetia is nothing other than a celebration of subjectivism, of basing false moral teaching on what is "actually done, rather than from what should be done."

Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has used his Jesuitically trained pea brain to lay the founding for the “easing” of consciences on issues of Catholic morality that he believes are impossible for the faithful to observe.

Admitting that he has sought to “welcome” practicing sodomites throughout the course of his antipapal presidency, Bergoglio’s first formal project was to “ease” the consciences of Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a conciliar decree of nullity as well as those engaged in other “imperfect” unions from receiving what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination.

The Argentine Apostate made it clear in Paragraphs 186 and 199 of Amoris Laetitia that no “scandalous distinctions and divisions” could be made among those who approach to receive what they think is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. This means that no one is to be excluded. Not those who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without a conciliar decree of marital nullity. Not those who are cohabiting while unmarried. Not those who are engaged in perverse sins against nature. Not those who are using contraception. Not those who are either killing babies or are public officials who support the execution of the innocent preborn. Not those who have killed their own babies and are unrepentant about doing so. Not those who have engaged a “surrogate mother” to bring a child conceived artificially to birth. Those who “create” “scandalous divisions and distinctions” need to undergo what the false “pontiff” calls “missionary conversion”:

186. The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members. This is what it means to “discern” the body of the Lord, to acknowledge it with faith and charity both in the sacramental signs and in the community; those who fail to do so eat and drink judgement against themselves (cf. v. 29). The celebration of the Eucharist thus becomes a constant summons for everyone “to examine himself or herself ”(v. 28), to open the doors of the family to greater fellowship with the underprivileged, and in this way to receive the sacrament of that eucharistic love which makes us one body. We must not forget that “the ‘mysticism’ of the sacrament has a social character”.207 When those who receive it turn a blind eye to the poor and suffering, or consent to various forms of division, contempt and inequality, the Eucharist is received unworthily. On the other hand, families who are properly disposed and receive the Eucharist regularly, reinforce their desire for fraternity, their social consciousness and their commitment to those in need.

201. “This effort calls for missionary conversion by everyone in the Church, that is, one that is not content to proclaim a merely theoretical message without connection to people’s real problems”.229 Pastoral care for families “needs to make it clear that the Gospel of the family responds to the deepest expectations of the human person: a response to each one’s dignity and fulfilment in reciprocity, communion and fruitfulness. This consists not merely in presenting a set of rules, but in proposing values that are clearly needed today, even in the most secularized of countries”.230 The Synod Fathers also “highlighted the fact that evangelization needs unambiguously to denounce cultural, social, political and economic factors – such as the excessive importance given to market logic – that prevent authentic family life and lead to discrimination, poverty, exclusion, and violence. Consequently, dialogue and cooperation need to be fostered with societal structures and encouragement given to lay people who are involved, as Christians, in the cultural and socio-political fields”.231 (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

These passages serve to prepare readers for the coup de grace that Bergoglio delivered to discredit and to undermine the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church in Paragraphs 291 to 310 of what some have aptly called his ode to the adversary, Amoris Laetitia.

“Pope Francis” believes that the denial of what purports to be Holy Communion to those who are living in sin, a phrase that he rejects as being “unmerciful” and without any sense of “nuance” (a word that was one of the late Bernard “Cardinal” Law’s many ways to cloud the clarity of Catholic teaching on Faith and Morals), constitutes the “creation” of “distinctions” and “divisions” that are “sins” against “equality.” Bergoglio believes that those who “create” such distinctions are the ones who partake of the Eucharist unworthily, thereby turning the following words of Saint Paul the Apostle in his Second Epistle to the Corinthians on their head:

For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. [27] Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. [28] But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. [29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep. (1 Cor. 11:17-34.)

The meaning of this is quite clear.

Bishop Richard Challoner commented as follows in his English translation of the Douay-Rheims Bible:

[27] Guilty of the body: not discerning the body. This demonstrates the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, even to the unworthy communicant; who otherwise could not be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, or justly condemned for not discerning the Lord's body. (Bishop Richard Challoner Commentary, Douay-Rheims Bible.)

Father George Haydock commented similarly:

The real presence in the sacrament is also proved by the enormity of the crime, in its profanation. See St. Chrysostom, hom. de non contem. ec. and hom. lx. and lxi. ad pop. Antioch. where he shews that the unworthy receiver imitates the Jews in crucifying Jesus, and trampling under foot his sacred blood. Hence the dreadful punishments we read of in verses 27 and 30. ((Haydock Commentary.)

It is interesting that Jorge Mario Bergoglio cites verses 26-29 of Saint Paul the Apostle’s First Epistle to the Corinthians but omits a reference to verse 30, which Father Haydock explained as follows:

Ver. 30-32. Therefore in punishment of the sin of receiving unworthily, many are infirm, visited with infirmities, even that bring death, which is meant by those words, many sleep. But it is a mercy of God, when he only punishes by sickness, or a corporal death, and does not permit us to perish for ever, or be condemned with this wicked world. To avoid this, let a man prove himself, examine the state of his conscience, especially before he receives the holy sacrament, confess his sins, and be absolved by those to whom Christ left the power of forgiving sins in his name, and by his authority. If we judge ourselves in this manner, we shall not be judged, that is, condemned. (Haydock Commentary.)

Leave it to a figure of Antichrist to twist the clear meaning of the words of Saint Paul the Apostle to condemn those who are in a state of Sanctifying Grace while looking with an indulgent “kindness” upon those who are not.

Believing Catholics know that Saint Paul the Apostle condemned those who dare to receive Holy Communion unworthily, that is, those who are in a state of Mortal Sin. Saint Paul’s admonition applies directly to the very people whose sins against Holy Purity are justified by “Pope Francis” by various means, including what he calls “gradualness,” in Amoris Laetitia. It is nothing other than the work of a figure of Antichrist to twist the words of Saint Paul in verse twenty-seven of Saint Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians to make them apply to those would deny Holy Communion to the very sort of unrepentant sinners condemned by the Apostle to the Gentiles.

The Argentine Apostate believes that unrepentant sinners are worthy to partake of what purports to be the Holy Eucharist while those who call sin by its proper name and seek to protect the Sacred Species from sacrilegious reception are said to be creating “distinctions” and “divisions,” thus rendering themselves unworthy. This kind of theological filth can only have one author, the devil himself. His concept of "missionary conversion" refers to a Stalinist or Maoist style "re-education" of "reprogramming" of Catholics who still cling to what he believes are Pharisaical standards that simply cannot be realized by people in contemporary circumstances. 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio even said in 2021 that Judas Iscariot himself would have welcomed to have received the Holy Eucharist:

And there is another strength that stands out in the fragility of the Eucharist: the strength to love those who make mistakes. It is on the night he is betrayed that Jesus gives us the Bread of Life. He gives us the greatest gift while in his heart he feels the deepest abyss: the disciple who eats with Him, who dips the morsel in the same plate, is betraying Him. And betrayal is the worst suffering for one who loves.  And what does Jesus do? He reacts to the evil with a greater good. He responds to Judas’ ‘no’ with the ‘yes’ of mercy. He does not punish the sinner, but rather gives His life for him; He pays for him. When we receive the Eucharist, Jesus does the same with us: he knows us; he knows we are sinners; he knows we make many mistakes, but he does not give up on joining his life to ours. He knows that we need it, because the Eucharist is not the reward of saints, but the Bread of sinners. This is why he exhorts us: “Do not be afraid! Take and eat”. (Angelus, 6 June 2021.)

Liar, liar, pants on fire, Jorge.

Anathema to you, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Before dealing with the “bread of sinners” heresy, it is very important to discuss Bergoglio’s umpteenth betrayal of Judas Iscariot as a beneficiary of Our Lord’s mercy, starting with the words of Saint John Chrysostom that are contained in the readings for the Divine Office for Monday within the Octave of Corpus Christi:

Let us hear, all of us, both Priests and laymen, let us hear What Food it is whereof we are made worthy let us hear, I say, and let us quake. The Lord satisfieth us with His Own holy Flesh, setting Himself slain before us. What excuse therefore shall we have, if, being so fed as we are, we sin as we do If, eating of the Lamb, we are still wolves If, pastured as the sheep of the flock, we raven like lions This mysterious Sacrament forbiddeth unto us not outrage only, but any the least enmity it is the Mystery of peace. Upon the Jews God laid it to make year by year by solemn festivals a yearly commemoration of His mercies unto them, but upon thee to do this in remembrance of His love to thee, day by day. To this Table then let there draw nigh no Judas Iscariot, no Simon Magus. These men fell through covetousness let us fly that bottomless pit. (Saint John Chrysostom, as found in Matins, The Divine Office, Monday within the Octave of Corpus Christi.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio says that the Judases are welcomed because they are “fragile.” 

Liar.

Blasphemer.

Heretic.

This is what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said of Judas after He had foretold of His betrayal at the Last Supper:

[21] And whilst they were eating, he said: Amen I say to you, that one of you is about to betray me. [22] And they being very much troubled, began every one to say: Is it I, Lord? [23] But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me. [24] The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born. [25] And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it. (Matthew 26: 21-25.)

This is an unambiguous declaration of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man that it would have been better for Judas had he never been born, meaning that the crime of betrayal and blasphemy was so enormous that a man of so little faith in Him would be led naturally to despair and suicide, whereupon he would spend the rest of eternity in the lowest depths of hell.

Father George Leo Haydock’s commentary on the Gospel passage cited just above showed that Our Lord was not “smiling” upon Judas when He spoke at the Last Supper:

The motives for this great sorrow in the disciples: 1st, because they saw their innocent and dear Master was so soon to be taken from them, and delivered up to a most cruel and ignominious death; 2d, because each of them was afraid lest, through human frailty, he might fall into so great a crime; for they all were convinced, that what he said must necessarily come to pass: and lastly, that there could be found one among them so wretchedly perverse, as to deliver Jesus into the hands of his enemies. Hence afraid of themselves, and not daring to affix a suspicion on any individual, they began every one to say: Is it I, Lord, on whom so atrocious a crime is to fall? ... It is extremely probable that Christ made this prediction three times: 1st, at the commencement of supper; (Matthew xxvi. 21.) 2d, after washing the feet; (John xiii. 18.) 3d, after the institution of the blessed Eucharist. (Luke xxii. 21.) Thus Pope Benedict XIV. Sandinus, &c.

Ver. 23. He that dippeth. He that is associated to me, that eateth bread with me, shall lift up his heel against me, according to the prophecy of the psalmist, cited by St. John, xiii. 18. --- Jesus Christ does not here manifest the traitor; he only aggravates the enormity and malice of the crime.

Ver. 25. Is it I, Rabbi? After the other disciples had put their questions, and after our Saviour had finished speaking, Judas at length ventures to inquire of himself. With his usual hypocrisy, he wishes to cloke his wicked designs by asking a similar question with the rest. (Origen) --- It is remarkable that Judas did not ask, is it I, Lord? but, is it I, Rabbi? to which our Saviour replied, thou hast said it: which answer might have been spoken in so low a tone of voice, as not perfectly to be heard by all the company. (Rabanus) --- Hence it was that Peter beckoned to St. John, to learn more positively the person. Here St. Chrysostom justly remarks the patience and reserve of our Lord, who by his great meekness and self-possession, under the extremes of ingratitude, injustice, and blasphemy, shews how we ought to bear with the malice of others, and forget all personal injuries. (Haydock Commentary.)

Even more definitive proof of Judas’s damnation can be found these words of Our Lord spoken at the Last Supper and contained in the Gospel according to Saint John wherein the traitor is described as the son of perdition who is the only one of the Apostles who will be lost:

12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name. Those whom thou gavest me, I have kept: and none of them hath perished, but the son of perdition, that the Scripture may be fulfilled. (John 17:12)

Father Haydock’s commentary on this passage makes short work of Judas Bergoglio’s praise of a man who committed the sin of blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by despairing of forgiveness and for expressing His sorrow to the Jews, not to Our Lord Himself:

Ver. 12. While I was with them, I kept them in thy name.[5] He still speaks, says St. Chrysostom, as man, and after a human manner, by mentioning the advantage they seemed to enjoy, as long as he conversed visibly with them on earth, not that his invisible presence should be less beneficial to them. --- And none of them hath perished, except the son of perdition, the wretched Judas, whose fall was foretold in the Scriptures. (Psalm cviii.) He hath perished, that is, now is about being lost, by his own fault, says St. Chrysostom on this place. And St. Augustine on Psalm cxxxviii. How did the devil enter into the heart of Judas? he could not have entered, had not he given him place. (Witham) --- That the Scripture may be fulfilled: this does not any ways shew, that it was the will of God that Judas should be lost; but only that what happened to Judas was conformable to the prophecies, and not occasioned by them. Who will doubt, says St. Augustine, (lib. de Unit. Eccl. chap. ix.) but that Judas might, if he pleased, have abstained from betraying Christ. But God foretold it, because he foresaw clearly the future perversity of his disposition. (Calmet) --- See above, (xiii. 18.) one of the principal passages of Scripture relative to the treachery of Judas, in which the traitor's crime had been predicted. (Haydock Commentary: Haydock Commentary.)

Yet it is that the “hope,” if not the certainty, of Judas’s salvation is near and dear to the heart of the conciliar revolutionaries, perhaps because he is their model of betraying Our Lord’s Sacred Deposit of Faith just as surely as Judas Iscariot betrayed Our Lord to the high priests for thirty pieces of silver. 

Unlike Saint Peter, our first pope, who wept over his triple denials of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as he hovered near the hall when the Divine Judge was being judged by Caiphas  and the other Jewish priests and then sought mercy from Him, Judas Iscariot despaired of being forgiven by the One with Whom He had spent three years while enriching himself from that which was collected to support the apostolate.

2. Overturning the “False Teaching of “Popes” John Paul II and Benedict XVI About Marriage and the Family with New False Teaching

Jorge Mario Bergoglio disparages the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as nothing other than a "set of rules" that can break the backs and dispirit the souls of those who are living in ways that do not conform to the "fullness" of what he believes is but a mere "ideal," a falsehood that he repeated throughout the text of Amoris Laetitia and that denies the efficacy of the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood to effect the conversion of those steeped in sin.

This hideous little man does not view moral sins as grave matter. He views them as "expressions of love" that show tenderness and compassion. No one, though, loves another by enabling him in his sins. No one loves himself by excusing away his own sins and justifying them before men. No one can love God and persist in a life of sin as Our Lord Himself taught us to quit our sins, each of which caused Him to suffer unspeakable horrors during His Passion Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that caused those Swords of Sorrow to be pierced through and through the Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.

Although it has been well-established on this website that conciliarism itself and its explication by the postconciliar antipopes have sought to contradict, obfuscate, or disparage or simply disparage the defined teaching of the Catholic Church on everything, especially about the nature of dogmatic truth and hence upon the nature of God  and His Divine Revelation and in matters concerning the unicity of the Church, interreligious “prayer” services, religious liberty and the proper relationship  between Holy Mother Church and the civil state, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has moved the conciliar revolution to the point where he has been undermining and contradicting the “magisterial” teaching, such as it was, of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and the very much alive Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

That is, even though Wojtyla/John Paul II and Ratzinger/Benedict used their false pontificates to advance the conciliar revolutionary agenda, especially as it pertains to false ecumenism and interreligious “prayer” services, they did so at a slower pace than was to the liking of Jacobin/Bolshevik “progressives” such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who believes that his two immediate predecessors in the conciliar seat of apostasy were too “conservative” on matters of theology and morality and that they “stifled” so-called “theologians” such as Leonardo Boff and Hans Kung.

Most especially, though Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that his two immediate antipapal predecessors were wrong on matters of marriage and the family even though both supported and evangelized on behalf of a revolutionary overthrow of the ends of marriage that Wojtyla/John Paul II advanced, in complete “fidelity” to the “Second” Vatican Council and to Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI’s revolutionary Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, in the 1983 conciliar code of canon law, which is, as you will see below, a complete inversion of the ends proper to marriage as taught by Holy Mother Church from time immemorial and codified in the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.

To wit, consider the inversion of the ends of marriage wrought by the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the postconciliar popes even though the ends of marriage are part of the Divine and Natural Laws and are more malleable than the doctrine of the unicity of the Catholic Church:

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English:  1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1 1983 Conciliar Code of Canon Law. By the way, Father Vigano, your beloved Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II propagated the so-called 1983 Code of Canon Law. Not even a true pope can change something that exists in the very nature of things. Why no criticism of "Saint John Paul II"?)

TheThe entire fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, including its endorsement of the falsehood that is "natural family planning," is built on the fabric of the inversion of the ends of marriage that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1944, a condemnation that he cited and reiterated in the strongest terms possible in his aforementioned Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s belief that his two immediate predecessors were “conservatives” was not only laughable, but also a contemptible display of intellectual arrogance or intellectual dishonesty or both.

After all, the Argentine Apostate’s Amoris Laetitia was meant to be an overruling of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s reiteration, couched in conciliarspeak’s inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony, of the traditional ban on divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics from the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service as well as a reminder that those living in sin outside of marriage were similarly banned. Bergoglio meant Amoris Laetitia to serve as the counterweight to Familiaris Consortio just as much as Traditiones Custodes, July 16, 202, was a direct abrogation of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007. The entirety of conciliarism’s “living tradition”/“hermeneutic of continuity”/dogmatic evolutionism that has been used to contradict and/or deconstruct almost the entirety of the patrimony of the Catholic Faith is being used with ready abandon by Bergoglio to contradict, deconstruct or just plain jettison decisions made by the previous conciliar “popes” in the name of “theological dialogue,” theological pluralism,” and “listening to the voices of the faithful.”

Whatever conciliarism is, it is not Catholicism as it is based on a rejection of Holy Mother Church’s authentic magisterial teaching in favor of an “experiential-based” subjectivism that insists upon listening to the “community” rather than insisting upon obedience to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Who has spoken to us through the infallible voice of His Holy Church, she who can more contradict herself than He can, God is immutable. So is His teaching as enunciated by His Holy Church, she who canst neither deceive nor be deceived.

Why is this all relevant?

Well, look for yourselves:

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The Pontifical Academy for Life has defended its recent book promoting contraception, writing on Twitter that theology requires “progress” as part of a natural process. 

The Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV) recently published a book, Theological Ethics of Life. Scripture, Tradition, Practical Challenges, which is a collection of essays taken from a three-day interdisciplinary seminar sponsored by the PAV. LifeSiteNews reported on the text, noting how the book advocates for contraception and artificial insemination as if the topics are open topics for discussion, instead of having already been condemned by the Church. 

After LifeSite’s article was shared on Twitter, the PAV responded to the criticism which users of the social media site were making of the book, writing that there was “No deviation [from Church’s teaching] but debate and dialogue, as the Church always suggests – ‘quaestiones disputatae’ method!”

The PAV faced further criticism, however, with user Gary Paul Hermit writing that “to suggest that settled matters are up for ‘debate and dialogue’ IS deviation.” He urged the PAV to “condemn dissent,” saying that “the only dialogue” which the Church should have with a racist individual “would be to correct his error and invite conversation.”

In response the PAV wrote: “Be careful: what is dissent today, can change.”

“It is not relativism, it is the dynamics of the understanding of phenomena and science: the Sun does not rotate around the Earth,” continued the Academy. “Otherwise there would be no progress and everything would stand still. Even in theology. Think about it.”

The PAV’s message was swiftly ridiculed as a “word salad” online, with a senior editor for the National Catholic Register Jonathan Liedl writing: “A Vatican organ lazily comparing Humane Vitae to geocentricism in order to undermine decades of post-conciliar teaching on sexual ethics.”

Leila Marie Lawler, author of The Summa Domestica: Order and Wonder in Family Life, described the PAV’s response as a “mishmash.” 

The PAV is no stranger to controversy regarding the Catholic Church’s moral teaching. Its president, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, issued a call in 2019 for the PAV to “widen its scope of reflection” and said that Pope Francis warned the PAV “that it is risky to look at human life in a way that detaches it from experience and reduces it to biology or to an abstract universal, separated from relationships and history.” (Pontifical Academy for Life defends new book supporting contraception: ‘What is dissent today, can change’.)

Despite all their gratuitous assertions to the contrary, men such as Vincenzo Paglia and his fellow Bergoglian hand-picked appointees to the so-called Pontifical Academy for Life are moral relativists and pantheists who believe in basing moral precepts not on what is objectively true in the nature of things and/or has been taught infallibly and immutably by Holy Mother Church, Who teaches only what she has received from her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical  Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, but on the basis of the life “experiences” of people who have no intention of showing forth their love of God by obeying His Commandments. Paglia and his band of pantheists believe that moral precepts are established by community behavior and not “imposed” by ultimate authority other than what they believe is the “informed” consciences of individuals, who are said to be “mature” enough to decide for themselves what they can do after considering all other factors. This is a sure path to hell as it makes the individual conscience, which is easily misinformed by one’s own desires and habits of sins, paramount over God Himself, Who must be, perforce reduced into nothing other than a projection of one’s warped imagination to reaffirm oneself in one’s sins.

The Bergoglio-Paglia approach to what should be called a theology of immorality is not even the old proportionalism of the late Father Richard McCormick, S.J. (not to be confused with the late heretic Father Richard McBrien, a priest of the Archdiocese of Hartford, Connecticut) as McCormick presume that there were objective norms of morality but that they did not apply if a preponderance of “good motives” and supposedly mitigating circumstances could make an otherwise illicit act into a morally licit one to pursue. However much he negated the application of objective moral truth in the practical realm, Father Richard McCormick admitted, at least admitted in a broad theoretical sense, perhaps to avoid further censure for being a moral relativist, that that there were such truths.

Furthermore, the belief that “today’s dissent” is tomorrow’s orthodoxy is without any foundation in the history of the Catholic Church, something that even the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself noted in a 1976 document concerning the immutable nature of sexual ethics that had come under attack by various theologians who were, as we know now, being used by the forces of hell to prepare the way for the coming of the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and those who are likely to follow him in the conciliar seat apostasy barring a direct intervention from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself

Hence, those many people are in error who today assert that one can find neither in human nature nor in the revealed law any absolute and immutable norm to serve for particular actions other than the one which expresses itself in the general law of charity and respect for human dignity. As a proof of their assertion they put forward the view that so-called norms of the natural law or precepts of Sacred Scripture are to be regarded only as given expressions of a form of particular culture at a certain moment of history.

But in fact, Divine Revelation and, in its own proper order, philosophical wisdom, emphasize the authentic exigencies of human nature. They thereby necessarily manifest the existence of immutable laws inscribed in the constitutive elements of human nature and which are revealed to be identical in all beings endowed with reason.

Furthermore, Christ instituted His Church as "the pillar and bulwark of truth."[6] With the Holy Spirit's assistance, she ceaselessly preserves and transmits without error the truths of the moral order, and she authentically interprets not only the revealed positive law but "also . . . those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself"[7] and which concern man's full development and sanctification. Now in fact the Church throughout her history has always considered a certain number of precepts of the natural law as having an absolute and immutable value, and in their transgression she has seen a contradiction of the teaching and spirit of the Gospel.

ince sexual ethics concern fundamental values of human and Christian life, this general teaching equally applies to sexual ethics. In this domain there exist principles and norms which the Church has always unhesitatingly transmitted as part of her teaching, however much the opinions and morals of the world may have been opposed to them. These principles and norms in no way owe their origin to a certain type of culture, but rather to knowledge of the Divine Law and of human nature. They therefore cannot be considered as having become out of date or doubtful under the pretext that a new cultural situation has arisen. (Persona Humana, December 29, 1975.)

To be sure, Persona Humana was a document of the conciliar church, which means that there were drops of error here and there, especially as concerns homosexuality, which it condemned while attempting to extend a palm branch to those engaged in “transitory” acts. Nonetheless, however, its text reaffirmed in the immutable nature of moral truths, something that has long been attacked by Modernists and has received “papal” currency during in the past nine years, four months, five days, since Jorge Mario Bergoglio appeared on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter. Indeed, the new document produced by the so-called Pontifical Academy for Life states that a “plurality” of “diversity” of theological views can vitiate an adherence to norms which its authors do not believe are immutable of their very nature, which, of course, is to deny the immutability of God, Who is Himself immutable.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Vincenzo Paglia really do believe that “past teaching” on morality becomes “outdated” and thus must be conformed to the way in which the people live their lives even though the truth of the matter is that we must conform ourselves to the law of God and to the teaching of Holy Mother Church, who teaches us authoritatively and infallibly in His Holy Name.

No one, however, should be in the least bit surprised about the bold manner in which the Catholic moral teaching is under attack by Bergoglio’s handpicked members of the Pontifical Academy on Life as it is very easy to attack the immutability moral teaching once one admits that matter of Catholic doctrine, including the very Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church, are subject to reevaluation according to the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned principles that have gone by the titles of “living tradition” and/or the “hermeneutic of continuity.” Dogmatic evolutionism leads to moral evolutionism just as surely as it leads also to liturgical evolutionism and, ultimately, to the triumph of the pantheistic spirit of subjectivism.

A article in America magazine  some years ago now provided a favorable review of the “process” by which “theologians” associated with the so-called Pontifical Academy for Life are “reevaluating” Catholic teaching on contraception, abortion, sterilization, in vitro fertilization, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged human beings, “brain death”/human organ vivisection and transplantation, and “palliative care”/hospice. It is worth the exercise to analyze this effort to rationalize sin as the foundation of what purports itself to be “Catholic” moral teaching. Various interjections will be offered where appropriate.

Here is the first segment of the article in America:

Pope Francis has encouraged a process of theological renewal on many fronts but perhaps nowhere more significant than in the realm of theological ethics and moral theology. In four of his landmark papal documents—“Evangelii Gaudium” (2013), “Laudato Si’” (2015), “Amoris Laetitia” (2016) and “Veritatis Gaudium” (2018)—and in countless speeches, catechetical talks and homilies throughout his papacy, he has revived the church’s longstanding tradition of the primacy of an individual’s informed conscience and, among others, the role of discernment in moral decision-making.(Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

Interjection:

Evangelii Gaudium was, as noted earlier in this commentary, an insidious effort to make it appear that there is a dichotomy between Catholic doctrine and mercy. (Please see  Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven.)

Laudato Si’ was a screed on behalf of a pantheistic, globalist view of the created world to which men must subordinate themselves. (Please see: Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge part one, Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge, part two.)

Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, was an effort to normalize adultery, fornication, adulterous marriages and other “imperfect” or “irregular” situations in the name of “accompaniment” while distorting and misrepresenting the teaching of Saint Thomas Aquinas. (Please see: 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!)

Each of the documents have been issued by an agent of Antichrist who is actively seeking, yes, even as fell critically ill within the past month at the age of eighty-eight, to eradicate anything even remotely recognizably Catholic within the theology, liturgy, or pastoral practice of a false religious sect, starting with the celebration of the “primacy of individual conscience” even though individual consciences must be informed by and docilely submissive to the teaching of Holy Mother Church in all that pertains to Faith and Morals.

Well, we return now to the America justification of theological subjectivism:

The pope’s teachings in these authoritative documents have influenced how theology is taught in Catholic universities and seminaries throughout the world and have also given church scholars much sought-after permission and freedom to explore new horizons in Catholic theology. Under the present papacy, theologians are empowered to ask complex questions that touch on the messy, real-life issues that affect the faithful without fear of being silenced. But the pope’s efforts to revitalize the Catholic Church’s understanding and approach to the moral life could take yet another major leap forward. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

“New horizons in Catholic theology.”

This calls to mind the eagerness with which theologians during the last few years of Pope Pius XII’s life looked forward to a “liberal” pope who would give them the “freedom” to examine new approaches to supposedly “complex” issues that are not complex at all as it is never “complex” to obey God and the teaching He has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping.

Father John C. Ford, S.J., who was instrumental in convincing Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Montini/Paul VI not to endorse contraception in Humanae Vitae, July 25, 1968, even though it contained an inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony and endorsed what became known as “natural family planning” (Catholic contraception) was one of those who sought more “freedom” to explore supposedly “complex” moral issues but had to wait until the death of Pope Pius XII.

Father Ford's own protege, the late Dr. Germain Grisez, noted this as so in a glowing tribute to him that is filled with very interesting factual details of the work of the "papal" "birth control" commission:

Though Ford never publicly criticized Pius XII or the Roman Curia, he shared the dissatisfaction then common among theologians with the overly cautious attitude of the Holy See toward innovations of any sort. He also thought Pius XII had attempted to settle some difficult moral questions without adequate study and reflection. Thus, Ford was pleased by the more open approach of the new pontificate [Angelo Roncalli] and looked forward to the coming Council in the hope that it would pave the way for needed renewal in the Church, not least in moral theology. (John C. Ford, S.J.)

We can see with greatly clarity what this so-called “renewal” hath wrought.

Back to the America article:

A new essay titled “Rileggere l’etica teologica della vita,” which translates to English as “Re-reading the theological ethics of life” and was published June 30 in La Civilta’ Cattolica—the Jesuit-led periodical whose content is approved by the Vatican’s Secretariat of State before publication—could place renewed emphasis on this often fraught area of reflection in the life of the church. Interesting times lie ahead if the reflections reported in the essay speak to what may be afoot at the Vatican.

“It is legitimate to ask if Pope Francis will give us a new encyclical or apostolic exhortation on bioethics that might be called ‘Gaudium Vitae.’ [‘The Joy of Life’],” said Jorge José Ferrer, S.J., the author of the essay, a priest and professor of moral theology at the Pontifical Catholic University of Puerto Rico. Were such a papal document forthcoming it would spark a wide-ranging reflection on the ethics of human life that could lead to a new and definitive papal teaching document on issues as polarizing as contraception, assisted procreation and palliative care. (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

Interjection:

The conciliar revolutionaries desire to pronounce that which is evil good, and to this they must make it appear as though what has been taught as objective moral truths can no longer be seen as such in light of the “changed” circumstances in which people live at the present time.

In order to accomplish this mission from the depths of hell, the authors of the Pontifical Academy for Life’s book made sure to use the language of the adversary in many instances, including by referring to the morally illicit practice of in vitro fertilization as “assisted procreation” while at the same time endorsing the frustration of procreation as the natural end of the generative powers given unto man by God by means of contraceptive pills and devices, each of which serve as abortifacients and asserts the “sovereignty” of man over the sanctity and fecundity of the marital gift, which can be used, the revolutionaries have long asserted, in supposedly “loving” and “stable” relationships that, though “imperfect,” are said to be based in a true commitment one sinner to the other.

Even the so-called Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then under the stewardship of Joseph Alois “Cardinal” Ratzinger, condemned, albeit the very-sickening advertences to “human dignity” and not the law of God, in vitro fertilization in Donum Vitae, February 22, 1987, which is the authors of the Pontifical Academy for Life’s book listed Donum Vitae’s condemnation of in vitro fertilization as one of the subjects that must be “reevaluated” in a “bold and courageous “freedom of speech”:

The essay offers an overview of the contents of a 528-page book that contains the proceedings of a three-day interdisciplinary seminar convened by the Pontifical Academy for Life at the Vatican from Oct. 30 to Nov. 1 in 2021 and was published last month by Libreria Editrice Vaticana, the Vatican publishing house, under the title Etica teologica della vita: Scrittura, tradizione, sfide, pratiche (Theological Ethics of Life: Writing, Tradition, Practical Challenges).

The departure point for this seminar was to listen attentively to the magisterium of Pope Francis and, after careful study, to reflect on theological ethics, and bioethics in particular, in a truly dialogical way, while still recognizing the decisive role of the pope’s teaching authority.

“We followed a path of study and reflection that led us to see the issues of bioethics in a new light, starting with the role of discernment and the formed conscience of the moral agent,” Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, said in an interview about the book with Vatican Media. “We did this not only in an atmosphere of parrhesia [a bold and courageous freedom of speech] that stimulates and empowers theologians, academics and scholars. But also with a procedure similar to the quaestiones disputatae: to pose a thesis and open it up to debate.” The quaestiones disputatae is a medieval method of philosophical and theological discussion to dispute issues pertinent to society, where one scholar presents a thesis and another responds in dispute.

More than 20 theologians, among them clerics, consecrated religious, lay women and men, gathered for the seminar. Most of the participants were from Europe, but two were from Latin America, one from Africa and one the United States. Two consultors from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith—which under the new reform of the Roman Curia is now the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith—were present at the seminar as well as three cardinals: Luis Antonio Tagle (Philippines), Mario Grech (Malta) and Marcello Semeraro (Italy).

The seminar was itself convened as a response to the work of eight theologians (men and women) who had been commissioned by the same pontifical academy a year before the seminar to reflect on fundamental aspects of the moral theology of life and bioethical concerns that touch on such contentious issues as contraception, in vitro fertilization and the suspension of nutrition and hydration for terminally ill persons. It also took account of what the different disciplines of modern science and technology had to contribute to the discussion at hand.  (Birth control, IVF, euthanasia: The Vatican encouraged dialogue on polarizing life issues. Is a papal encyclical next?)

The paragraph just above is fraught with gratuitous assertions as the mere fact that moral truths are “contentious” in the minds of those who do not want to observe them and/or find some theological rationalization for violating with a clear “conscience” does not lessen the obligation of anyone to observe them faithfully.

To wit, although I have written extensively about the illicit nature of the suspension of nutrition and hydration from brain-damaged or those said to be “terminally-ill,” it is important to remind readers here that a brain-damaged person is not suffering from a terminal illness, The provision of nutrition and hydration, no matter how administered, is a mandatory requirement for those who cannot feed themselves, something that is true with infants who must be fed and those who have been injured in an accident and/or have suffered a stroke later in life who need assistance to eat and drink. The provision of food and water is nothing burdensome to the patient nor costly to himself and/or his relatives. There is only thing that can occur when food and water are withdrawn from a living human being: death.

No action that has as its only end the death of an innocent human being is morally licit, and those who continue to insist that it is licit must reckon with the fact that the medical industry today, far from wanting to keep people alive until they become “one hundred twenty-five year-old headless corpses,” has been basing medical care on the basis of subjective” “quality of life” determinations made by teams of “professionals” trained in programs funded by the anti-life Robert Wood Johnson and George Soros foundations. The starvation and dehydration of innocent human beings” is being employed by medical “professionals” to play God, which is exactly what they did in the case of Mrs. Theresa Marie Schindler-Schiavo seventeen years (see Ten Years Later) and what they are doing every day of the year without making headlines as most people accept this cruel killing of their relatives as “normal” because the “professionals” have said that is the “merciful” thing to do. There is nothing “merciful” about starving and dehydrating an innocent human being to death.

C. Outright Support for the "Blessing" of Sodomites

 let me summarize the following facts that have produced the truly Modernist piece of propaganda on behalf of those steeped in what are unrepentant Mortal Sins in the objective order of things, leaving all subjective considerations solely to the Divine Judge, Christ the King that is Fiducia Supplicans, December 18. 2023.

First, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has stated repeatedly that sins against Holy Purity are the “least of sins.” See, for example, The "Least of Sins"? Saint Alphonsus de Liguori Contra Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Second, the Argentine Apostate has also stated on various occasions, including in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, that is not Catholic to hold people to “impossible standards” of perfection, meaning, of course that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself did not mean it when He said, “  Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect [Matthew 5:48], and, thus, that Our Divine Redeemer has commanded the impossible, a belief that is both heretical and blasphemous.

As Pope Pius XI noted in his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951, when discussing situations wherein a husband and wife must maintain themselves in Josephite manner, “God does not demand the impossible.” The ineffable graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion, Death, and Resurrection on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of His Most Blessed Mother, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient to keep the commandments and the precepts that flow therefrom perfectly. Those who do not take sins of impurity, whether natural or unnatural, seriously, will find every excuse imaginable to rationalize such sins, up to and including directly blaspheming God in the process.

Third, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has used countless opportunities to indemnify sodomite behavior, starting with the following five words by which he dismissed the sodomite behavior of “Monsignor” Battista Ricca, “Who am I to judge?”, on Monday, July 29, 2013, and it was only two months later that a Frenchman said that “Pope” Francis had said to him in a telephone conversation that his “homosexuality” did not matter.

Bergoglio has made it a point to speak about “different kinds of families,” and he has enabled and empower the likes of James Martin, Timothy Radcliffe, New Ways Ministry, and DignityUSA while engaging in multiple meetings with those who had attempted to accomplish the ontologically and biologically impossible feat of mutilating their bodies by chemical and surgical means to change the genders God had given them while they in the womb. See, for example, Jorge Mario Bergoglio Leaves No Doubt: The Books Are Really Cooked, the Fix Is Really In.

Fourth, Senor Jorge the Blaspheming Heretic has made it a point to appoint and/or promote sodomite-friendly “bishops” such as Wilton Gregory, Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin, John Stowe, Robert McElroy, et al., while going out of his way to punish the likes of “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, and he almost immediately undermined the 2021 declaration by the then named Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the conciliar clergy could not "bless” sodomites engaged in some kind consensual union in unnatural vice.

Entirely unsurprising, therefore, the lay Jesuit revolutionary, who has been so very “welcoming” towards “bishops,” priests/presbyters and ordinary laymen steeped in perversity throughout his wrecking ball of a career as a false cleric imbued from his seminary days in false principles that he has put into practice with the anti-apostolic zeal of a demon, slyly undermined the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s” reply to the “dubium” concerning “blessings” for those living in “civil unions” during his Angelus address of Sunday, March 21, 2021, which was Passion Sunday in the calendar of the Catholic Church but which was the “Fifth Sunday of Lent” in the disordered world of the counterfeit church of concilarism:

Today too, many people, often without saying so, implicitly would like to “see Jesus”, to meet him, to know him. This is how we understand the great responsibility we Christians and of our communities have. We too must respond with the witness of a life that is given in service,  a life that takes upon itself the style of God – closeness, compassion and tenderness – and is given in service. It means sowing seeds of love, not with fleeting words but through concrete, simple and courageous examples, not with theoretical condemnations, but with gestures of love. Then the Lord, with his grace, makes us bear fruit, even when the soil is dry due to misunderstandings, difficulty or persecution, or claims of legalism or clerical moralism. This is barren soil. Precisely then, in trials and in solitude, while the seed is dying, that is the moment in which life blossoms, to bear ripe fruit in due time. It is in this intertwining of death and life that we can experience the joy and true fruitfulness of love, which always, I repeat, is given in God’s style: closeness, compassion, tenderness. (Angelus Address, March 21, 2021.)

Permit me a bit of conjecture, please.

As a Modernist, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a seasoned practitioner of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He knows full well that news of his refusing to approve the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s response to the “dubium” about “civil unions” would have been leaked if he chose to reject it. Clever little demon that he is, I believe, he “approved” the response but set about undermining so that “both sides” could “play ball,” so to speak, as he has absolutely no problem with the de facto practice of “blessing” “civil unions” as he his own appointees have permitted lesbians to have their children, conceived by artificial insemination or by “surrogate” mothers, baptized, and he has shown his own openness to sodomite-friendly priests/presbyters and he has said to private individuals that God does not “care” about homosexuality. (From Antipope Approveth, Antipope Undermineth What He Approveth.)

Fifth, Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the fiends he keeps appointing to his false religious sect’s dicasteries and hierarchy have sought to ignore and/or to diminish the relevance of the following words of Sacred Scripture that clearly condemn sodomy and its related vices in no uncertain terms, condemnations that were written under the direct and infallible inspiration provided by the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:

[13] If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them. [14] If any man after marrying the daughter, marry her mother, he hath done a heinous crime: he shall be burnt alive with them: neither shall so great an abomination remain in the midst of you. [15] He that shall copulate with any beast or cattle, dying let him die, the beast also ye shall kill. (Leviticus 20: 13-15.)

And into whatsoever city or town you shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and there abide till you go thence. And when you come into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house. And if that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it; but if it be not worthy, your peace shall return to you. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet. Amen I say to you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. (Matthew 10: 11-15.) 

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 6: 9)

6] And the angels who kept not their principality, but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day. [7] As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire. [8] In like manner these men also defile the flesh, and despise dominion, and blaspheme majesty. [9] When Michael theo archangel, disputing with the devil, contended about the body of Moses, he durst not bring against him the judgment of railing speech, but said: The Lord command thee. [10] But these men blaspheme whatever things they know not: and what things soever they naturally know, like dumb beasts, in these they are corrupted.  (Jude 1 6-10.)

Although many of the conciliar revolutionaries talk about their love for Sacred Scripture and eschewing doctrinal pronouncements by re-reading (deconstructing, misrepresenting) Holy Writ  as though those doctrinal pronouncements were made under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost, the plain fact of the matter is that these revolutionaries, being Modernists, simply ignore those parts of Sacred Scripture that condemn their affinity for all things effeminate, unnatural, indecent, obscene, and perverse as many of them are effeminate, unnatural, indecent, obscene, and perverse (“Nighty night, baby”).

Victor Manuel Fernandez’s Fiducia Supplicans, December 21. 2021, therefore, was simply the manifestation of his fellow Argentine’s desire to make sodomites, lesbians, mutants, and others feel “included” even though their Mortal Sins exclude them from the life of Sanctifying Grace in their immortal souls and from eternal life in Heaven if they persist in these wretched sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance until the point of their deaths. All the document’s flowing words about the importance of blessings in stirring up graces within souls mean nothing as those who receive blessings must be willing to conform their lives to God’s laws.

Despite all the protestations to the contrary within the text of Fiducia Supplicans, the very fact that what purports to be the Catholic Church has seen fit to administer extra-liturgical, non-ritualized “blessings” to those who are said to be in “loving relationships” does indeed convey some kind of inherent “goodness” in that which is odious in the site of God as it perverts His love into an empty-headed concept of pure sentimentality. Ferndandez’s protestations that Fiducia Supplicans does not convey equate “same-sex” relationships with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are about as absurd as the repeated statements made by the likes of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself that conciliarism’s embrace of false ecumenism and interreligious prayer services are not an embrace of religious indifferentism. The converse is true, of course, with respect to the “blessings” of practicing sodomites, mutants, et al., as it is true about the claims that false ecumenism is not religious indifferentism when it is precisely that.

Furthermore, if “blessings” are so important to “Pope Francis,” why did he not impart them to journalists shortly after his bogus election in 2013 nor to individuals gathered to greet him below the balcony of the United States Capitol building on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom?

As if to show himself a complete pagan, Bergoglio stepped out on the balcony of the United States Capitol to greet the crowd that had gathered in the area below. Here is an account of what transpired when House Speaker John Boehner (R-West Chester, Ohio) led him out to the balcony:

In improvised remarks made from the balcony of the American Congress to huge crowds gathered in the National Mall in Washington, Pope Francis asked God to bless all the people of America, especially the children and their families. Speaking in his native Spanish, he asked the crowds to pray for him too, adding that “if there are among you any who do not believe or cannot pray, I ask you please to send good wishes my way”.

The Pope's impromptu greeting came after his address inside Congress to a joint meeting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Before taking his leave of the cheering crowds lining the Mall, the Pope said in English “Thank you very much – and God bless America!” (Bergoglio gives impromptu greeting to crowds in Washington Mall.)

It is as though Jorge said, "Hey, baby, send me some good vibes." To quote a friend of ours, "What a jerk."

I do not have “good wishes” to send your way, Senor Bergoglio. I offer prayers for your conversion as, objectively speaking, you are leading men and their nations to the eternal hellfire that awaits you if your persist in your apostasy to the moment you die. “Time” will not judge you then. Christ the King will do so, and you are deceiving yourself if you think that you’ve got it made.

Obviously, none of us have it “made,” which is why we must accept all penances with joy as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. (From Polluting the Atmosphere With the Smoke of Antichrist, part three.)

In plain English, of course, Fiducia Supplicans used doublespeak to clumsily suggest that those who have do no desires to reform their lives want God’s assistance to “live better lives” even while continuing to sin unrepentantly. The real fact of the matter is that the sodomites, lesbians, and mutants have long desired these “blessings” as they convey precisely what Victor Manuel Fernandez says that they do; not: namely, “blessings” that connote God’s favor upon their lives.

Here is one of the efforts Fernandez made within the text of Fiducia Supplicans to absurdly claim that God can bestow his favor upon those who refuse to reform their lives by humbly confessing their sins and then to remove from their lives all associations that are sinful or present the near occasion of sin:

27. In the catechesis cited at the beginning of this Declaration, Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything. It is worth reading these words with an open heart, for they help us grasp the pastoral meaning of blessings offered without preconditions: “It is God who blesses. In the first pages of the Bible, there is a continual repetition of blessings. God blesses, but humans also give blessings, and soon it turns out that the blessing possesses a special power, which accompanies those who receive it throughout their lives, and disposes man’s heart to be changed by God. [...] So we are more important to God than all the sins we can commit because he is father, he is mother, he is pure love, he has blessed us forever. And he will never stop blessing us. It is a powerful experience to read these biblical texts of blessing in a prison or in a rehabilitation group. To make those people feel that they are still blessed, notwithstanding their serious mistakes, that their heavenly Father continues to will their good and to hope that they will ultimately open themselves to the good. Even if their closest relatives have abandoned them, because they now judge them to be irredeemable, God always sees them as his children.”[19] (Fiducia Supplicans, December 18, 2023.)

Blasphemy.

Heresy.

God is “mother?”

God hates sin.

God’s love for us is an act of His Holy Will, which is directed at the sanctification and salvation our immortal souls, and no one truly loves another if he does or says anything that contrary to the sanctification and salvation of his immortal soul. You and I know this, of course, but Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Victor Manuel Fernandez do not believe that sodomy excludes one from the Kingdom of God or hereafter. They are blasphemous heretics.

God does not suborn sin.

God does not bless sin, and He does not bless those who are intent of living in Mortal Sin.

It is that simple.

Blessings do indeed convey approval and/or permission. Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows this, and so does Victor Manuel Fernandez. They have tried to cloak their malice with a veneer of Catholicism, but we must always remember the following words of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, and of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ"). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ"." (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The Sacred Tribunal of Penance is where those who want to receive God’s favor must humbly accuse themselves and then promise to amend their lives and sin no more. Anyone who insists that God loves people the “way they are” are blasphemers as, though He wills the good of all men, He does not and cannot love sin and will never suborn it in the lives of the rational creatures for whom His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem. It is that simple.

The retired “archbishop” of La Plata, Argentina, Hector Aguer, wrote the following about Fiducia Supplicans after it had been issued:

The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith has become a Dicastery of confusion. This is precisely what the Argentinean Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández promotes. Not only the confusion of the faithful, but also of world opinion.

Now he is once again giving occasion for debate with the publication of the declaration Fiducia supplicans, on the blessing of homosexual couples and of heterosexual marriages who live in an irregular situation. It is scandalous that this statement contradicts what two years ago the Dicastery affirmed with the signature of Cardinal Luis Ladaria. In that statement it was said that a homosexual couple cannot be blessed because God cannot bless sin. That is the truth. Every blessing implies God’s complacency in the person, or the object blessed.

As it could not be otherwise, Fiducia supplicans multiplies excuses and explanations that simply reveal a clear accusation. The style is the style of dissimulation proper to Pope Francis: things are said half-heartedly in order to be fully understood against Tradition.

In the introduction it is said that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples because the blessing cannot be preceded by a prior moral analysis. A repeated pretext is that the Church must be more “inclusive,” and the criterion for this identification is sociological, or social psychological, as developed because of the pressure of the world: of fashion, and of the imposition of models according to alleged “new rights.” The Church is inclusive by nature, since it was formed thanks to Christ’s command to the Apostles: to address all nations. And the history of the Church shows that from the beginning all peoples have been incorporated into it. This declaration constitutes a true scandal which, decorated by pretexts, contrasts the secular doctrine on marriage.

Fiducia supplicans lets us see where chapter eight of the exhortation Amoris laetitia was pointing, where it was discreetly said that people living in these irregular situations can sometimes receive the sacraments. It was a beginning that is now revealed in its full dimension. But this is a consequence of Pope Francis’ method, which is dissimulation. This is how the current pontificate on many issues proposes a new position that “corrects” the doctrine of the Church and the unalterable Tradition of the same.

In conclusion: Fiducia supplicans should not be obeyed. And it is perfectly correct to deny blessings to homosexual “marriages,” and to marriages living in an irregular situation. (Archbishop Aguer: Francis' document Fiducia Supplicans must not be obeyed.)

This an excellent statement but it is so focused on Fiducia Supplicans that it does not recognize the entire conciliar enterprise is one of confusion, distraction, and dissimulation as one conciliar “pope” after another has claimed to be upholding doctrine and Tradition while redefining, undermining, or deconstructing them into insignificance.

Ah, “archbishop” Aguer’s call to disobedience, though, represents a de facto rejection of his fellow Argentinian’s claim to the papacy as, to call to mind the words of Pope Saint Pius X:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.

This means that those who dissent from “Pope Francis” in the belief that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are not holy or that “Pope Francis” is no pope at all as it would never be necessary to oppose him and to dissent from his false teachings if he were such.

VI. A Refusal to Seek the Conversion of Non-Catholics to the True Faith

The “Second” Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, instituted the false ecclesiology of "full" and "partial" communion that flies in the face of the teaching of the Catholic Church, a teaching documented by Bishop Donald Sanborn in The New Ecclesiology: An Overview and The New Ecclesiology: Documentation and Communion: Ratzinger's Ecumenical One-World Church). This “new ecclesiology,” of course, was the handiwork of none other than Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who was acting upon a recommendation by a German Lutheran "observer" at the "Second" Vatican Council, suggested should be placed into the text of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, in order to give formal recognition to the "elements" of "sanctification" that he believed exists in the "ecclesial" (Protestant) "communities" and in the Orthodox churches. In other words, the man who is considered the “great dogmatist” helped to attack the Sacred Deposit of Faith at the "Second" Vatican Council to help to give birth to the heresy that is the “new ecclesiolgy, whose principal contention was refuted prophetically by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: ​​​

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has taken the “new ecclesiology” to mean that all “believers,” including those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, are saved as long as they “do good," and he has built on the foundation of the attack upon the monarchical nature of the papacy that is "episcopal collegiality" to use "local churches" as laboratories for the development of subjective applications of Holy Mother Church's received teaching on Faith and Morals in the name of "synodality." 

The conciliar popes, of course, reject what Ratzinger/Benedict called disparagingly the “ecumenism of the return,” and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has gone so far as to issue endless apologies to Protestants and the Waldensians for the manner in which they had been “persecuted” by Catholics in the past, thereby making a mockery of the exhortations of one true pope after another for such a return of non-Catholics to the true Church. Thousands of "papal," "episcopal," sacerdotal/presbyteral "interfaith" prayer services have been held in full violation of admonitions of Saints Paul the Apostle and John the Evangelist as well as the the specific condemnation and prohibition of such services by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.

Despite all their protestations to the contrary, the conciliar "popes," starting with Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI and continuing to the present time under Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have given "joint blessings" with non-Catholic clergymen and engaged in endless services exhibiting a syncretism for which millions of Catholic martyrs gave up their lives rather than to even give the appearance of doing andhave endorsed, at least on a de facto basis, the very sort of religious indifferentism condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, by Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, July 5, 1948:

Mixed gatherings of non-Catholics with Catholics have been reportedly held in various places, where things pertaining to the Faith have been discussed against the prescriptions of the Sacred Canons and without previous permission of the Holy See. Therefore all are reminded that according to the norm of Canon 1325 § 3 laypeople as well as clerics both secular and regular are forbidden to attend these gatherings without the aforesaid permission. It is however much less licit for Catholics to summon and institute such kind of gatherings. Let therefore Ordinaries urge all to serve these prescriptions accurately.

These are to be observed with even stronger force of law when it comes to gatherings called “ecumenical”, which laypeople and clerics may not attend at all without previous consent of the Holy See.

Moreover, since acts of mixed worship have also been posed not rarely both within and without the aforesaid gatherings, all are once more warned that any communication in sacred affairs is totally forbidden according to the norm of Canons 1258 and 731, § 2. Given at Rome, at the premises of the Holy Office, on June 5^th 1948. (This was translated by those who run Novus Ordo Watch. See The Holy Office's 1948 Canonical Warning against Ecumenical Gatherings.)

On this path we have very often done the same thing as Joseph’s brothers, when jealousy and envy have divided us. Those who arrived first wanted to kill their brother – Ruben succeeded in saving him – and then sold him. Our brother John also spoke of this sad story. That sad story in which the Gospel was lived by some as a truth who did not realize that behind this attitude there were ugly things, things that were not of the Lord, a terrible temptation of division. That sad story, in which the same thing was done that Joseph’s brothers did: denunciation, the laws of these people: “it goes against the purity of the race …” And these laws were sanctioned by the baptized! Some of those who made these laws and some of those who persecuted, denounced their Pentecostal brothers because they were “enthusiasts,” almost “madmen” who ruined the race, some were Catholics … I am the Pastor of Catholics: I ask forgiveness for this! I ask forgiveness or those Catholic brothers and sisters who did not understand and who were tempted by the devil and did the same thing that Joseph’s brothers did. I ask the Lord to He give us the grace to admit and forgive … Thank you! (Address to Pentecostal Community in Caserta.)

Madmen?

Tempted by the devil to be faithful to the teaching of Holy Mother Church? 

Yes, this is what Jorge Mario Bergoglio thinks of those who remained steadfast in defense of the Catholic Faith as the only true religion and who pointed out the errors of Pentecostalism, which was born right here in the land of religious indifferentism and Judeo-Masonic naturalism, individualism, egalitarianism and "religious liberty," the United States of America.

Here is what Bergoglio said to the Waldensians when he apologized to them for the fact the denuciation of Waldensianism at the Fourth Lateran Council, which happened to meet under the infallible protection and assistance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, in 1215: 

The Catholic Church seeks forgiveness for past sins against Waldensians

“But the unity that is the fruit of the Holy Spirit,” the Pope said, “does not mean uniformity. Brothers have in common the same origin, but they are not identical among themselves.” Unfortunately, he continued, historically this diversity was not accepted and was a cause of violence and disputes “committed in the name of the faith itself.” This history, the Pope said, can only grieve us, who pray for the grace “to recognize that we are all sinners and to know to forgive one another.” He then asked for forgiveness for “the non-Christian attitudes and behaviour” of the Catholic Church against Waldensians.

Relations between Waldensians and Catholics now founded on mutual respect and fraternal charity

Pope Francis noted with satisfaction that today relations between Catholics and Waldensians are founded “on mutual respect and on fraternal charity,” as witnessed, for example, by the interconfessional translation of the Bible, pastoral arrangements for the celebration of mixed marriages, and the recent drafting of a joint appeal against violence against women, as well as other common initiatives.

Differences should not be an obstacle to collaboration in evangelization and in works

These steps, the Pope said, are an encouragement to continue this common journey. One of the primary areas that is open to the possibility of collaboration between Waldensians and Catholics, he said, is evangelization. Another is “that of service to humanity which suffers, to the poor, the sick, the migrants.” The differences that continue to exist between Catholics and Waldensians on important anthropological and ethical questions, the Pope said, should not prevent us from finding ways to collaborate in these and other fields: “If we journey together,” he said, “the Lord will help us to live that communion that precedes every contrast.”  (Jorge visits Waldensian temple in Turin.)

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio apologized for the work of God the Holy Ghost at the Fourth Lateran Council. He believes that heretics profess the same “basic” faith as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. They do not. Then again, birds of a heretical feather do flock together, do not they not?

This what Bergoglio said in a video presentation that was played at a gathering of young Catholics in Argentina on Auugst 7, 2013, the Feast of Saint Cajetan:

Thank you for listening to me. Thank you for coming here today. Thank you for all that you bear in your heart. Jesus loves you very much. Saint Cajetan loves you very much. He only asks one thing of you: that you come together! That you go out and seek and find one in greater need! But not alone - with Jesus, with Saint Cajetan! Am I going to go out to convince someone to become a Catholic? No, no, no! You are going to meet with him, he is your brother! That's enough! And you are going to help him, the rest Jesus does, the Holy Spirit does it. Remember well: with Saint Cajetan, we the needy go to meet with those who are in greater need. And, hopefully, Jesus will direct your way so that you will meet with one in greater need. (Francis the Insane Dreamer, Rebel and Miscreant's Message for the Feast of Saint Cajetan.)

It was less than a year after the remarks quoted just above that Bergoglio spoke the following at a Pentecostal "church" in Caserta, Italy, as he reaffirmed Protestants in their false religion:

When one walks in God’s presence, there is this fraternity. When, instead, we are still, when we look too much to one another, there is another way … which is bad, bad!  -- the way of gossip. And we begin to say, “but you, don’t you know?” “No, no, I’m not for you. I’m for this and that …” “I am for Paul,” “I am for Appollos,” “I am for Peter.” And so we begin, and so from the first moment division began in the Church. And it isn’t the Holy Spirit who creates division! He does something that is quite similar to it, but not division. It’s not the Lord Jesus who creates division! He who creates division is in fact the Envious One, the king of envy, the father of envy: the sower of darnel, Satan. He interferes in communities and creates divisions, always! From the first moment, from the first moment of Christianity, this temptation was in the Christian community. “I belong to this one,” I belong to that one.” “No! I am the Church, you are a sect.” And so the one who wins over us is him, the father of division – not the Lord Jesus who prayed for unity (John 17), he prayed! (Address to Pentecostal Community in Caserta.)

What does the Holy Spirit do? I said he does something else, which perhaps one might think is division, but it isn’t. The Holy Spirit creates “diversity” in the Church. The First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 12. He creates diversity! And this diversity is truly very rich, very beautiful. But then, the Holy Spirit himself creates unity, and so the Church is one in diversity. And, to use the word of an Evangelical whom I love very much, a “reconciled diversity” by the Holy Spirit. He creates both things: He creates the diversity of charisms and then He creates the harmony of charisms. Therefore, the early theologians of the Church, the early Fathers – I am speaking of the 3rdor 4thcentury – said: “The Holy Spirit is harmony,” because He creates this harmonious unity in diversity.

We are in the age of globalization, and we wonder what globalization is and what the unity of the Church would be: perhaps a sphere, where all points are equidistant from the center, all are equal? No! This is uniformity. And the Holy Spirit does not create uniformity! What figure can we find? We think of the polyhedron: the polyhedron is a unity, but with all different parts; each one has its peculiarity, its charism. This is unity in diversity. It is on this path that we, Christians, do what we call with the theological name of ecumenism. We try to have this diversity become more harmonized by the Holy Spirit and become unity. We seek to walk in the presence of God to be irreproachable. We seek to find the nourishment of which we are in need to find our brother. This is our way, this is our Christian beauty! I refer to what my beloved brother said at the beginning.  (Address to Pentecostal Community in Caserta.)

For the conciliar "popes," including Bergoglio, to be correct, Popes Pius IX had to have been wrong for specifially and categorically exhorting Protestants to convert to the Faith:

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868)

Anyone who believes that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has told us on numerous occasions that he does not want to convert anyone to what he thinks is the Catholic Church, shares Pope Pius IX's fear for his soul if he did not invite non-Catholics into Church is either mired in delusion or is steeped in ranked intellectual dishonesty as they shut their eyes and close their mouths to the truth that Bergoglio believes not a word of Pope Pius IX's exhortation contained in Iam Vos Omnes. Unlike Pope Pius IX, the Argentine Apostate does not believe that Catholicism is the one and only foundation of personal and social order. None of the conciliar “popes” have believed that it is necessary to submit to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved. None of these men have believed that it is necessary to be a member of the Catholic Church to attain salvation. They are the men leading sheep off the cliff, not sedevacantists. They are the ones who have reaffirmed the falsehood that Protestants and the Orthodox have a “mission” from God to sanctify and to save souls, not sedevacantists.

“Saint John Paul II” himself told none other than the late Fuller Brush Man, William Franklin Graham III, that the two of them were “brothers,” have indeed told Protestants and the Orthodox—and even Jews and Mohammedans—that they have such a mission.

Here are a few more reminders:

Opening his Southern crusades to blacks and cooperating with Roman Catholics, both measures vigorously criticized by many of his supporters, required courage of the kind conventionally lauded as liberal or progressive. It is true that challenging racial segregation and anti-Catholic prejudice were both deemed progressive stances, but I am rather sure that carried little weight with Billy Graham. His singular passion was to preach the saving gospel of Jesus Christ to absolutely everyone.

Many Catholic leaders warmly welcomed his ministry; others were more ambivalent. In New York, the late John Cardinal O'Connor embraced him and urged archdiocese priests to encourage people to come out to hear him. Innumerable Catholics were doubtlessly renewed and strengthened in faith as a consequence of Graham's ministry.

He met with popes from John XXIII to John Paul II, and his friendship with the latter seemed especially warm and deep. After an extraordinary personal meeting of two hours in 1989, Graham reported, "There was a pause in the conversation; suddenly the pope's arm shot out and he grabbed the lapels of my coat, he pulled me forward within inches of his own face. He fixed his eyes on me and said, 'Listen Graham, we are brothers.'"

Already in 1966, only a year after the Second Vatican Council, Graham said, "I find myself closer to Catholics than the radical Protestants. I think the Roman Catholic Church today is going through a second Reformation." On The Phil Donahue Show in 1979, he said, "I think the American people are looking for a leader, a moral and spiritual leader that believes something. And the pope does. … Thank God, I've got somebody to quote now with some real authority." On John Paul's visit to America in 1980: "[He] has emerged as the greatest religious leader of the modern world, and one of the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of this century. ... The pope came [to America] as a statesman and a pastor, but I believe he also sees himself coming as an evangelist. … The pope sought to speak to the spiritual hunger of our age in the same way Christians throughout the centuries have spoken to the spiritual yearnings of every age—by pointing people to Christ." And later, on the pope's message in Vancouver, where Graham preached a month later: "I'll tell you, that was just about as straight an evangelical address as I've ever heard. … He gives moral guidance in a world that seems to have lost its way."

In his statements about John Paul II, as well as about Mother Teresa and the Catholic church more generally, many evangelicals thought Graham had gone overboard or landed in gross heresy. But I am confident that he was driven by a passion for sharing the saving gospel of Christ. In the great encyclical of 2000, Redemptoris Missio ("Mission of the Redeemer"), John Paul envisioned the third millennium as "a springtime of world evangelization." Graham surrendered his entire life to playing a not insignificant part in precipitating that springtime. (The Preacher and the "Popes".)

Ah, “Brother” Billy Graham. Such is the stuff of a conciliar “saint,” a subject to be explored below, if ever so briefly.

Wait.

It gets worse.

The man who will doubtless be called “Saint Benedict XVI” one day placed his murdered friend, Roger Schutz, the Protestant founder of the Taize Ecumenical Community, in Heaven almost immediately after he received word of Schutz’s death at the hands of one of his own followers on August 16, 2005. This is the same Roger Schutz who received what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service at Karol Josef Wojtyla’s “Mass of Christian Burial” on April 8, 2005:

CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, AUG. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI expressed his sorrow at the murder of Brother Roger Schutz, saying the founder of the ecumenical Taizé Community is “in the hands of eternal goodness.”

Brother Roger, 90, was stabbed to death by a woman Tuesday at an evening prayer service attended by 2,500 people in the Burgundy region in France, authorities said. A 36-year-old Romanian woman was detained by witnesses and turned over to police, authorities said.

The Pope showed emotion as he expressed his grief, at the end of today’s general audience.

“This news has affected me even more because precisely yesterday I received a very moving, affectionate letter from Frère Roger,” the Pope said, addressing the pilgrims gathered in the patio of the papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo.

“In it he wrote that from the depth of his heart he wanted to tell me that ‘we are in communion with you and with those who have gathered in Cologne,’” the Holy Father said.

Hopes for Cologne

Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had known Brother Roger for a long time.

During Pope John Paul II’s funeral, Cardinal Ratzinger, the then dean of the College of Cardinals, surprised observers when he went up to Brother Roger, who was in a wheelchair, to give him Communion. Brother Roger was not Catholic.

In his letter, the founder of the ecumenical community explained to the new Pope that “because of his state of health, unfortunately he would not be able to come personally to Cologne, but that he would be present spiritually with his brothers.”

The letter, written in French, expressed Brother Roger’s desire “to come as soon as possible to Rome to meet with me and to tell me that ‘our Community of Taizé wants to go forward in communion with the Holy Father,’” according to Benedict XVI.

The letter ended with these words in Brother Roger’s own handwriting: “Holy Father, I assure you of my sentiments of profound communion. Frère Roger of Taizé.”

“At this moment of sadness,” the Pope said, “we can only commend to the Lord’s goodness the soul of this faithful servant of his.”

“Frère Schutz is in the hands of eternal goodness, of eternal love; he has attained eternal joy,” the Holy Father added. “He invites and exhorts us to be faithful laborers in the Lord’s vineyard, also in sad situations, certain that the Lord accompanies us and gives us his joy.” (Benedict Mourns Murder of Taizé’s Brother Roger.)

“He has attained eternal joy.”

Roger Schutz never converted to the Catholic Faith. He had no “mission” from God to sanctify and to save souls. He remained a heretic to the day of his death. This mattered not to the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the mytyical "restorer of tradition."

Similarly, the aforementioned Jorge Mario Bergoglio called the late “Bishop” Tony Palmer of the Anglican Charismatic Movement to be his “brother bishop” in a video that he, the Argentine Apostate, had prepared to be played at the Kenneth Copeland Ministries Conference in Fort Worth, Texas, eleven years ago:

Addressing Palmer as “my brother, a bishop-brother” and saying they had “been friends for years,” the pope offered what he said were greetings “both joyful and full of longing” to participants in a forthcoming meeting of the Kenneth Copeland Ministries, a Pentecostal group that sponsors large prayer gatherings around the world. (Bergoglio's "Brother" "Bishop" Dies in Motorcyle Accident)

Bergoglio even insisted that Palmer, who was killed in a motorcycle accident on July 20, 2014, be buried as a “bishop” with an allegedly “Catholic” “Mass of Christian Burial”:

I attended the requiem of the late Bishop Tony Palmer at St. John the Evangelist Roman Catholic Church in the City of Bath on the 6^th August. Canon David Ryan the parish priest at St. John’s ( \a truly beautiful and Spirit filled believer) kindly gave me a place to stay in the presbytery so that I didn’t have to rush back home after the funeral or seek more expensive accommodation in the city.

I arrived after a rather long and tedious journey by train from Bexhill-on Sea to Bath, arriving  a couple of hours before the funeral. (A special word of sincere thanks goes to my dear friends in the USA, Vivian Ruth Sawyer and Thomas Nolan who helped finance my attendance).

St. John the Evangelist church is situated in the city centre five minutes from the railway station, so I had time to rest and eat some pizza, which the house keeper had kindly prepared, before other guests started arriving. The Requiem was purposefully arranged to be at 4p.m. to enable the funeral cortège to get through the heavily congested city centre roads, many of which had road works in progress.

Bishops and priests from the Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches arrived an hour or so before the start of the requiem mass, along with guests from other churches locally and from around the world. Bruno Ierullo and Steve Long the senior Pastor of Catch the Fire Church in Toronto came and represented John and Carol Arnott who had recently been with Bishop Tony and Pope Francis at a meeting in the Vatican of a number of Charismatic Evangelicals from North America.

I felt a little like a lion in a den of Daniels, but my fear diminished as we greeted one another and shared our stories as to why we were there and how Bishop Tony had been influential in all our lives. In one way or another his life and vision had touched each of us individually. I found myself completely at home with these brothers and sisters in Christ who were encourager’s and enablers in so many ways.

(Tony’s family arrived about a twenty minutes before the start of the mass;  Emiliana his wife and their two children, Daniele and Gabriella, along with Tony’s sister and other relatives and close friends).

We all shared and discussed different matters and I was able to share the vision of the Companions of Jesus and found all responded favourably. In fact I found again here just as I had done with Tony, that we shared a common vision for unity in the Body of Christ. Bishop David Carr OSL and his brother Bishop Anthony Carr OSL spoke to me about the Order of St. Leonard and were interested in how the Companions of Jesus is a Non-Denominational Order with a very similar vision. (A quote from the OSL website reads, “The primary goal of the OSL was, and is, to bring together all Christians, regardless of differing denominations and streams, without leaving their distinctive groupings, in to a unified fellowship for prayer, mission and to help the disadvantaged.”).

I have forgotten some names of the many who I spoke with,  Fr. Steve Hughes, Revd. Esther Squire, Fr.Giles and Bishop James of the CEEC along with a number of local Anglican priests who knew Tony.

Fr. David our wonderful host led us out to greet Tony’s mortal remains as they arrived at the entrance to the Church. Fr. David told us he would like us as ministers to lead the procession up to the sanctuary and for us to remain at the front either side of the altar in the choir stalls. Fr David confessed that he would have loved us to be able to con-celebrate with him, but for now this was impossible. He found he had to remember his vow of obedience to the diocesan bishop and knew we would understand.

Fr. David told us that because Tony was not a Roman Catholic he had to ask his bishops permission to celebrate the requiem and though Tony’ s wife and children are Roman Catholics, permission still had to be given for the requiem. The bishop agreed but said that Tony could not be buried as a bishop as he was not a Roman Catholic bishop. However, Pope Francis said he should and could be buried as a bishop…and so that put an end to that little bit of ecclesiastical nonsense!

The Church was packed and though the Ark Community had wanted to have the funeral to go out live on streamed TV over the internet, there were too many technical problems. The church of St. John the Evangelist is a magnificent building in the centre of Bath, but like so many old monolithic structures it is suffering from age and is in need of a number of repairs. The church this week was full of scaffolding which trellis like covered one side of the church from ground to ceiling, from entrance right up to the sanctuary where the Tony’s Coffin was placed at the foot of the sanctuary in front of the altar.

As I sat with my fellow brother and sister ministers looking down from the choir stalls to the side of the altar, I was struck by the prophetic vision that was before us. I saw Tony’s coffin next to the trellis of iron girders and heard that call to St Francis of Assisi and more recently to Tony Palmer, a call to go and repair the brokenness of The Church. There in this building, in such need of repair, was a picture…of the Body of Christ, The Church of God. There in the coffin lay the remains of a man who like our seraphic father Francis had heeded the call to ‘go and repair my house which as you can see is in ruins’.

Other too heard that call this day and so it is for each of us to continue on this road which The Lord calls us to and which Tony helped re-lay, a road that draws brothers who have been too long divided, together again in Christ Jesus.

The requiem was beautiful, the liturgy fitting for such an occasion, the music was uplifting led by the Vineyard Church Fellowship and the music ministry of St’ Johns church. Daniele and Gabriella both spoke lovingly and passionately of their father. Emiliana read out a letter from Pope Francis that was both touching and profound.

Tony’s mortal remains were taken to the Eyre Chapel Crypt, at Perrymeade Catholic Cemetery, in Bath.

In part of the message Pope Francis sent to the conference of Charismatic Evangelical Christians in the USA through Bishop Tony, Pope Francis said, “ I am speaking to you as a brother. I speak to you in a simple way. With joy and yearning. Let us allow our yearning to grow, because this will propel us to find each other, to embrace one another. And together to worship Jesus Christ as the only Lord of History.”

I pray that we will work and walk together in the power of The Holy Spirit and that the blessing promised in Psalm 133 will be ours. (Bergoglio Insisted that Tony Palmer Be Buried as a Bishop.)

Well, it takes one to know one.

Yes, it takes one false "bishop" to recognize another false "bishop" and to accord him full honors on SS One World Ecumenical Church.

Is it possible that God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable, can permit the Catholic Church to teach one thing for nineteen centuries and then to permit her popes to teach another as being true?

Believing Catholics who reject the illegitimate claimants to the Throne of Saint Peter after the death of Pope Pius XII refuse to submit to apostate robber barons who have said and done things that are impossible for true popes to say and to do.

Similarly, the conciliar “popes” have been as one since “Saint John Paul II” in contradicting the immutable truth that the Old Covenant has been superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified by the shedding of every drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. These “popes” have told us so in so many words:

247. We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for “the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29). The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18). As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9). With them, we believe in the one God who acts in history, and with them we accept his revealed word.

248. Dialogue and friendship with the children of Israel are part of the life of Jesus’ disciples. The friendship which has grown between us makes us bitterly and sincerely regret the terrible persecutions which they have endured, and continue to endure, especially those that have involved Christians.

249. God continues to work among the people of the Old Covenant and to bring forth treasures of wisdom which flow from their encounter with his word. For this reason, the Church also is enriched when she receives the values of Judaism. While it is true that certain Christian beliefs are unacceptable to Judaism, and that the Church cannot refrain from proclaiming Jesus as Lord and Messiah, there exists as well a rich complementarity which allows us to read the texts of the Hebrew Scriptures together and to help one another to mine the riches of God’s word. We can also share many ethical convictions and a common concern for justice and the development of peoples. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

"Pope Francis" chose to have this "apostolic exhortation" published in the December, 2013, edition of the Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Here are the three passages as found in the Italian language (not Latin, by the way!) in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis as it is published in its conciliar captivity:

247. Uno sguardo molto speciale si rivolge al popolo ebreo, la cui Alleanza con Dio non è mai stata revocata, perché “i doni e la chiamata di Dio sono irrevocabili” (Rm 11, 29). La Chiesa, che condivide con l’Ebraismo una parte importante delle Sacre Scritture, considera il popolo dell’Alleanza e la sua fede come una radice sacra della propria identità cristiana (cfr Rm 11, 16-18). Come cristiani non possiamo considerare l’Ebraismo come una religione estranea, né includiamo gliebrei tra quanti sono chiamati ad abbandonare gli idoli per convertirsi al vero Dio (cfr 1 Ts 1, 9). Crediamo insieme con loro nell’unico Dio che agisce nella storia, e accogliamo con loro la comune Parola rivelata.

248. Il dialogo e l’amicizia con i figli d’Israele sono parte della vita dei discepoli di Gesù. L’affetto che si è sviluppato ci porta sinceramene ed amaramente a dispiacerci per le terribili persecuzioni di cui furono e sono oggetto, particolarmente per quelle che coinvolgono o hanno coinvolto cristiani.

249. Dio continua ad operare nel popolo dell’Antica Alleanza e fa nascere tesori di saggezza che scaturiscono dal suo incontro con la Parola divina. Per questo anche la Chiesa si arricchisce quando raccoglie i valori dell’Ebraismo. Sebbene alcune convinzioni cristiane siano inaccettabili per l’Ebraismo, e la Chiesa non possa rinunciare ad annunciare Gesù come Signore e Messia, esiste una ricca complementarietà che ci permette di leggere insieme i testi della Bibbia ebraica e aiutarci vicendevolmente a scerare le ricchezze della Parola, come pure di condividere molte convinzioni etiche e la comune preoccupazione per la giustizia e lo sviluppo dei popoli. (Data presso San Pietro, alla chiusura dell’Anno della fede, il 24 novembre, Solennità i i. S. Gesù Cristo Re dell’Universo, dell’anno 2013, primo del mio Pontificato. Acta Apostolicae Sedis, December, 2013.)

If one professes belief that a particular claimant to the Throne of Saint Peter is legitimate and is i the Vicar of Christ on earth, a matter about which no Catholic is free to err or to profess indifference, then one must accept as binding upon his conscience and beyond all criticism even Evangelii Gaudium as part of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church without complaint, reservation or qualification of any kind.

Well, is the Mosaic Covenant still valid?

Has it ever been revoked?

One must agree with the "pope's" statement as he has caused it to be it to be published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis:

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Why the silence on this point of doctrine?

Obviously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "teaching" on the Jews is heretical, and it is in this and in so many other ways that he shows himself to be a perfect disciple of the falsehoods promulgated by the authority of his predecessors since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958. Jorge Mario Bergolio lacks the Catholic Faith, He has openly denied Catholic doctrine on this subject with great boldness. Although he style is more vulgar, visceral profane that those who have perceded him, he is, of course, merely following those before him who have denied, whether implicitly or explicitly, the Catholic truth about the Old Covenant that was summarized so clearly by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

28. That He completed His work on the gibbet of the Cross is the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers who assert that the Church was born from the side of our Savior on the Cross like a new Eve, mother of all the living. [28] "And it is now," says the great St. Ambrose, speaking of the pierced side of Christ, "that it is built, it is now that it is formed, it is now that is .... molded, it is now that it is created . . . Now it is that arises a spiritual house, a holy priesthood." [29] One who reverently examines this venerable teaching will easily discover the reasons on which it is based.

29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Pope Pius XII's Mystici Corporis was inserted into the Acta Apostolicae Sedis in 1943. Although it was nothing new whatsoever, Pope Pius XII reaffirmed an irreformable teaching that is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith. The fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio chose to insert a contrary teaching into the Acta Apostlicae Sedis shows that he is, in perfect communion of mind and heart with his predecessors, a heretic who is outside of the bosom of the Catholic Church, an imposter on the Throne of Saint Peter.

Then again, each of the conciliar “popes” have offended the honor and glory of the Most Blessed Trinity by their endless succession of words and deeds in violation of the First and the Second Commandments as they have esteemed the symbols of false religions and by contending that false religions, which are hideous in the site of the true God of Divine Revelation, are instruments of “peace” and that many of them have “elements of sanctification.”

Consider the following words uttered by Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI in Cologne, Germany, on Friday, August 19, 2005:

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English) 

Here is what our true popes have written on the matter of the "ecumenism of the return:"

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: "The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly." The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that "this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills." For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

Who was Catholic here?

"Pope" Benedict XVI or Popes Pius IX and Pius XI?

Yet there are those within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who permit themselves the significance of the fac that the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI discouraged a Protestant woman, Sigrid Spath, from pursuing her efforts to convert to what she thought was the Catholic Church before she died. (Please see Sigrid Spath – Novus Ordo Watch for the confirmed details.) Joseph Alois Ratzinger could say "I love you, Lord" a thousand times before he himself died, and Our Lord would say "Nescio vos" a thousand times to a man who discouraged a Lutheran woman from converting to Catholicism. This man had no concept of how to love Our Lord as to love Him one must be faithful to all that He has revealed, including, wherever and whenever possible, to seek the conversion of non-Catholics to the true Faith. One cannot be intellectually honest and ignore Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict’s lack of true charity for the soul of Ingrid Spath (and for the souls of those Protestants, Jews, Mohammedans, Hindi, Buddhists, and other assorted “believers”) while excoriating Jorge Mario Bergoglio for his own infidelity, including the Abu Dhabi “Declaration on Human Fraternity.”

VII. Globalism, Environmentalism, Lockdowns, Vaccine Passports

Indeed, Jorge MarioBergoglio’s favorite lavender-friendly globalist” American “cardinals” (Blasé Cupich, Joseph Tobin, Wilton Gregory, and Robert McElroy) termed Abu Dhabi a perfect setting for an upcoming “climate conference” there as it was a “neutral” location, that was noted by “Archbishop” Carlo Maria Vigano in the latest of his endless series of letters and interviews from wherever it is he had been sequestering himself for the past five years:

Valli: The group interview also touches on the theme of the “green” initiative…

Viganò: Yes, inevitably. “For November, before the UN Climate Summit takes place in Dubai, we are organizing a peace meeting with religious leaders in Abu Dhabi. Cardinal Pietro Parolin is coordinating this initiative, which will take place outside the Vatican, in a neutral territory that invites everyone to the meeting.” Because – as we have come to understand – the most important thing is to meet, to walk together, “in a neutral place,” even if the road taken leads to the abyss

Bergoglio eagerness to appear in all the events that are openly hostile to Christ ought to be enough for us to understand how completely alien, foreign, incompatible, and heterogeneous he is with respect to the role he holds. The only ones to whom he shows no mercy are Catholics, and especially Catholic priests, because they have the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice to the Divine Majesty and to pour out infinite graces on the Church, graces that hinder the plans of the workers of iniquity.  (Archbishop Viganò: World Youth Day has confirmed Bergoglio’s plan to provoke a schism.)

Father Vigano also did not seem to recall that his beloved “Pope Benedict XVI” left no room for Christ the King or His Most Blessed Mother during his 2008 visit to the United States of America (see No Room for Christ the King At Ground Zero, No Room for Christ the King on the South Lawn, No Room for Christ the King at the United Nations, No Room for Mary Immaculate Queen at Saint Patrick's Cathedral, and No Room for Mary Immaculate Queen at Saint Joseph's Seminary) and that the late “restorer of tradition” was very much committed to globalism and the “green” agenda as is Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Consider, for example, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s words in Caritas et Veritate, June 29, 2009, and in his “World Day of Peace” message for 2010:

In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish the common good, and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for right. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations. (Caritas in veritate, June 29, 2009.)

This is insanity. Each of the problems that Ratzinger/Benedict lists in his encyclical letter, including the rise of the unbridled marketplace that is defined by the pursuit of profit at all costs and the outsourcing of jobs, two of the many phenomena of the modern world that Ratzinger/Benedict rightly condemns in Caritas in Veritate, is the direct and inexorable result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolt and institutionalized by the rise of Judeo-Masonry. The multifaceted and interrelated problems and massive injustices that have arisen as a result of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King cannot be resolved by some kind of utopian "world political authority" that is going to have "teeth" while at the same time respecting the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity enunciated by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931, as it respects the right to life and the rights of families and promotes "integral human development."

In all charity, my friends, the truth of the matter is that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was stark raving mad to have believed that such a One World Government could provide a structure for order and justice in the world, and that is putting the matter mildly and as charitably as is humanly possible. Need one point out that one of the chief goals of Talmudic Judaism has been to create such a One World Government?

Have we lost our minds?

The late Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI clearly called for a "world political authority" to accomplish the following objectives:

1) To find "innovative ways of implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development of all peoples in solidarity."

2) "To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result;"

3) "to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace."

4) "to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration."  

The only thing that this "world political authority" would not be empowered to do is to permanently remove plaque from your teeth in one easy step. No such "world political authority" can do any of the things outlined by Ratzinger/Benedict in Caritas in Veritate fourteen years ago.

Some of the late Antipope Ratzinger's reflexive apologists said in 2009 that Number 67 of Caritas in Veritate did not mean to support a "One World Government" because he did not use that precise term. Please tell me, though, what a "world political authority" that would have the powers to do the things listed in Number 67 of Caritas in Veritate would be if not the equivalent of a "one world government?"

It is madness to believe that such a "world political authority" would respect the Natural Law right of subsidiarity and restore legal protection to the preborn and protect the rights of the family while at the same time opposing contraception. No "world political authority" can do any of these things. Men and their nations must convert to the Catholic Faith and to the Social Reign of Christ the King as It must be exercised by the Catholic Church in order for there to be any chance at all of seeking to realize the common temporal good that is pursued in a due subordination to the Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

Although repeated many times on this website, it is worth noting once again that the late Dr. George O'Brien's sober description of how the modern economic order came into being:

The thesis we have endeavoured to present in this essay is, that the two great dominating schools of modern economic thought have a common origin. The capitalist school, which, basing its position on the unfettered right of the individual to do what he will with his own, demands the restriction of government interference in economic and social affairs within the narrowest  possible limits, and the socialist school, which, basing its position on the complete subordination of the individual to society, demands the socialization of all the means of production, if not all of wealth, face each other today as the only two solutions of the social question; they are bitterly hostile towards each other, and mutually intolerant and each is at the same weakened and provoked by the other. In one respect, and in one respect only, are they identical--they can both be shown to be the result of the Protestant Reformation.

We have seen the direct connection which exists between these modern schools of economic thought and their common ancestor. Capitalism found its roots in the intensely individualistic spirit of Protestantism, in the spread of anti-authoritative ideas from the realm of religion into the realm of political and social thought, and, above all, in the distinctive Calvinist doctrine of a successful and prosperous career being the outward and visible sign by which the regenerated might be known. Socialism, on the other hand, derived encouragement from the violations of established and prescriptive rights of which the Reformation afforded so many examples, from the growth of heretical sects tainted with Communism, and from the overthrow of the orthodox doctrine on original sin, which opened the way to the idea of the perfectibility of man through institutions. But, apart from these direct influences, there were others, indirect, but equally important. Both these great schools of economic thought are characterized by exaggerations and excesses; the one lays too great stress on the importance of the individual, and other on the importance of the community; they are both departures, in opposite directions, from the correct mean of reconciliation and of individual liberty with social solidarity. These excesses and exaggerations are the result of the free play of private judgment unguided by authority, and could not have occurred if Europe had continued to recognize an infallible central authority in ethical affairs.

The science of economics is the science of men's relations with one another in the domain of acquiring and disposing of wealth, and is, therefore, like political science in another sphere, a branch of the science of ethics. In the Middle Ages, man's ethical conduct, like his religious conduct, was under the supervision and guidance of a single authority, which claimed at the same time the right to define and to enforce its teaching. The machinery for enforcing the observance of medieval ethical teaching was of a singularly effective kind; pressure was brought to bear upon the conscience of the individual through the medium of compulsory periodical consultations with a trained moral adviser, who was empowered to enforce obedience to his advice by the most potent spiritual sanctions. In this way, the whole conduct of man in relation to his neighbours was placed under the immediate guidance of the universally received ethical preceptor, and a common standard of action was ensured throughout the Christian world in the all the affairs of life. All economic transactions in particular were subject to the jealous scrutiny of the individual's spiritual director; and such matters as sales, loans, and so on, were considered reprehensible and punishable if not conducted in accordance with the Christian standards of commutative justice.

The whole of this elaborate system for the preservation of justice in the affairs of everyday life was shattered by the Reformation. The right of private judgment, which had first been asserted in matters of faith, rapidly spread into moral matters, and the attack on the dogmatic infallibility of the Church left Europe without an authority to which it could appeal on moral questions. The new Protestant churches were utterly unable to supply this want. The principle of private judgment on which they rested deprived them of any right to be listened to whenever they attempted to dictate moral precepts to their members, and henceforth the moral behaviour of the individual became a matter to be regulated by the promptings of his own conscience, or by such philosophical systems of ethics as he happened to approve. The secular state endeavoured to ensure that dishonesty amounting to actual theft or fraud should be kept in check, but this was a poor and ineffective substitute for the powerful weapon of the confessional. Authority having once broken down, it was but a single step from Protestantism to rationalism; and the way was opened to the development of all sorts of erroneous systems of morality. (George O'Brien, An Essay on the Economic Effects of the Reformation, IHS Press, Norfolk, VThere is nothing short of the conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith that can help to restore order and justice in matters of politics and economics, both of which must be undertaken with regard to a due subordination to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and in light of man's Last End. Indeed, as Pope Saint Pius X noted in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, civil government has a positive obligation to aid man in the pursuit of his Last End, something that Ratzinger/Benedict rejects out of hand:

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906.)

To quote the late thirty-seventh President of the United States of America, Richard Milhous Nixon, "make no mistake about it," Ratzinger/Benedict's call for a "world political authority" with "teeth," which was in and of itself a violation of the Natural Law principle of subsidiarity as it violates the legitimate sovereignty of nations, which, contrary to Ratzinger/Benedict's support for what amounts to a policy of unrestricted immigration, do indeed have rights in the Natural Law to placed just restrictions on the migration of foreign nationals into their lands. The Catholic Church has always supported the legitimate sovereignty of nations, keeping in mind, of course, that each nation must recognize Christ the King as its own true Sovereign, from Whom no one or no nation may ever declare "independence." There was no such discussion in Caritas in Veritate as Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was an enemy of the Social Reign of Christ the King and thus of the very foundation of personal and social order, Catholicism.

While Ratzinger/Benedict did refer to the word "Catholics" once, use the words "Catholic" or "Catholic Church" or "Catholic Faith" once in his new "encyclical" letter, which contains just two gratuitous "cf" (confer) references out of one hundred fifty-nine footnotes to the true popes prior to the dawning of the age of conciliarism under Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII. He referred to "Christianity," which, unlike the true popes of the Catholic Church, each of whom used the word "Christianity" to refer solely to the Catholic Faith, in broad, general terms as the "true" religion, stating that it was necessary to "discern" which religions "take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community." This is nothing other than more madness. Ratzinger/Benedict stated that the heresy of "religious freedom" does not mean "religious indifferentism" while at the same time refusing to state clearly and unequivocally that Catholicism is indeed the one and only true religion revealed by God and that Protestantism, which is proximately responsible for the rise of the modern, religiously indifferentist civil state and thus of an economic system founded on false premises, is hateful in the sight of God. Caritas in Veritate nowhere states that it is the duty of the civil state to recognize the true religion and to accord her the favor and the protection of the laws.

No, the late Ratzinger/Benedict, drawing upon Giovanni Montini/Paul VI's Populorum Progressio, March 26, 1967, and the "Second" Vatican Council's Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, was content, as a good progenitor of and apologist for conciliarism, to have "Christianity" take a place in the "public square" of ideas, a notion that has been rejected by true pope after true pope in the late-Nineteenth and early-Twentieth Centuries, something that he noted in his 2010 “World Day of Peace” message on “protecting creation” that is almost indistinguishable from many of the points that have been made consistently by his Jacobin/Bolshevik ultra-progressive Modernist successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions. The Church's social doctrine came into being in order to claim “citizenship status” for the Christian religion. Denying the right to profess one's religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme, religious fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons.

2. In my Encyclical Caritas in Veritate, I noted that integral human development is closely linked to the obligations which flow from man’s relationship with the natural environment. The environment must be seen as God’s gift to all people, and the use we make of it entails a shared responsibility for all humanity, especially the poor and future generations. I also observed that whenever nature, and human beings in particular, are seen merely as products of chance or an evolutionary determinism, our overall sense of responsibility wanes.[3] On the other hand, seeing creation as God’s gift to humanity helps us understand our vocation and worth as human beings. With the Psalmist, we can exclaim with wonder: “When I look at your heavens, the work of your hands, the moon and the stars which you have established; what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?” (Ps 8:4-5). Contemplating the beauty of creation inspires us to recognize the love of the Creator, that Love which “moves the sun and the other stars”.[4]

3. Twenty years ago, Pope John Paul II devoted his Message for the World Day of Peace to the theme: Peace with God the Creator, Peace with All of Creation. He emphasized our relationship, as God’s creatures, with the universe all around us. “In our day”, he wrote, “there is a growing awareness that world peace is threatened … also by a lack of due respect for nature”. He added that “ecological awareness, rather than being downplayed, needs to be helped to develop and mature, and find fitting expression in concrete programmes and initiatives”.[5] Previous Popes had spoken of the relationship between human beings and the environment. In 1971, for example, on the eightieth anniversary of Leo XIII’s Encyclical Rerum Novarum, Paul VI pointed out that “by an ill-considered exploitation of nature (man) risks destroying it and becoming in his turn the victim of this degradation”. He added that “not only is the material environment becoming a permanent menace – pollution and refuse, new illnesses and absolute destructive capacity – but the human framework is no longer under man’s control, thus creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable. This is a wide-ranging social problem which concerns the entire human family”.[6]

4. Without entering into the merit of specific technical solutions, the Church is nonetheless concerned, as an “expert in humanity”, to call attention to the relationship between the Creator, human beings and the created order. In 1990 John Paul II had spoken of an “ecological crisis” and, in highlighting its primarily ethical character, pointed to the “urgent moral need for a new solidarity”.[7] His appeal is all the more pressing today, in the face of signs of a growing crisis which it would be irresponsible not to take seriously. Can we remain indifferent before the problems associated with such realities as climate change, desertification, the deterioration and loss of productivity in vast agricultural areas, the pollution of rivers and aquifers, the loss of biodiversity, the increase of natural catastrophes and the deforestation of equatorial and tropical regions? Can we disregard the growing phenomenon of “environmental refugees”, people who are forced by the degradation of their natural habitat to forsake it – and often their possessions as well – in order to face the dangers and uncertainties of forced displacement? Can we remain impassive in the face of actual and potential conflicts involving access to natural resources? All these are issues with a profound impact on the exercise of human rights, such as the right to life, food, health and development.

5. It should be evident that the ecological crisis cannot be viewed in isolation from other related questions, since it is closely linked to the notion of development itself and our understanding of man in his relationship to others and to the rest of creation. Prudence would thus dictate a profound, long-term review of our model of development, one which would take into consideration the meaning of the economy and its goals with an eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications. The ecological health of the planet calls for this, but it is also demanded by the cultural and moral crisis of humanity whose symptoms have for some time been evident in every part of the world.[8] Humanity needs a profound cultural renewal; it needs to rediscover those values which can serve as the solid basis for building a brighter future for all. Our present crises – be they economic, food-related, environmental or social – are ultimately also moral crises, and all of them are interrelated. They require us to rethink the path which we are travelling together. Specifically, they call for a lifestyle marked by sobriety and solidarity, with new rules and forms of engagement, one which focuses confidently and courageously on strategies that actually work, while decisively rejecting those that have failed. Only in this way can the current crisis become an opportunity for discernment and new strategic planning. . . .

10. A sustainable comprehensive management of the environment and the resources of the planet demands that human intelligence be directed to technological and scientific research and its practical applications. The “new solidarity” for which John Paul II called in his Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace [22] and the “global solidarity” for which I myself appealed in my Message for the 2009 World Day of Peace [23] are essential attitudes in shaping our efforts to protect creation through a better internationally-coordinated management of the earth’s resources, particularly today, when there is an increasingly clear link between combatting environmental degradation and promoting an integral human development. These two realities are inseparable, since “the integral development of individuals necessarily entails a joint effort for the development of humanity as a whole”.[24] At present there are a number of scientific developments and innovative approaches which promise to provide satisfactory and balanced solutions to the problem of our relationship to the environment. Encouragement needs to be given, for example, to research into effective ways of exploiting the immense potential of solar energy. Similar attention also needs to be paid to the world-wide problem of water and to the global water cycle system, which is of prime importance for life on earth and whose stability could be seriously jeopardized by climate change. Suitable strategies for rural development centred on small farmers and their families should be explored, as well as the implementation of appropriate policies for the management of forests, for waste disposal and for strengthening the linkage between combatting climate change and overcoming poverty. Ambitious national policies are required, together with a necessary international commitment which will offer important benefits especially in the medium and long term. There is a need, in effect, to move beyond a purely consumerist mentality in order to promote forms of agricultural and industrial production capable of respecting creation and satisfying the primary needs of all. The ecological problem must be dealt with not only because of the chilling prospects of environmental degradation on the horizon; the real motivation must be the quest for authentic world-wide solidarity inspired by the values of charity, justice and the common good. For that matter, as I have stated elsewhere, “technology is never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations towards development; it expresses the inner tension that impels him gradually to overcome material limitations. Technology in this sense is a response to God’s command to till and keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to humanity, and it must serve to reinforce the covenant between human beings and the environment, a covenant that should mirror God’s creative love”.[25] (If You Want to Cultivate Peace, Protect Creation.)

This compares very favorably with the following passages of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Lauato’ Si, May 24, 2015:

Warming has effects on the carbon cycle. It creates a vicious circle which aggravates the situation even more, affecting the availability of essential resources like drinking water, energy and agricultural production in warmer regions, and leading to the extinction of part of the planet’s biodiversity. The melting in the polar ice caps and in high altitude plains can lead to the dangerous release of methane gas, while the decomposition of frozen organic material can further increase the emission of carbon dioxide. Things are made worse by the loss of tropical forests which would otherwise help to mitigate climate change. Carbon dioxide pollution increases the acidification of the oceans and compromises the marine food chain. If present trends continue, this century may well witness extraordinary climate change and an unprecedented destruction of ecosystems, with serious consequences for all of us. A rise in the sea level, for example, can create extremely serious situations, if we consider that a quarter of the world’s population lives on the coast or nearby, and that the majority of our megacities are situated in coastal areas. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Laudato Si, May 24, 2015.)

Bergoglio thus presents junk science as fact while constantly making the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith to be the stuff of fiction and fairy tales believed by old ladies who count the number of Rosaries that they pray each day. He even uses alarmist language in his ecocyclical to speak of a “doomsday” facing the world as a result of the “facts” he accepts so uncritically:

161. Doomsday predictions can no longer be met with irony or disdain. We may well be leaving to coming generations debris, desolation and filth. The pace of consumption, waste and environmental change has so stretched the planet’s capacity that our contemporary lifestyle, unsustainable as it is, can only precipitate catastrophes, such as those which even now periodically occur in different areas of the world. The effects of the present imbalance can only be reduced by our decisive action, here and now. We need to reflect on our accountability before those who will have to endure the dire consequences.

162. Our difficulty in taking up this challenge seriously has much to do with an ethical and cultural decline which has accompanied the deterioration of the environment. Men and women of our postmodern world run the risk of rampant individualism, and many problems of society are connected with today’s self-centred culture of instant gratification. We see this in the crisis of family and social ties and the difficulties of recognizing the other. Parents can be prone to impulsive and wasteful consumption, which then affects their children who find it increasingly difficult to acquire a home of their own and build a family. Furthermore, our inability to think seriously about future generations is linked to our inability to broaden the scope of our present interests and to give consideration to those who remain excluded from development. Let us not only keep the poor of the future in mind, but also today’s poor, whose life on this earth is brief and who cannot keep on waiting. Hence, “in addition to a fairer sense of intergenerational solidarity there is also an urgent moral need for a renewed sense of intragenerational solidarity”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Laudato Si, May 24, 2015.)

Well, there is a doomsday facing us, certainly. However, the real doomsday that looms over us will be the result of the fact that men and their nations have plunged themselves into the abyss of idolatry and a whole array of what are Mortal Sins in the objective order of things, each of which is celebrated with abandon and protected by cover of the civil law.

Bergoglio’s “doomsday” scenario, however, will empower the statists and moral relativists even more than the voters themselves have empowered them by their ignorance and by permitting themselves to be immersed in an endless array of “bread and circuses” as their legitimate liberties are curbed in the name of “helping the poor” or “saving the earth.” We live at a time when leaders of the Judeo-Masonic civil state seek to curb legitimate liberties and eliminate all, not just some, private property rights while licentiousness is celebrated as a legitimate exercise of human liberty.

Lost in all of this, you see, is the fact Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s alarmism about the natural environment reflects his thoroughly naturalistic view of problems that exist in this passing, mortal vale of tears that will end at a time appointed by God from all eternity despite a section at the end of the ecocylical that speaks of the Holy Eucharist and the Mother of God (without, of course, any mention of Eucharistic adoration, which Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries believe is “individualistic,” and without any mention of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, no less her Fatima Message or devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart). Bergoglio a Judeo-Masonic naturalist, a man who provides a slight gloss of Christianity to speak of the world’s problems in purely naturalistic terms that tickle the itching ears of men such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro and Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

To be sure, as has been noted on this website in the past, there do exist real problems with pollution and the misuse of the world’s resources. These problems exist in large measure, however, because of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been wrought by the Protestant Revolution in the Sixteenth Century and cemented in place by the various, interrelated forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism since the Eighteenth Century. The overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King has given free rein to man’s fallen nature.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not see this as he sees the Protestant Revolution as having been a necessary “reformation of the Catholic Church that can serve as a foundation for a “spiritual ecumenism” that exists in an atmosphere of “reconciled diversity.”

Moreover, Bergoglio, as a true son of liberalism, whose end result must be totalitarianism over the course of time, seeks to repair social and world problems by structural means rather than exhorting men to convert to the true Faith and for nations to permit themselves to be governed by the Social Reign of Christ the King. Bergoglio really believes in structural reform as the means to change human behavior. This is why he is such a supporter of structural reform in the civil realm and it is why he assembled his Commissars back in 2013. He describes problems, both real and imagined, in this ecocyclical without identifying their root cause, Original Sin, or their chief proximate cause, the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the rise of the religiously indifferent civil state of Modernity that eventually must become the religiously hostile state.

Berogoglio’s proposed draconian “solutions” to environmental problems, both real and imagined, is thus based on the same essential mistake made by Karl Marx when the latter saw some of the real injustices that existed in industrial England in the Nineteenth Century.

Rather than recognize these problems as the result of Original Sin and the rise of a social structure that deified man and his wants, Marx further deified man by denying God’s existence and the necessity to curb man’s excesses by the collective power of the of the civil state. Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat was designed to addressed what he believed to be the root cause of all social injustice, economic inequality, by the forcible confiscation and redistribution of wealth so that all would live in a state of relative economic equality to the benefit of all. Universal tyranny and universal poverty are what results from Marxism in theory and in practice, and despite all of Jorge’s gratuitous denials of being a Marxist, he is influenced by Marxist tenets to the very depths of his apostate being as he has been shaped theologically and politically by Jesuit “liberation theologians” and atheists such as John Schellnhuber, who was one of the presenters at the news conference held in 2015 in advance of the official release of Laudato Si and served on the “Pontifical” Academy for the Sciences despite his believing a fervent advocate of radical “population control” methods, up to and including the depopulation of the earth from seven billion to one billion people. One is who one associates with, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has voluntarily chosen to associate with Marxists no matter how much he denies that he is one.

Laudato Si was thus an alarmist screed that has been used by pro-abortion, pro-perversity statists to urge the “people” to do what the “pope” teaches has to be done to “save the earth.” Its text, which will be analyzed on this site despite my lack of enthusiasm about doing so, prescribes “solutions” that will only bring about the creation of a One World Governing system, if not a One World Government in name, that will one day demand that the lords of conciliarism shut down their false church to worship at its own altar of totalitarianism that will have no room for “coexistence” even with those such as Bergoglio and his allies who helped to bring it into existence.

Men such as Father Carlo Maria Vigano cannot be intellectually honest to criticize “Pope Francis’s” support for the upcoming Abu Dhabi conference on “climate control” and the Argentine Apostate’s belief in evolutionism while ignoring “Pope Benedict’s” support for most, although not all, of the radical environmentalist agenda and the late new theologian’s support for “theistic” evolution, something that Bergoglio himself takes for granted:

Though few might have cast him in advance as a "green pope," Pope Benedict XVI has amassed a striking environmental record, from installing solar panels in the Vatican to calling for ecological conversion. Now the pontiff has also hinted at a possible new look at the undeclared patron saint of Catholic ecology, the late French Jesuit scientist and philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Benedict's brief July 24 reference to Teilhard, praising his vision of the entire cosmos as a "living host," can be read on multiple levels -- as part of the pontiff's rapprochement with the Jesuits, or as a further instance of finding something positive to say about thinkers whose works have set off doctrinal alarms, as Benedict previously did with rebel Swiss theologian and former colleague

The potential implications for environmental theology, however, are likely to generate the greatest interest among Teilhard's fans and foes alike -- and more than a half-century after his death in 1955, the daring Jesuit still has plenty of both. Admirers trumpet Teilhard as a pioneer, harmonizing Christianity with the theory of evolution; critics charge that Teilhard's optimistic view of nature flirts with pantheism.

Benedict's comment came during a July 24 vespers service in the Cathedral of Aosta in northern Italy, where the pope took his annual summer vacation July 13-29.

Toward the end of a reflection upon the Letter to the Romans, in which St. Paul writes that the world itself will one day become a form of living worship, the pope said, "It's the great vision that later Teilhard de Chardin also had: At the end we will have a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host.

"Let's pray to the Lord that he help us be priests in this sense," the pope said, "to help in the transformation of the world in adoration of God, beginning with ourselves."

Though offered only in passing, and doubtless subject to overinterpretation, Benedict's line nevertheless triggered headlines in the Italian press about a possible "rehabilitation" of Teilhard, sometimes referred to as the "Catholic Darwin." That reading seemed especially tempting since, as a consummate theologian, Benedict is aware of the controversy that swirls around Teilhard, and would thus grasp the likely impact of a positive papal reference.

At the very least, the line seemed to offer a blessing for exploration of the late Jesuit's ideas. That impression appeared to be confirmed by the Vatican spokesperson, Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, who said afterward, "By now, no one would dream of saying that [Teilhard] is a heterodox author who shouldn't be studied."

Teilhard's most prominent living disciple in Italy, lay theologian Vito Mancuso, told reporters that he was "pleasantly surprised" by Benedict's words and that they have "great importance."

Teilhard, who died in 1955 at the age of 73, was a French Jesuit who studied paleontology and participated in the 1920s-era discovery of "Peking Man" in China, a find that seemed to confirm a gradual development in the human species. Teilhard has also been linked to the 1912 discovery of "Piltdown Man" in England, later exposed as a hoax.

On the basis of his scientific work, Teilhard developed an evolutionary theology asserting that all creation is developing towards an "Omega Point," which he identified with Christ as the Logos, or "Word" of God. In that sense, Teilhard broadened the concept of salvation history to embrace not only individual persons and human culture, but the entire universe. In short order, Teilhard's thought became the obligatory point of departure for any Catholic treatment of the environment.

Yet from the beginning, Teilhard's theology was also viewed with caution by officials both of the Jesuit order and in the Vatican. Among other things, officials worried that his optimistic reading of nature compromised church teaching on original sin. In 1962 -- seven years after his death -- the Vatican's doctrinal office issued a warning that his works "abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine."

In 1981, on the 100th anniversary of Teilhard's birth, speculation erupted about a possible rehabilitation. It was fueled by a letter published in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, by the then-Cardinal Secretary of State Agostino Casaroli, who praised the "astonishing resonance of his research, as well as the brilliance of his personality and richness of his thinking." Casaroli asserted that Teilhard had anticipated John Paul II's call to "be not afraid," embracing "culture, civilization and progress."

Responding to ferment created by the letter, the Vatican issued a statement insisting that its 1962 verdict on Teilhard still stands -- to date, Rome's last official pronouncement on Teilhard. (The statement was issued in July 1981, four months before then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, took over as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)

Across the years, Benedict has sometimes seemed to be of two minds himself.

In his 1968 work Introduction to Christianity, Ratzinger wrote that Eastern Christianity has a deeper appreciation for the "cosmic and metaphysical" dimension of Christianity than the West, but that the West seemed to be recovering that perspective, "especially as a result of stimuli from the work of Teilhard." He argued that Teilhard gave authentic expression to the Christology of St. Paul.

As pope, Benedict has occasionally used language that seems to reflect a Teilhardian touch. In his 2006 Easter homily, the pontiff referred to the theory of evolution, describing the Resurrection as "the greatest 'mutation,' absolutely the most crucial leap into a totally new dimension that there has ever been in the long history of life and its development."

Yet Ratzinger's ambivalence about Teilhard is of equally long vintage. In a commentary on the final session of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), a young Ratzinger complained that Gaudium et Spes, the "Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World," played down the reality of sin because of an overly "French," and specifically "Teilhardian," influence.

Overall, the impression is that Benedict finds much to like about Teilhard's cosmic vision, even if he also worries about interpretations at odds with orthodox faith.

Benedict's July 24 remark on Teilhard builds upon the pope's strong record on the environment, considered by many observers to be the most original feature of his social teaching. Most recently, Benedict devoted a section of his new social encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, to a call for deepening what he called "that covenant between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love of God."

In her recent book Ten Commandments for the Environment: Pope Benedict XVI Speaks Out for Creation and Justice, Catholic writer Woodeene Koenig-Bricker described Benedict as "the greenest pope in history," arguing that he has not only made strong environmental statements but also put them into practice.

In that light, one wonders if Benedict's shade of green could eventually allow Teilhard to be named the patron saint of Catholic ecology de jure, as well as de facto. If so, July 24 could be remembered as the first stirring of an "evolutionary leap" in the late Jesuit's reputation and official standing. (http://ncronline.org/news/ecology/pope-cites-teilhardian-vision-cosmos-living-host)

No true Successor of Saint Peter has ever spoken in such a way. And while there are some who still cling to the myth that the late “Pope Benedict XVI” had substantive disagreements with his successor, the truth remains that both men believed in the same essential evolutionary principles as the late Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J. Once again, there is No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth, noting that Ratzinger/Benedict felt a “pain in his heart” when his successor abrogated Summorum Pontificum in Traditiones Custodes, July 16, 2021, the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

Ratzinger/Benedict explained his belief that biological evolution was probable in an address he gave to Italian priests and presbyters sixteen years ago:

POPE Benedict has said there is substantial scientific proof of the theory of evolution.

The Pope, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said the human race must listen to "the voice of the Earth" or risk destroying its very existence.

In a talk with 400 priests, the Pope spoke of the current debate raging in some countries, particularly the US and his native Germany, between creationism and evolution. 

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said.

“This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favour of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

But he said evolution did not answer all the questions and could not exclude a role by God.

“Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question 'where does everything come from?'“

His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design.

Climate change

Benedict is wrapping up a three-week private holiday in the majestic mountains of northern Italy where residents are alarmed by the prospect of climate change that can alter their way of life.

A full transcript of the two-hour event was issued yesterday.

“We all see that today man can destroy the foundation of his existence, his Earth,” he said.

“We cannot simply do what we want with this Earth of ours, with what has been entrusted to us,” said the Pope, who has been spending his time reading and walking in the scenic landscape bordering Austria.

World religions have shown a growing interest in the environment, particularly the ramifications of climate change.

The Pope, leader of some 1.1 billion Roman Catholics worldwide, said: “We must respect the interior laws of creation, of this Earth, to learn these laws and obey them if we want to survive.”

“This obedience to the voice of the Earth is more important for our future happiness ... than the desires of the moment.

"Our Earth is talking to us and we must listen to it and decipher its message if we want to survive,” he said.

Last April the Vatican sponsored a scientific conference on climate change to underscore the role that religious leaders around the world could play in reminding people that wilfully damaging the environment is sinful. (Ratzinger and Evolution.)

The earth is not the foundation of human existence. God is the foundation of human existence. Neither the earth or anything on it, including the human beings whose first parents, Adam and Eve, were created specifically and specially by God Himself, exists without having been willed in to existence by God, Who is Omnipotence. The earth was created by God to be the temporal home of His visible creation, including the crowning glory of His creative work, man, who was given the power by Him to use the earth responsible for his good purposes. Man does not exist for the earth. The earth exists to serve man as he seeks to save his immortal soul as a member of the Catholic Church and thus return to his true home, Heaven, in the presence of the Beatific Vision of God: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

God spoke specifically about man's right to steward the earth:

And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. (Genesis 1: 26-30)

It must be noted furthermore that man can never destroy the earth. Oh, he can do great damage to certain parts of the earth, to be sure. Not even nuclear war, which would kill millions of people and make it difficult for survivors in some parts of the world, would destroy the earth. The earth will end when God chooses to do so by His own power at a time known to Him alone. God created the earth when He spoke the word as is recorded in The Book of Genesis:

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.And God said: Be light made. And light was made. And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness. And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; and there was evening and morning one day.

And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day. God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. (Genesis 1: 1-10)

God created the earth. He alone has the power to end its existence. Those who contend that man can destroy the earth demean the omnipotence of God and do not understand Catholic teaching on eschatology.

Listen to the "Voice of the Earth"?

We are not pantheists, thank you. We listen to the voice of God, Who has spoken to us in Divine Revelation, which consists of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, which speaks to us of how God created the world. Even honest secular scientists have disproved evolutionism as the prototype of junk science (see Gerard Keane's masterful collection of data on this subject in Creation Rediscovered, TAN Books and Publishers). This is beyond any serious argument at this late date. The facts of true science are all arrayed against evolutionism.

Indeed, the late “Father” Peter Damien Felhner, quoted in Creation Rediscovered, noted the following:

Good arguments can actually be adduced in fact to show that evolution is simply not a scientific hypothesis. It is a dogma providing the context for all scientific endeavors. And it is just this assumption of evolutionism as the universal paradigm that directly conflicts with the teaching of the Church. . . . The doctrine of creation, in general and in all its detail, is intimately bound up with the mystery of salvation. That is why the Catholic may not call into question any aspect of the doctrine of creation which in fact the Church believes is related to the mystery of salvation without also doubting that latter mystery.  (Quoted in Creation Rediscovered, p, 192.)

God willed each species of plant and animal into existence, admitting that there have been genetic developments within species. This is something that should fill us awe and should impel us to show others how omnipotent God is, that none of the brilliant colors or varieties of the fishes in the water or the animals that walk the earth could have developed by chance. God, Who is intelligence, order, power and beauty, willed each thing into being. Although science, which has rules and limits of its own, cannot prove empirically the things we accept as articles of Faith, it can disprove propositions that have no rational foundation in scientific fact. True science has disproved evolutionism in a resounding manner, forcing the evolutionists to try to come up with ever-changing variations of their pseudo-religion.

Truth be told, therefore, the propagation of Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection in the Nineteenth Century led liberal Protestant Scripture scholars, eager to adopt a pantheistic view of life, to doubt the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture and/or to attempt to conform the believer's understanding of Sacred Scripture to the dictates of allegedly "scientific" insights.

A belief in naturalistic evolutionism coincided nicely with a rise in naturalism culturally as a result of Judeo-Masonry and the potpourri (yes, I did watch a lot of the original Jeopardy!, hosted by the late Art Fleming) of anti-Incarnational, naturalistic political ideologies, each of which contends that man is the center of the world and that there are no religious or moral absolutes to govern his daily existence. Marxism is the "synthesis," if you will, of the philosophical evolutionism of Georg Hegel and the biological evolutionism of Charles Darwin. One who believes in biological evolutionism will find it easy to dismiss the Book of Genesis and thus to believe that there is no God and that human society must evolve "socially" just as the human species had evolved biologically.

Believers in strict biological evolutionism have a little problem that they are incapable of answering: why aren't human beings evolving biologically into another species at present? Indeed, the reverse is true. Those who believe that they are descended from monkeys devolve over the course of time into acting like monkeys. A belief in the evolution of the human species leads to a devolution of human behavior to the level of barbarism and bestiality that would offend a lot monkeys, points I covered nineteen years ago in The Fruits of Evolutionism (actually written in 2001, well before I began to examine sedevacantism).

Jorge Mareio Bergoglio explained his own views about the false ideology of evolutionism in Laudato Si, May 24, 2015:

18. The continued acceleration of changes affecting humanity and the planet is coupled today with a more intensified pace of life and work which might be called “rapidification”. Although change is part of the working of complex systems, the speed with which human activity has developed contrasts with the naturally slow pace of biological evolution. Moreover, the goals of this rapid and constant change are not necessarily geared to the common good or to integral and sustainable human development. Change is something desirable, yet it becomes a source of anxiety when it causes harm to the world and to the quality of life of much of humanity. . . .

81. Human beings, even if we postulate a process of evolution, also possess a uniqueness which cannot be fully explained by the evolution of other open systems. Each of us has his or her own personal identity and is capable of entering into dialogue with others and with God himself. Our capacity to reason, to develop arguments, to be inventive, to interpret reality and to create art, along with other not yet discovered capacities, are signs of a uniqueness which transcends the spheres of physics and biology. The sheer novelty involved in the emergence of a personal being within a material universe presupposes a direct action of God and a particular call to life and to relationship on the part of a “Thou” who addresses himself to another “thou”. The biblical accounts of creation invite us to see each human being as a subject who can never be reduced to the status of an object. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Laudato Si, May 24, 2015.)

“Call to life?”

Hogwash.

Balderdash.

The barbarians of today reject this. Catholics understand, however, that God Himself spoke these words. He has given His permission to us to eat the beats of the earth and the fowl of the air, subduing and ruling over the fishes of the sea, and all living creatures upon the earth. Animals are subordinate to the needs of human beings. This is what one can call real simple.

Why, then, is it so difficult for so many "sophisticated" Catholic intellectuals to believe that it was possible for God, Who suspends the laws of nature of which He is the Author when a miracle is performed, to have created the world exactly as is recorded in The Book of Genesis?

Why is it so difficult for these intellectuals to believe that God, Who is pure Intelligence, to have willed into existence each of the species that exist in the world today exactly as we see them?

Why is it the case that thes intellectuals doubt that God Himself willed into existence all of the laws of nature that He suspends when a miracle is performed in His Holy Name and by His power?

Why is it the case that these intellectuals are so ready to subordinate Divinely Revealed truths to the precepts of a disproved thesis, namely, Darwinism and all of its variants?

The answer to those questions is simple: A loss of Faith.

Yes, the essence of God is simplicity. His truths are simple. Complexity is of the devil. Prideful men, tempted by the devil to believe in their own ability to make complex that which is simple, cannot believe that the Omnipotent, Omniscient God created the world as is recorded in The Book of Genesis, thereby casting doubt on the Divinely inspired nature of the very Scriptures in which God's own Word describes how He created the world. Prideful men must believe that the Origins of the world and of man are must more complex than the simple fact that God spoke the Word and created the component parts of the universe out of nothing.

No Special Creation of man by God, no Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden. No Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden, no necessity of our Redemption by the God-Man on the wood of the Holy Cross. No Fall from Grace in the Garden of Eden, no necessity of man to reform his life on a daily basis in cooperation with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Lord's Most Precious Blood on Calvary. No knot of Eve's prideful disobedience, no perfect fiat of Our Lady at the Annunciation to untie that knot. In other words, a great deal of the minimization of sin and sinful behavior that we see among alleged Catholic "intellectuals" is the result of a very labored effort to reaffirm themselves and others in "contemporary" trends that emanate from the anti-Incarnational errors of Modernity, including Darwinian evolutionism and all of its biological and philosophical and theological mutations that have wreaked so much havoc in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Evolutionism has helped to give momentum to the errors of Hegelianism, Marxism, Freudianism, Social Darwinism (and its variations in Capitalist theory), Utilitarianism, Relativism, Materialism, Positivism, Modernism, Nihilism, and many other false belief systems. Why should Catholics give any credence to something that has been of such an aid to the enemies of the Faith?

We believe in an Omnipotent, Omniscient God, Who specifically created all things and gave each of them a specific nature and ordained that specific laws govern the universe for all eternity. Those "sophisticates" who place into question the Received Teaching of the Church about Origins and Special Creation are in for quite a rude awakening at the moment of their Particular Judgments. They will see that the pure Intelligence Who is God did indeed will all things into existence, creating them out of nothing for His own greater honor and glory.

The acceptance of evolutionism is essential to the climate change fascists as a means to impose their “transformative” policies that are nothing other than Marxism wrapped up in green clothing, something that I pointed out in an article that was published in The Wanderer twenty-nine years ago, “When Green is Red.”

The hysteria over “climate change” has been manufactured to create a perpetual crisis that our statist minders—and their enablers among the leader of the world’s false religions, including the false religion of conciliarism will use to impose “climate change lockdowns” that will make the Wuhan Virus lockdowns seem like so much child’s play even the evidence disproving the hysteria is a vast as the solid documentation about the harm caused by the “vaccines” developed during Operation Warp Speed.

The plandemic of 2020-2023 was all part of the World Economic Forum’s global reset, whose ultimate goal is population reduction in order to “save” the planet, which end in fire from the sky sent by God at a time He has willed for all eternity to occur, the “climate change” agenda is the principal means by which this depopulation will occur.

A scientist who once believe in myth of a climate change “crisis” came to realize that the “crisis” was manufactured by ideologues for their own purposes:

We are told climate change is a crisis, and that there is an “overwhelming scientific consensus.”

“It’s a manufactured consensus,” climate scientist Judith Curry tells me.

She says scientists have an incentive to exaggerate risk to pursue “fame and fortune.”

She knows about that because she once spread alarm about climate change.

The media loved her when she published a study that seemed to show a dramatic increase in hurricane intensity.

“We found that the percent of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes had doubled,” says Curry.

“This was picked up by the media,” and then climate alarmists realized, “Oh, here is the way to do it. Tie extreme weather events to global warming!”

“So, this hysteria is your fault!” I tell her.

“Not really,” she smiles.

“They would have picked up on it anyways.”

But Curry’s “more intense” hurricanes gave them fuel.

“I was adopted by the environmental advocacy groups and the alarmists and I was treated like a rock star,” Curry recounts.

“Flown all over the place to meet with politicians.”

But then some researchers pointed out gaps in her research — years with low levels of hurricanes.

“Like a good scientist, I investigated,” says Curry.

She realized that the critics were right.

“Part of it was bad data. Part of it is natural climate variability.”

Curry was the unusual researcher who looked at criticism of her work and actually concluded: “They had a point.”

Then the Climategate scandal taught her that other climate researchers weren’t so open-minded.

Alarmist scientists’ aggressive attempts to hide data suggesting climate change is not a crisis were revealed in leaked emails.

“Ugly things,” says Curry.

“Avoiding Freedom of Information Act requests. Trying to get journal editors fired.”

It made Curry realize that there is a “climate-change industry” set up to reward alarmism.

“The origins go back to the . . . UN environmental program,” says Curry.

Some United Nations officials were motivated by “anti-capitalism. They hated the oil companies and seized on the climate change issue to move their policies along.”

The UN created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“The IPCC wasn’t supposed to focus on any benefits of warming. The IPCC’s mandate was to look for dangerous human-caused climate change.”

“Then the national funding agencies directed all the funding . . . assuming there are dangerous impacts.”

The researchers quickly figured out that the way to get funded was to make alarmist claims about “man-made climate change.”

This is how “manufactured consensus” happens.

Even if a skeptic did get funding, it’s harder to publish because journal editors are alarmists.

“The editor of the journal Science wrote this political rant,” says Curry.

She even said, “The time for debate has ended.”

“What kind of message does that give?” adds Curry.

Then she answers her own question: “Promote the alarming papers! Don’t even send the other ones out for review. If you wanted to advance in your career, like be at a prestigious university and get a big salary, have big laboratory space, get lots of grant funding, be director of an institute, there was clearly one path to go.” 

That’s what we’ve got now: a massive government-funded climate alarmism complex. (Scientist admits the 'overwhelming consensus' on the climate change crisis is 'manufactured'.)

As noted above, depopulation is the principal goal of “climate change,” and one can guarantee that, no matter the nuances that Jorge Mario Bergoglio chooses to employ, his ultimate “apostolic exhortation” on the “synodal path” will endorse, if not actually encourage, contraception and might hint at the “limited” acceptance of surgical baby-killing in some cases, something that I discussed several months ago in         .

A secular author discussed the depopulation agenda in some considerable detail:

About a week ago, the UN Human Rights Czar in Geneva issued a stern warning – “Up to 80 million people will be plunged into hunger if climate targets are not met”.

These are the words of Volker Turk, the head of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. He spoke at a Human Rights event, and highlighted as principal cause for this coming calamity – what else – “climate change”. He said,

“extreme weather events were having a significant negative impact on crops, herds and ecosystems, prompting further concerns about global food availability.”

This is immediately proven by never-before-in-history extreme floods in Vermont, USA, by extreme droughts in Europe and Central – Western USA and by enormous, never-before experienced – forest fires in Canada. More is already announced – extreme Monsoon rains in India, and possibly Bangladesh. What a coincidence. Except, there are no coincidences. Droughts and gigantic flashfloods, in calculated interchange. No coincidences.

Most people of this globe just simply cannot believe how evil some non-people are. The Covid crime and the vaccination genocide was not enough to open their eyes, that their governments cannot be trusted, that they are sold, either by money or by threats, to an extreme evil power, a Depopulation, a Eugenics Cult which is behind it all.

Mr. Turk went on claiming,

“More than 828 million people faced hunger in 2021, and climate change is projected to place up to 80 million more people at risk of hunger by the middle of this century.”

Further contributing to the drama, he added, “Our environment is burning. It’s melting. It’s depleting. It’s drying. It’s dying”; and that these factors will combine to lead humanity towards a “dystopian future” unless urgent and immediate action is taken by environmental policymakers.

And then came the MUST reference to the 2015 (COP) Paris Agreement often referred to as the Paris Climate Accords, which were adopted by 196 parties at the time. COP means “Conference of the Parties”. Adding to the confusion of UN jargons, it refers to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), whose signatories agreed to cap global warming below 2 degrees celsius above the 1850-1900 levels – or to 1.5 degrees celsius if possible. Does anyone understand the language to carry out this easy task?

Such an arrogant statement – humans making the weather with their sheer lifestyles – should already ring a strong bell in a clear-thinking mind of normal humans, but it doesn’t, because our pineal gland for logical thinking and perception of emotions has been gradually dumbed, reduced, even killed in some people with chemicals we eat regularly und imperceptibly in our daily food, chemicals sprayed from the air via chemtrails, “disinfectant” chemicals in the water, the uncountable PCR tests, with absolutely scientifically proven unnecessary sticks up the nose, to the thin separation between nose and brain – and pineal gland — and more.

To dull our sentiments and perception is a long-term goal that “our Masters” have been working on for the last at least hundred years – or longer.

Dulled minds are easier to manipulate. Add to this DARPA’s MK-Ultra and Monarch mind-manipulation program and we know why we are where we are.

Our mental desensitization is the product of a long-term plan, namely precisely the plan that is currently being implemented by the WEF’s Great Reset and the UN Agenda 2030. That just shows that the UN is totally compromised by a “deep state” system, or Diabolical Cult that is way stronger than all our international agencies together.

Incidentally, Bill Gates said once in an interview that even should he “disappear”, the system goes on; it had been prepared for a century or more. You won’t find this reference anymore anywhere on internet. But this is the level of well-planned evil that we are facing NOW – The Great Reset, the UN Agenda 2030, and the all-digitizing 4^th Industrial Revolution. All executed by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations, and the World Health Organization (WHO).

They are the willing forefront of an enormously powerful financial behemoth which wants to stay in the dark, both literally and figuratively. Those who work the buttons for the Monster, have been promised “paradise”, or being part of the elite. Enough to buy their soul.

This financial elite system is controlling every sector of production, of food supply, of energy availability, and, indeed, of “climate change”. Yes, man-made climate change, but not the type that is supposedly carbon-based and depending on the human carbon footprint.

We are talking about highly sophisticated Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD), that are and have been causing extreme monsoons in Pakistan last year, this year already announced in India and possibly Bangladesh, and wherever an unruly population needs to be reined in, and where basic infrastructure and housing, as well as food crops must be destroyed, in order to create human misery, famine and death – and as a byproduct human obedience.

Would anybody like to pretend that Mr. Human Rights, Mr. Turk, when he speaks at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, does not know the facts? He is betraying the very people he has been mandated to defend and protect.

Massive depopulation, meaning, worldwide genocide, never seen before in human history – currently ongoing – it is Number One of the REAL 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), i.e. UN Agenda 2030. What the 17 SDGs say on the surface is but a smoke screen. The real meaning is reflected in this depiction – in Spanish – from Thereal2030.org – see this.

What Mr. Turk, Human Rights advocate, is saying goes exactly in the opposite direction of Human Rights. Mr. Turk, as the UN defender of Human Rights, the world’s highest Human Rights Officer, instead of protecting humans, he is sending them to death with the “climate change” narrative, with the false pretense that climate change will create and increase massive famine and death, if humanity and their leaders will not adhere to the 2015 Paris Climate Agreements.

This narrative is correct when applied to the since the 1940’s scientifically developed, today highly sophisticated ENMOD technologies. But people do not know, they are on purpose being indoctrinated that the “climate change” which they live is the result of humanities excessive carbon footprint. That is an absolute lie.

Mr. Turk, like all those who order him to help reduce humanity rather than protect humanity, knows very well that humans cannot change the climate by reducing the carbon footprint, because the human carbon footprint has an absolute minimal impact on what is called “global warming” or “climate change”.

Even if humanity would reach a “net zero carbon emission”, the climate would keep changing as it did for the about 4 billion years Mother Earth exists. The earth, like all the planets in the universe are dynamic beings, lives, if you will.

The climate is not influenced by humans, but to more than 97% by the sun, by sun movements. This is attested by any serious scientist – and more and more of those come to the fore to confront the ever-growing climate crime. And these sun-influenced dynamic changes are slow processes, over thousands of years, not noticeable within the extremely short time span of a human life.

Today, the world’s total energy use is still based to about 85% on hydrocarbons, and unless the world economy is made to completely collapse by the infamous slogan of “net zero carbon use”, or there is a sudden breakthrough in converting the endless sun energy by photo synthesis to energy, what the plants do, humanity’s survival depends on hydrocarbons for many more years to come.

Dear Mr. Turk, Defender of Huma Rights – you must know this, in the high position you are honored to hold, don’t you?

Where is your conscience, Mr. Turk, when you ring the alarm bell on innocent, already deprived people with famine, with a rapid increase of famine, and consequently with a rapid increase of death resulting from famine, when YOU know that the only man-made climate change is the one nobody talks about, the one emanating from the man-made ENMOD technologies.

The science of ENMOD, including HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is being weaponized, has been gradually weaponized for years. The science is known since the 1940’s and has been perfected to sophistication since then. It can even trigger earthquakes – has done so already on several occasions – killing thousands of people, leaving the masses under the impression that they became victims of a “natural event”.

ENMOD is weaponizing the climate.

The technologies of environmental modification can be and are applied clandestinely, most people have no clue what happens, when for example western summers are hot and dry like never before, when forests burn – put aflame by paid arsonists – and pollute the air for weeks and over thousands of square kilometers, when sudden, mighty thunderstorms bring flash-floods to overheated and dried out soil to slam down the final stroke to food crop destruction.

The media tells them: Claim it on “climate change” and help reduce your carbon foot print, do not eat meat, do not drive cars, do not fly, stay home, adapt to a modern lockdown. The new 15-minute cities are ideal for you, the commons.

Have you noticed how commercial flying is gradually becoming unaffordable for the common people, while of course, the rich and famous, the all-commanding elite couldn’t care less and keep using all the more their private jets to roam around the globe. Their carbon footprint is immaterial.

They laugh at the commons whose brains, and especially pineal glands, have been dulled by 5G ultra-microwaves, chemtrail-chemicals, water disinfectants – and more – so that the majority still falls for their governments lies that they better follow the rules, the “rules-based order” that replaced constitutional laws, or else.

Has anybody noticed? Nations’ constitutional laws are being ignored. No judge in the world would uphold them against the elite-led order.

Mr. Turk, in your recent Human Rights advocacy speech in Geneva, you did not address the latest craziness and ultimate crime on humanity, the Washington and EU idea to block out the sunlight to cool down the earth. For the sake of saving humanity from “climate change”.

See this and this.

Scientists have warned of devastating effects of climate “geoengineering”. Yet, the Human Rights Council has not brought it up. It is an unspeakable crime on Human Rights – as such weather and climate manipulation would abridge every Human Right.

Can you imagine what that would mean? Of course, instead of having a cooling effect to preserve the earth’s temperature within the 2015 Paris Accord – an absurdity in the first place — it would have a disastrous killer effect. Every life form needs the sun and dies without it.

Blocking out the sunlight would be the ultimate killing machine to reach the Number One SDG drastically reduce the world population. You missed that one, Mr. Human Rights.

How can you sleep at night, Mr. Turk, scaring already desperately poor and undernourished people with more famine, because they and their governments do not follow the 2015 Paris climate rules, so they may face death?

Maybe your pineal gland, Mr. Turk, has also been killed and you have no longer any feelings for Human Rights, reason enough for having been placed into the position of the Human Rights czar.

The UN Human Rights Council’s 53rd session ends on July 14. Thus, there are still a couple of days left to right your wrongs, Mr. Turk and your HR Council colleagues. (Climate Change Crime – Depopulation in the Name of Human Rights. Also see my own
Dear Morons and Idiots in Copenhagen, which was published in 2009.)

These are excellent points from a purely secular viewpoint, but it is important to note that those who explode ideological fables about climate change but who lack the true Faith always seem willing to believe in the Pelagian fable of human self-redemption that convinces mere mortals they can “stop” forces that are of preternatural origin that can only be stopped by prayer, fasting, and almsgiving in preparation for the direct intervention by God at the time He has ordained for all eternity for Him to put an end to the madness of our times.

The “doomsday” scenarios of the likes of Albert Arnold Gore, Jr., William Gates, John Kerry, Paul Ehrlich, King Charles and Jorge Mario Bergoglio have not now nor will they ever come true. Bergoglio’s own "doomsday” scenario, would empower the statists and moral relativists even more than the voters themselves have empowered them by their ignorance and by permitting themselves to be immersed in an endless array of “bread and circuses” as their legitimate liberties are curbed in the name of “helping the poor” or “saving the earth.” We live at a time when leaders of the Judeo-Masonic civil state seek to curb legitimate liberties and eliminate all, not just some, private property rights while licentiousness is celebrated as a legitimate exercise of human liberty.

Lost in all of this, you see, is the fact Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s alarmism about the natural environment reflects his thoroughly naturalistic view of problems that exist in this passing, mortal vale of tears that will end at a time appointed by God from all eternity despite a section at the end of the ecocylical that speaks of the Holy Eucharist and the Mother of God (without, of course, any mention of Eucharistic adoration, which Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries believe is “individualistic,” and without any mention of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, no less her Fatima Message or devotion to her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart). Bergoglio a Judeo-Masonic naturalist, a man who provides a slight gloss of Christianity to speak of the world’s problems in purely naturalistic terms that tickle the itching ears of men such as Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr.

To be sure, as has been noted on this website in the past, there do exist real problems with pollution and the misuse of the world’s resources. These problems exist in large measure, however, because of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King that has been wrought by the Protestant Revolution in the Sixteenth Century and cemented in place by the various, interrelated forces of Judeo-Masonic naturalism since the Eighteenth Century. The overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King has given free rein to man’s fallen nature.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not see this as he sees the Protestant Revolution as having been a necessary “reformation of the Catholic Church that can serve as a foundation for a “spiritual ecumenism” that exists in an atmosphere of “reconciled diversity.”

Moreover, Bergoglio, as a true son of liberalism, whose end result must be totalitarianism over the course of time, seeks to repair social and world problems by structural means rather than exhorting men to convert to the true Faith and for nations to permit themselves to be governed by the Social Reign of Christ the King. Bergoglio really believes in structural reform as the means to change human behavior. This is why he is such a supporter of structural reform in the civil realm, and it is why he assembled his Commissars back in 2013. He describes problems, both real and imagined, without identifying their root cause, Original Sin, or their chief proximate cause, the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King and the rise of the religiously indifferent civil state of Modernity that eventually must become the religiously hostile state.

Bergoglio’s proposed draconian “solutions” to environmental problems, both real and imagined, is thus based on the same essential mistake made by Karl Marx when the latter saw some of the real injustices that existed in industrial England in the Nineteenth Century.

Rather than recognize these problems as the result of Original Sin and the rise of a social structure that deified man and his wants, Marx further deified man by denying God’s existence and the necessity to curb man’s excesses by the collective power of the of the civil state.

Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat was designed to addressed what he believed to be the root cause of all social injustice, economic inequality, by the forcible confiscation and redistribution of wealth so that all would live in a state of relative economic equality to the benefit of all. Universal tyranny and universal poverty are what results from Marxism in theory and in practice, and despite all of Jorge’s gratuitous denials of being a Marxist, he is influenced by Marxist tenets to the very depths of his apostate being as he has been shaped theologically and politically by Jesuit “liberation theologians” and atheists such as John Schellnhuber, who was one of the presenters at yesterday’s press conference held in advance of the official release of Laudato Si and had served on the “Pontifical” Academy for the Sciences despite his being a fervent advocate of radical “population control” methods, up to and including the depopulation of the earth from seven billion to one billion people. One is who one associates with, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has voluntarily chosen to associate with Marxists no matter how much he denies that he is one.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of theological revolutionaries are climate change alarmists, and it does not bother them one little bit that their screeds and harangues are being used by pro-abortion, pro-perversity statists to urge the “people” to do what the “pope” teaches has to be done to “save the earth.” Like Ratzinger/Benedict before him, Bergoglio prescribes “solutions” that will only bring about the creation of a One World Governing system, if not a One World Government in name, that will one day demand that the lords of conciliarism shut down their false church to worship at its own altar of totalitarianism that will have no room for “coexistence” even with those such as Bergoglio and his allies who helped to bring it into existence. Indeed, Senor Jorge ordered the churches under his false sect’s control to shut down during the plandemic and was adamant in his support for vaccine mandates.

What we must realize as Catholics is that the ultimate cause of all catastrophes in the world is sin, and it is because sin and worldliness are so prevalent today that men can no longer suffer the vagaries of the seasons, which vary from year to year in most places, as they have grown soft by luxury and the conveniences of the modern world.

VIII. The Sellout of Faithful Catholics in Red China and Nicaragua

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his red-loving Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin, have a long history of appeasing Communists while criticizing “pro-life” “conservatives” in public life who oppose open borders and statist policies to “save the planet.”

Longtime readers of this site know that the reason is very simple: Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a leftist. He is a Marxist sympathizer who has gone out of his apostate way to make nice-nice with every single Marxist world leader with whom he has met since he emerged on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013. There is not a trace of the authentic sensus Catholicus to be found anywhere within the darkened soul of this veritable agent of Antichrist, whose precursor he is by paving the way for Catholics to accept both One World Governance and a One World Ecumenical religion to bring “peace” to a world that knows none because it has rebelled against Christ the King and the true Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

Obsequiousness to, if not a thinly disguised for, Marxism-Leninism has been a hallmark of Antipopes Angelo Roncalli/John XIII, Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI, and, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has embraced the mass murdering Castro brothers in Cuba, accepted a sacrilegious crucifix in the form of a hammer and sickle from Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, and, quite notoriously, sold out the longsuffering Catholics of Red China to their vicious, amoral, godless persecutors, the so-called Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s sellout of underground Catholics in Red China has been discussed on this site many times. However, it is important to remember that it was presaged by the supposedly anti-Communist Karol Josef Wojtyla’s concessions to the CPCA in the 1980s, setting the stage for Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s letter to the Chinese Catholics of June 29, 2007, which itself set the stage for as yet still secret terms of the 2018 “agreement” (sellout), which was renewed in 2020, of the conciliar Vatican to the Chicoms, thus throwing Catholics who had suffered relentless persecution since the Communist takeover of the Chinese mainland on May 1, 1949, under the bus.

Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul the Sick engaged in a policy of Communist surrender known as Ostpolik (East politics) wherein he appointed men as "bishops" in Communist countries behind the Iron Curtain who were friendly to, if not actual agents of, the Communist authorities in those countries. These "bishops" had a perverse "apostolic mandate," if you will, given then sub secreto by Montini: never criticize Communism or any Communist officials. In other words, be good stooges for various "people's" and "democratic" republics in exchange for promoting the false "gospel" of conciliarism.

It was also Montini/Paul VI who sold out the courageous Jozsef Cardinal Mindszenty, the Primate of Hungary and the Archbishop of Budapest, when the latter, after taking refuge in the American Embassy in Budapest for a decade following the Hungarian Revolution in October of 1956, was forced out of the American Embassy as a result of Vatican pressure and then, after being told by Montini/Paul VI that he remained as the Archbishop of Budapest, has his primatial see declared vacant by the theologically, liturgically and morally corrupt Montini, whose Ostpolitik has been revived and expanded by the theologically, liturgically and morally corrupt Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Indeed, it was in the summer of 2014 that Bergoglio lifted the suspension that had been imposed upon Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, who was a leading figure of the Sandinista revolutionary movement that overthrew the government of Nicaraguan strongman Anastaso Somoza in 1979:

MARYKNOLL, N.Y., Aug. 1, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ -- The Vatican has issued a decree that lifts its 29-year suspension on Father Miguel F. d'Escoto Brockmann, a Maryknoll priest. The Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers is the mission society of the U.S. Catholic Church.

Father d'Escoto, 81, was ordained a Roman Catholic priest on June 10, 1961. He helped found Orbis Books, the theological publication division of Maryknoll, and he was an official with the World Council of Churches. During the 1970s, Father d'Escoto became engaged in politics in Nicaragua. He joined the Sandinista National Liberation Front, a political party that overthrew Anastasio Somoza Debayle and established a revolutionary government.

For his political actions, involvement in the Sandinista government and failing to resign from a political office (Nicaragua foreign minister) held in violation of his ministry, Father d'Escoto was suspended from his priestly duties by the Vatican.

In the notification from the Vatican dated August 1, 2014, "The Holy Father has given His benevolent assent that Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann be absolved from the canonical censure inflicted upon him, and entrusts him to the Superior General of the Institute [Maryknoll] for the purpose of accompanying him in the process of reintegration into the Ministerial Priesthood."

The lifting of the suspension allows Father d'Escoto to resume his priestly duties.

Father d'Escoto has remained a member of the Maryknoll Society with residence in Nicaragua. From September 2008 until September 2009, he presided over the 63rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly as its president. (Vatican Lifts Suspension on US Missionary Priest.) 

This completely sanitized piece of propaganda, issued by the Maryknolls themselves twenty-five months ago now, overlooked Father Miguel d'Escoto Brockman's bloody participation in the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua, his active support and reliance for financial and military assistance from the mass murdering Fidel Castro and his more recent career as an official at the pro-abortion, pro-perversity World Council of Churches and his praise for supporters of abortion and perversity while he was the President of the United Nations General Assembly from 2008 to 2009. Miguel d'Escoto Brockman is unrepentant in his support of the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs.

What does this matter to Jorge the Red?

Nothing. He supports the Sandinistas and sees in them misunderstood instruments of “social justice.” Bergoglio is thus quick to consider Catholics who oppose Daniel Ortega’s regime as the sources of national division because they have not accommodated themselves to their “enlightened” persecutors.

Too harsh?

Too rash?

Consider how Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been deaf, dumb, and blind concerning the arrest of “Cardinal” Zen in Hong Kong for his criticism of the Chinese Communist Party’s takeover of what is thought to be the Catholic Church in Red China and Hong Kong.

The May 11, 2022, arrest of Joseph “Cardinal” Zen, by the Communist authorities in Hong Kong, was made possible, of course, by all the history summarized just above, and particularly by Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s 2018 and 2020.  The conciliar Vatican’s rather indifferent response to Father Zen’s arrest explains all that one needs to know between how our true popes responded to the arrest of Catholic clergy and how the conciliar authorities have coddled Communist dictatorial regimes even they do so:

Cardinal Pietro Parolin has said that he is “very sorry” about Cardinal Joseph Zen’s arrest earlier this week and hopes it will not complicate the Holy See’s dialogue with China.

“I would like to express my closeness to the cardinal who was freed and treated well,” Cardinal Parolin said on May 12, according to Vatican News, the Holy See’s online news portal.

The Vatican secretary of state, a key architect of the Holy See’s provisional agreement with Chinese authorities on the appointment of bishops, added that Cardinal Zen’s arrest in Hong Kong should not be read as “a disavowal” of the agreement with Beijing, which is up for renewal this fall.

Cardinal Parolin told journalists that his “most concrete hope is that initiatives like this cannot complicate the already complex and not simple path of dialogue between the Holy See and the Church in China.”

Archbishop Paul Gallagher, the Vatican’s secretary for relations with states, said in an interview on the same day with an Italian television program, Tg2 Post, that the Vatican’s dialogue with Chinese Communist Party officials was “not always easy,” and “the desired results” have not always been seen. (Vatican Secretary of State “Very Sorry” About Cardinal Zen Arrest, Hopes It will Not Complicate Vatican=Red China Dialogue.)

Pietro Parolin “worries” about the effect of “Cardinal” Zen’s arrest even we know already how has Xi Jinping and his band of murderous thugs responded to initial conciliar Vatican-Red Chinese agreement in 2018 when it was renewed in 2020:

CHINA, November 26, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – The refugee, Catholic journalist, Dalù, has detailed the torture of Catholic priests by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), only days after a bishop was ordained by the CCP approved church.

Dalù, a pseudonym, is the journalist and radio show host who made public the Tiananmen Square massacre. Dalù was subsequently fired and fled to Italy, with his life spared only as a result of his public status. 

He posted a video, in which he described the torture inflicted on a priest called Fr. Liu Maochun: “As a form of intimidation and even torture, Chinese Police often bang a gong close to the ears and shine bright lights into the eyes, and do so consistently for several days. This method of torture is called ‘exhausting an eagle’.” 

Dalù continued: “Through that technique, Father Liu Maochun of Mindong Diocese was deprived of sleep, he was kidnaped, tortured and repeatedly punished for his refusal to join the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. The brutality and sheer wickedness of the Chinese Communist Party is beyond comprehension.”

Fr. Liu is part of the underground Catholic Church, and as such is not recognised by the Chinese state, or the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association (CPCA). He was visiting his parents in hospital on September 1, when he was arrested and put “in the hands of the Religious Affairs Bureau for 17 days.”

Speaking to religious liberty magazine, Bitter Winter, a source from Mindong Diocese said, “The government claimed that Fr. Liu Maochun has disobeyed its rule and was ‘ideologically radical’.”

Bitter Winter confirmed that Fr. Liu has been persistently persecuted by the CCP, with the authorities even taking to pressuring his relatives. The source mentioned “Fr. Liu Maochun is Bishop Guo’s assistant. The regime arrests and wants to control those priests close to him who also refuse to join the CPCA.”

The magazine also said that Fr. Liu’s arrest and torture were part of an investigation to discover the leak regarding the torture of Fr. Huang, another priest of the diocese who refused to join the CPCA.

Fr. Liu is one of a number of 20 priests in the diocese who have “refused to join the state-approved Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association” and are thus “viewed as national security threats.” These priests are deemed to be “ ‘illegal’ and a ‘subversion of the state’.”

The bishop of Mindong diocese, Msgr. Vincenzo Guo Xijin, is one of the “victims” of the Vatican-China deal, as the diocese has been used as a “pilot project” for the implementation of the agreement. Bishop Guo was asked by Pope Francis to step down in favor of the CPCA approved bishop. 

Just days ago, the CPCA announced the ordination of a new bishop in Qingdao, Bishop Thomas Chen Tianhao, who “had previously served as the president of the Patriotic Association of Qingdao in Shandong Province in 1998 and as a National Patriotic Association Standing Committee member since 2010.”

Asia News reports that Chen “is considered very obedient to the government’s religious policy.” Only last year, Chen led a committee to “study the spirit” of President Xi Jinping’s speech, celebrating the United Front Work Department.

Just a few weeks ago, the Vatican renewed its deal with China. The deal allegedly recognizes the state-approved church and allows the Chinese Communist Party to appoint the bishops. The Pope apparently maintains a veto power although in practice it is the CCP who have control. 

It also allegedly allows for the removal of legitimate bishops to be replaced by CCP approved bishops. The actual precise terms of the deal, however, remain a closely guarded secret.

Cardinal Zen, the emeritus bishop of Hong Kong, said that through the deal “the Vatican is selling out the Catholic Church in China.” He also described it as “the murder of the Church in China by those who should protect and defend her from her enemies.” (Renowned Journalist Reveals CCP Tortunre of Catholic Priest As Chinese State Appoints a New “Bishop.”)

So much for a “happy” reconciliation.

All the evidence of the Holy See's actions in the past twenty-two years since death of the Bishop of Shanghai at the time of his arrest and show trial in 1956, the Most Reverend Ignatius Kung, has pointed to the betrayal that has been decried for over four years now by “Cardinal” Zen.

Pietro Parolin was simply “very sorry” for the arrest of “Cardinal” Zen but worried that it might “complicate” the conciliar Vatican’s relations with the Chicom monsters, who have as about as much respect for “agreements,” secret and otherwise, as they have for the lives and property of anyone within their country who dissents from the Red Chinse party line. 

Parolin, of course, is the engineer of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own “Ostpolitik,” and he has been completely mute as underground Catholics have been rounded up, arrested, and tortured even after news of the “secret agreements” was announced in September of 2018. This hideous appeaser of all things Communist has said not one word as crucifixes and statues of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Blessed Mother have been removed by Chicom authorities and replaced with images of the current Red Chinese tyrant, Xi Jinping, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who said that “about the past we did not speak” when he met with Fidel Castro in 2015, has remained completely silent about “Cardinal” Zen’s arrest even though he always had a word or two to say about former President Donald John Trump’s immigration policies and worries openly about “sustainable development goals,” rainforests, “global climate warming.”

Pietro Parolin has nothing to "worry about" as his weasel words and Jorge Mario Bergoglio's silence about the arrest of Joseph "Cardinal" Zen will do nothing but embolden and empower the murderous, anti-Theistic Chicom monsters all the more as Zen's arrest was, if you will, a probe to see how far they could go with "Pope Francis" before he pushed back against them. They now know that they can do anything they want, including quite possibly, the execution of a "traitorous" clergymen without Jorge Mario Bergoglio saying a word of condemnation. (For further reading, see  Bergoglio the Red Surrenders Faithful Catholics to Their Persecutors, Of, For and By the Cause of Wickedness in the Name of "Love", Neville Bergoglio's Appeasement of the Chicom Monsters.)

How can anyone believe this wretched man, who believes not in the Catholic Faith, can be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter?

"Pope Francis” is thus equally indifferent to Daniel Ortega’s well documented war against the Catholic Faith in Nicaragua:

The Catholic Church is under increasing assault in Nicaragua by its president/dictator, Daniel Ortega, and his radical socialist regime, according to numerous media reports. 

“The Catholic Church has been a common target of contempt and accusations of undermining the leftist regime,” reported the Heritage Foundation in an Aug. 8 commentary, “Christianity under Siege in Nicaragua.”

According to the commentary, Daniel Ortega has long been openly hostile to the Church and has increasingly persecuted Catholics, calling bishops “terrorists” and “devils in cassocks.”

The Catholic Church in Nicaragua has experienced more than 190 attacks since 2018, attacks ranging from exile of important priests and clergy, to arson, and government paramilitary attacks.

Further, 18 Catholic nuns who were Missionaries of Charity were recently “stripped of their legal status” in June and escorted by police into exile in Costa Rica. The nuns were accused of “political subversion and supporting terrorism,” and exiled for their “crimes.” 

Attorney Martha Patricia Molina Montenegro addressed this hostility towards Catholics in a report by the Pro-Transparency and Anti-Corruption Observatory, stating that the regime under Ortega has “initiated an indiscriminate persecution against bishops, priests, seminarians, religious, lay groups and toward everything that has a direct or indirect relationship with the Catholic Church.”

Ortega, a long-time Marxist radical, labeled the Church, which 60% of Nicaraguans belong to, as “committed to the coup-mongers [and] part of the coup-mongers’ plan,” according to the Heritage Foundation.

Nicaraguan Bishop Rolando Jose Alvarez has been held by the government in a church in Matagalpa since August 4, along with six other priests and six lay Catholics. Bishop Alvarez has frequently spoken out against the Sandinista regime and was detained for allegedly trying to “organize violent groups” in hopes of destabilizing the government. 

Nicaraguan police accused Catholic Church leaders in a press release, and particularly Bishop Alvarez, of “using the communications media and social media” to “organize violent groups, inciting them to carry out acts of hatred against the population, creating an atmosphere of anxiety and disorder, disturbing the peace and harmony of the community.”

The press release also said the clergy and lay people seek to destabilize Nicaragua and attack “the constitutional authorities.”

“The road outside our clergy house is closed off by the national police,” Bishop Alvarez said, “And the main gate, as well as the garage, are also blocked by the riot police. However, even in this situation, we maintain our joy, our strength and our inner peace.”

Catholic leader and well-known critic of the regime, Monsignor Silvio Baez, was forced to flee  Nicaragua in 2019 when the U.S. Embassy warned him of plans to assassinate him. The Monsignor had previously been stabbed, beaten, and threatened repeatedly for his criticism of the regime.

Ortega’s government also expelled Monsignor Waldemar Stanislaw Sommertag, the pope’s representative in Nicaragua, in March of this year.  Further hostilities towards the Church under the Ortega regime include the closing of eight Catholic radio stations on August 1 of this year.

According to the Heritage Foundation, the Trump administration spoke out against this rampant “persecution of Christians, with then-Vice President Mike Pence calling out Ortega and Venezuelan Dictator Nicolas Maduro on their violations of religious liberty and freedom of speech.”

The U.S. State Department, European Union, and the Bishops of the Latin American and Caribbean Episcopal Council (CELAM) have all condemned these persecutions.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection estimated that at least 170,000 Nicaraguans have fled to America since 2021 because of the repression under Ortega.

At this moment Ortega “continues to target the Catholic Church and its believers in a quest to purge all dissent,” said the Heritage Foundation.

Pope Francis has yet to comment on th increasingly hostile situation in Nicaragua, and news outlets are calling his silence to an open war on the Church “scandalous.”

Agustin Antonetti, director of Latin America Watch, said, “Pope Francis’ silence on what’s going on in Nicaragua is scandalous. Daniel Ortega’s dictatorship is taking the churches by force, they have shut down all their channels and radios, even one priest is in jail, and the rest are afraid of being kidnapped.”

Writer Sergio Ramirez also spoke out about the Pope’s silence in an interview stating,

“Pope Francis has kept a silence that is heard around the world about the situation in Nicaragua. It would be advisable for all the Catholic faithful of Nicaragua, who are half the population, to listen to what the Pope has to say about this barbarism that has been happening since 2018 and that continues to happen now with the arrest of so many people, with the unstoppable growth of political prisoners.” (Nicaragua’s Marxist Dictator Cracks Down on Catholics.)

The Nicaraguan national police said that the kidnapping of Bishop Rolando Álvarez of Matagalpa, this morning was carried out to "recover normality for the residents and families of Matagalpa."

In a statement released this morning, the police, who serve the regime of President Daniel Ortega, justified their break-in just after 3 a.m. at the bishop’s residence in Matagalpa, saying the bishop would have continued with "destabilizing and provocative activities.”

Since Aug. 4, Álvarez and a group of priests, seminarians, and lay people have been prevented by the police from leaving the house and communicating with the outside world. The police insisted that they had “for several days waited with great patience, prudence, and a sense of responsibility for a communication positive from the Bishopric of Matagalpa, which never came to pass.”

According to the police statement, the bishop of Matagalpa and the other eight people who remained with him inside the bishop’s residence "were transferred, with respect and observance of their rights,” to Managua for legal inquiries.

The bishop “remains in house protection (sic) in this capital city and has been able to meet with his relatives this morning," the statement said.

The Nicaragua police also said that the Archbishop of Managua and vice president of the Nicaraguan Bishops Conference, Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes, visited Álvarez this morning "and both have talked extensively."

According to the police, the Matagalpa vicar, Monsignor Oscar Escoto, remains in the bishop’s residence "without any police or mobility restrictions."

The Archdiocese of Managua has not yet issued an official statement on the meeting between Brenes and Álvarez.

The Ortega dictatorship “is capable of anything”

In statements to ACI Prensa, Nicaraguan lawyer Martha Patricia Molina Montenegro, a member of the Pro-Transparency and Anti-Corruption Observatory, said that the Ortega dictatorship "is capable of anything" and "will always generate as much damage as possible.”

The jurist underscored the arbitrariness of the National Police's incursion into the episcopal house of Matagalpa, pointing out that it violates the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure, which establish limitations on house arrest and home invasion. Ordinarily, it can only be done “between six in the morning and six in the evening,” according to Montenegro. 

She also stressed that the bishop, priests, seminarians, and lay people who were surrounded by the police since Aug. 4 "spent 15 days kidnapped, not detained."

"The police are acting like a criminal group that does not submit to the rule of law and once again it makes clear that Nicaragua is a dictatorship where they proceed according to the whim and state of mind of President Daniel Ortega and his consort," she said. Ortega’s wife, Rosario Murillo, has held the position of Vice President of Nicaragua, since January 2017.

The lawyer explained to ACI Prensa that "the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship proceeds arbitrarily because it knows that if it uses legal channels it would not have any legal basis, because all the crimes that are attributed to innocent citizens are false."

"Ortega fears no one"

Montenegro, the author of a report that indicates more than 190 attacks have occurred against the Catholic Church since 2018 under the shadow of the Ortega dictatorship, pointed out that "Ortega fears no one."

“This has been demonstrated by escalating the intensity of the repression,” she said. 

The jurist recalled that the Ortega dictatorship "has ordered the assassination of more than 350 Nicaraguans," referring to those killed to repress the peaceful protests of 2018, and noted that the regime has "sent into exile more than 200,000" in addition to taking “190 political prisoners.”

In the last week, the regime closed all media outlets, prompting international backlash. Montenegro voiced her skepticism about the backlash, however, noting that though the international community condemns Ortega, “they continue to finance him by granting him millionaire loans, which are used to repress and not to invest in social works.”

"The victory will be given by the Lord"

Still, Montenegro has reason to hope while events unfold.

"I can assure you that this arbitrariness and attacks on the Church have united us more as Christians," she said, noting that "yesterday we were more than 3,500 families praying the Holy Rosary in the company of Bishop Rolando, through social media and thousands more who connected from other places.”

"We are strengthened with that peace and tranquility that only the Holy Spirit provides," she continued.

“There is no human power that can put an end to this nefarious and criminal dictatorship. Victory will be given by the Lord.” 

The last post on the bishop's Twitter account, shortly before he was kidnapped by the National Police, recalled the Gospel: "Let us worry about wearing festive garments in the Kingdom of God."

(Police put Nicaraguan bishop under house arrest again, send priests and seminarians to jail.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s passive indifference did not escape the notice of the members of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” here in the United States of America at a time when the politicized agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) were ignoring attacks waged by pro-baby-killing terrorists upon Catholic churches, statues, and shrines as well as crisis pregnancy counseling centers after the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization, June 24, 2022. A time may come when one of Ortega’s admirers in this country will come to power, and being assured of the silent acquiescence of Bergoglio or one of his successors, will launch a like state-sponsored persecution here that will make Ortega’s seem like so much child’s play. Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s indifference as Catholics suffered at the hands of his Marxist friends was yet another correlative proof that he was an Antipope, a man who does exactly what the opposite of what true popes have done when either they and/or their bishops and ordinary Catholics were being persecuted by the brute force of the civil state.

As noted in a commentary several times on this website, Pope Pius XII reacted with indignation after the arrest and trial of the Primate of Hungary, Joseph Cardinal Mindszenty by the Communist authorities there:

Venerable Brethren, we have convoked this extraordinary consistory today in order to unfold to you our soul, which is crushed with most bitter grief. You will readily understand the reason of our sorrow: it concerns a most serious outrage which inflicts a deep wound not only on your distinguished colleague and on the church, but also on every upholder of the dignity and liberty of man. As soon as ever we knew that our beloved son, Joseph Cardinal Midszenty, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Archbishop of Estergrom, was cast into prison due to religion we sent a loving message to the Hungarian hierarchy in which we publicly and solemnly protest, our duty demanded, against the injury done to the church.

At present, when things have come to such a pass that this most worthy prelate has been reduced to supreme indignity and condemned like a criminal to life imprisonment, we cannot but repeat this solemn protest in your presence. We are prompted to do this primarily on behalf of the moral rights of religion which this valiant prelate tirelessly propounded and defended so strenuously and courageously. Besides, unanimous consensus of free peoples, expressed in speech and writings even by leaders of nations and by those who do not belong to the Catholic Church has been given the fullest light of publicity.

But, as you are aware, the full light of publicity did not shine over the trial of this prelate who deserved so well of all, in defending the religion of his ancestors and in the restoration of Christian morals. In fact, from the beginning the news that arrived caused alarm. People outside Hungary who asked permission to be present at the trial were refused permission if they seemed likely to judge impartiality or to give a sincere report: This led them to believe, and all upright and honest men as well, that those who were conducting the trial in Budapest seemed to be afraid to allow all to see what was taking place.

Justice, which is worthy of the name, does not begin with prejudices and is not based on a decision previously taken, but it gladly admits of free discussion and gives everyone due facility for thinking, believing and speaking.

But although the facts have set not been reliably made known, or reported clearly and completely, we cannot omit mentioning the judgment which all civilized people have passed on this trial. Referring particularly to the speed with which it was conducted; thus suggesting a ready reason for suspicion; of accusations captiously and deceitfully contrived; and to the physical condition of the Cardinal, which is indeed inexplicable except as a result of a secret influence which may not be publicly revealed, to prove this there is the fact which suddenly made of a man, until then exceptionally energetic by nature and by way of life, a feeble being and of vacillating mind, so that his behavior appeared, an accusation not against himself but against his very accusers and condemners.

In all this matter one thing alone stands out clearly: The principal object of the trial was to disrupt the Catholic Church in Hungary and precisely for the purpose set forth in sacred scripture: “I shall strike the shepherd and the sheep of the flock shall be dispersed (Matt. XXVI, 31.)

While this sorrow in our heart we deplore this very sad event and entrust it in a sense to public opinion and the tribunal of history for the final judgment, we are doing what the outraged rights of the church and the dignity of the human person demand.

We deem it especially our duty to brand as completely false the assertion made in the course of the trial that the whole question at issue was that this Apostolic See, in furtherance of a plan for political domination of nations, gave instructions to oppose the Republic of Hungary and its rulers: thus all responsibility would fall on the same Apostolic See.

Everybody knows that the Catholic Church does not act through worldly motives, and that she accepts any and every form of civil government provided it not be inconsistent with divine and human rights. But when it does contradict these rights, Bishops and the faithful themselves are bound, by their own conscience to resist unjust laws.

In the midst of this grievous anguish, however, venerable brethren, the “Father of Mercies” (cf. II. Cor 1, 3) has not left us without consolations from above which have served to mitigate our sorrow. It is consoling above all to witness the tenacious faith of the Catholics of Hungary who are doing all they can, though faced with serious obstacles and difficulties, to defend their age-old religion and to keep alive and fresh the glorious tradition of their ancestors. Solace comes to us from the unflinching confidence we cherish in our paternal heart that the Hungarian episcopate, acting in complete harmony of principle of practice, will labor with every resource at their command to strengthen the unity of the faithful and buoy them up  with that hope which can neither be extinguished nor dimmed by sad or unjust happenings of this life, because it has its source in heaven, and is fed by a grace divine.

From you, venerable brethren, similar heavenly solace has come to us. For we have seen you gathered close about us in this crisis, to share our sorrow and unite your prayers to ours. We have been heartened likewise by the other Cardinals, Archbishops and Bishops of whole Catholic world, who along with their clergy and people have express by fervid letter and telegrams their reprobation for the outrage offered to the church, and promised us their public and private prayers.

We earnestly desire that these prayers should continue to rise before the throne of God. For as often as the church is tossed by such tempests as cannot be quelled by human means, one must  appeal with confidence to the Divine Redeemer, who alone can calm the swelling waves and restore them to peace and tranquility. Through the most powerful intercession of the Virgin Mother of God, let us all pray fervently that those who suffer persecution, imprisonment and hardship, may be consoled with the necessary help of divine grace and fortified with the strength of Christian virtue; that those who rashly dare to trample upon the liberty of the church and the rights of human conscience, may at length understand that no civil society can endure when religion has been suppressed and God, as it were, driven into exile. It is only the sacred principles of religion that can moderated within the limits of reason the duties and the rights of citizens, can consolidate the foundations of the state, and make men’s lives conform to the salutary norms and morality, restoring them to order and virtue.

The words of the greatest Roman orator: “High priests, you defend the city more securely by religion than by its surrounding walls” (De Nat Deor. III, 40), when applied to Christian precepts and faith is infinitely more true and certain. Let all those into whose hands public government has been entrusted, recognize this truth and let due liberty be everywhere restored to the church that untrammeled she may be able to enlighten the minds of men with her salutary doctrine. Rightly instruct youth and lead them to virtue, restore to families their sacred character, and permeate with her influence the whole life of men. Civil society has nothing to fear from this activity but rather will reap the greatest advantages. It is then, venerable brethren, that social questions will be solved with justice and equity; the conditions of the poor will be ameliorated, as is just, and they will be restored to a state befitting the dignity of man; fraternal charity will bring peace to men’s minds and better days and better days as we fondly hope and pray, will happily ensue for all peoples and races.

These are the words we wished to speak in this illustrious assembly to you who are so closely associated with us in the government of the universal church and assist us with your zeal, your prudence and your wisdom. (Pope Pius XII, Allocution on the Cardinal Mindszenty, as found at: New York Times, February 15, 1949.)

This is not, of course, how Jorge Mario Bergoglio speaks when Catholics, including his own “bishops,” are under siege by Communist dictators and their Marxists fellow travelers in so-called Western “democracies.”

Our true popes have risen to the defense of the persecuted and the first thirty-three of their number suffered martyrdom after being persecuted by various Roman emperors and own their minions. Noting a few exceptions here and there, most notably Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s admonitions against the Polish Communist dictators and Sandinista Marxist mass murderous, the conciliar “popes” have refused to speak out against Communist attacks on Catholics, and that includes Wojtyla/John Paul II’s initial steps to sell out faithful Catholics in Red China that started in 1988.

IX. Unremitting Warfare Against Traditionally-Minded Catholics, Clergy and Laity, Within the Conciliar Structures

Well, similarly, the unabashed leftist named Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it a point to target, isolate, and remove his high-profile critics within the counterfeit church of conciliarism that he has headed since Wednesday, March 13, 2013. Staring with the “apostolic visitation” he order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate in 2013, and the Rogelio Livieres of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay in 2014, the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has engaged in a veritable reign of terror against “conservative” or “traditionally-minded” “bishops” that completely parallels his compatriots in the secular realm and, moreover, has become more nakedly bold and undisguised in recent years ever since he revoked Summorum Pontificum with Traditiones Custodes on July 16, 2021, the Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

The very man who waxes about “collegiality,” “synodality,” “participation,” and upon “listening to the “voice of the people” is the very same man who condemns as “ideological,” “closed-minded,” “self-referential,” and “hard-hearted” those who adhere to as much of the Catholic Faith as a corrupted (by the “Second” Vatican Council, attacks upon the nature of dogmatic truth, false ecumenism/inter-religious “prayer” services, the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Chiurch, and the 1983 conciliar code of canon law) sensus Catholicus informs them, and he is ever ready to act against these recusant Catholics, whether clerical or lay, at a moment’s notice without so much as consulting them personally in the manner he consults with practicing sodomites, mutants, and other practitioners of indecency, scurrility, blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, and outright sacrilege.

Thus, like the Joseph Robinette Bidens of the world, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a consummate hypocrite who panders to hardened sinners without any desires at all to exhort them to quit their lives of perdition. This is eminently reasonable when one considers the fact that his own heart is hardened against authentic Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals. He has indemnified Talmudists, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants of all stripes (Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Evangelicals, “Mega Church” and “Gospel of Prosperity” adherents, freelancing Protestants of one sort or another), atheists, rationalists, pro-aborts, pro-sodomites, Communists, especially the Red Chinese, and globalist organizations such the Soros Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and the World Health Organization. He has spared nothing in his endless criticism of “conservatives” in public life and has denigrated his gratuitous rhetoric about abortion by personally indemnifying the likes of Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi immediately the putative archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, barred her from the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service.

Once again, despite crying crocodile tears about clerical abusers, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has provided protection time and time again to his fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries who have been guilty of grave moral crimes involving rank perversity even what are acts of attempted sacrilege in the context of what purports to be true offerings of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, perhaps none so notorious as “Father” Marko Ivan Rupnik, S.J., whose notorious behavior with deeply satanic overtones was documented in an article on LifeSite News to which I choose not to link as it contained graphically disturbing details of sick and behavior from a man who believes himself to be a priest. It is only because of outcries of how Marko Ivan Rupnik got himself incardinated in a Slovenian diocese after being expelled by the Society of Jesus that “Pope Francis” decided to waive a statute of limitations that had been used as the pretext for not proceeding with ecclesiastic charges against him (see The Rupnik Case: How is this still happening?).

Unless the incredulous author at The Catholic Thing, however, we know that Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s impulse is to indemnify sodomite clerics and to make it a point to endorse sodomite-friendly clerics such as “Father” James Martin, S.J, the leaders of New Ways Ministry and Dignity USA, and to authorize his hand-picked prefect of the recently renamed “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith,” Victor Manuel Fernandez, to permit mutants (“transgendered”) to serve as Baptismal Godparents and to be baptized themselves (see Trans persons can be baptized as Catholics, serve as godparents).

When it comes to those nasty “conservatives” who want to “cage” what Bergoglio calls “the spirit” (there are all kinds of spirits; not all of them are holy), however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is ever eager to lower the boom, which is what he did when personally removing “Bishop” Joseph Strickland as the conciliar “bishop” of Tyler, Texas, on Saturday, November 11, 2023, after Strickland, who was subject to one of those infamous “apostolic visitations” headed by Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries, one of whom, Gerald Kicanas, the retired “bishop” of Tucson, Arizona, protected sodomite clerical abusers. The backstory about the cast of clerical thugs involved in the Strickland investigation was chronicled very concisely in the following article found on a sedeplenist website:

On Saturday, November 11, Bishop Joseph Strickland was formally removed from the pastoral governance of the diocese of Tyler, Texas. The lawless process employed to remove him from office resembled a script from a gangster film.

The Players

The story began with an apostolic visitation ordered by the new prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, Archbishop Robert Prevost. Prevost, a Chicago native, served as a missionary in Peru. On September 26, 2015, Pope Francis appointed him bishop of Chiclayo (Northern Peru.) On November 21, 2020, Francis appointed Prevost as a member of the Congregation for the Bishops upon the recommendation of Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago.

The visitation was conducted by Bishop Dennis Sullivan of Camden and Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson in June of this year.

Bishop Sullivan gained national attention in 2014 when his diocese purchased a The New Jersey diocese purchased a 7,000 square foot mansion with eight bedrooms and six bathrooms. In 2020, Sullivan’s diocese filed for bankruptcy protection as a result of sexual abuse claims and later agreed to an $87 million payout in 2022.

Bishop Kicanas of Tuscon was formerly an appointed an auxiliary bishop in Chicago under Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Kicanas was head of Catholic Relief Services in 2012 when they were funding pro-abortion pro-abortion groups. In 2010, Kicanas lost his bid to become president of the USCCB due to his radical position on several issues.

US Papal Nuncio Archbishops Christophe Pierre and Robert Prevost,head of the Dicastery for Bishops, met with Pope Francis in September to discuss the removal of Bishop Strickland. Both men were promoted to be cardinals later that month by Pope Francis.

Christophe Pierre is a French prelate who was named as Apostolic Nuncio to the United States in 2016. Pierre reportedly threatened Bishop Strickland at the USCCB fall meeting in 2021, “wagged his finger” at Strickland while saying “Bishop Strickland, we’re watching you — stop talking about the deposit of faith.” Pierre has also recently come under fire for disparaging comments regarding cassocks and the Traditional Latin Mass.

Pope Francis dropped the hammer on Bishop Strickland on Saturday, November 11, issuing a terse statement on the Vatican’s website announcing Strickland’s removal and the appointment of an apostolic administrator. The Vatican announcement did not provide a reason for the bishop’s removal. Strickland reportedly was not inform of his removal until he read the statement on Saturday morning.

Galveston-Houston Archbishop Cardinal Daniel DiNardo issued a statement later the same day stating that “continuation in office of Bishop Strickland was not feasible.” DiNardo serves as the metropolitan bishop responsible for dealing with governance matters in several Texas dioceses, including Tyler. (Strickland’s Take-Down Looks Like Something Out of a Gangster Movie.)

Leaving aside this article’s acceptance of the nonexistent legitimacy of the conciliar church’s orders and the fact that the conciliar sect is not the Catholic Church, the information provided above is a fairly accurate summary of how “Bishop” Strickland came to be removed, it overlooks the fact that the results of the “apostolic visitation” were as predetermined as were the results of the 2014 and 2015 “synods” that produced Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, and as the results of the 2023 “synod,” which will be continued in 2024, has already resulted in calls for “changes” at odds with what Christophe Pierre warned Strickland not to discuss, the Sacred Deposit of Faith. No investigation of any religious community or conservative/traditional “bishop” within the conciliar structures is intellectually honest. Each has a predetermined result: the removal and demonization of men who are opposed to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s agenda to bring conciliarism to his logical conclusion: its “evolution” into being but a quasi-religious subsidiary of the Judeo-Masonic New World Order, which is why Senor Jorge enforced lockdowns upon the Catholic churches in conciliar captivity in Italy, endorsed and required anyone traveling with him on the antipapal plane to be fully vaccinated with the killer poisons, and has served as the waterboy for Klaus Schwab and George Soros, especially by means of supporting the 2030 “sustainable development goals” and serving as a clerical cheerleader for the transhumanist pantheism that is part and parcel of the “climate change” junk science (see Otto von Bergoglio’s Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part one, Otto von Bergoglio's Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, part two, Otto von Bergoglio’s Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part three, and Otto von Bergoglio's Kulturkampf (or Jorge Mario Zedong's Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution), part four).

One of the “apostolic visitators, Gerald Kicanas, protected a known homosexual clerical predator, “Father” Daniel McCormack, when he, Kicanas, was an auxiliary “bishop” under the sodomite named Joseph Bernardin:

The documents name several Catholic leaders who were aware of the allegations against accused priests, and chose to not report it to authorities.

Among many others, Tucson Diocese Bishop Gerald Kicanas was one of the leaders in the Chicago Diocese at the time of these allegations.

The new information comes to light after the archdiocese handed the documents over to victims' attorneys, who said they wanted to show how the archdiocese concealed abuse for decades, including moving priests to new parishes where they molested again.

The records date back to the 1980's and 1990's, a time when Kicanas was a leader in a Chicago seminary that was home to some of the accused priests.

Tucson News Now attempted to talk to Bishop Kicanas at the diocese office, but we were told that unless we kept the case of convicted priest Daniel McCormack out of our story, the Bishop would not grant our request for an interview.

A diocese spokeswoman said the Bishop was under court order not to discuss specifics in that case.  We agreed not to ask questions about that particular case, but were told the Bishop would not interview with us unless we kept that case completely out of our story tonight.

The Bishop said it was unfair of us to mention the details, when he could not comment.  Former priest Daniel McCormack was charged and convicted of child abuse involving several young boys.  He was sentenced to five years in prison, all to be served concurrently.

In the 6,000 pages of investigative reports and court documents, Bishop Kicanas is mentioned in at least two cases: They involved Father Daniel McCormack and Father Russ Romano.

Lawyers say Bishop Kicanas was one of many Catholic Church leaders involved in a massive cover-up related to the priest sex-abuse cases.

In the Father McCormack case, court documents state Bishop Kicanas was aware of the allegations against McCormack but still supported his ordination to become a priest.  In an interview with the Sun-Times in 2007, Kicanas is quoted as saying, "It would have been grossly unfair not to have ordained him. There was a sense that his activity was part of the developmental process and that he had learned from his experience.  I was more concerned about his drinking.  We sent him to counseling for that." (Documents released: Bishop Kicanas named in priest sex scandal cover up.)

“Bishop” Joseph Strickland’s most grievous “crime” in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s eyes was that he adamantly opposed to the admission of homosexuals and the effeminate into the conciliar clergy and was opposed to the ever-evolving and ceaselessly mutating agenda of the alphabet soup collected of people who are not only to content to practice sodomy and its related vices but who demand that everyone accept and celebrate their “lifestyle” lest they singe their tender feelings and cause them even a moment of something approaching a qualm of conscience, thus replicating what Saint Paul the Apostle saw and condemned in pagan Rome and described as follows in his Epistle to the Romans:

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. (Romans 1: 18-32.)

Many there are within the “hierarchy” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are “filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, and whisperers who are truly hateful of God, “proud, haughty, inventors of evil inventions” and completely without mercy.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio boasts of being so very “tolerant” and “merciful,” but he seethes with livid anger against men such as Joseph Strickland who think that they are defending the Catholic Faith even though they themselves have endorsed dogmatic evolutionism wrapped up and relabeled in the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “hermeneutic of continuity,” are full-throated supporters of “religious liberty,” believe that Protestant “ministers” have a “mission” from Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Christ to serve and to sanctity souls, have practiced false ecumenism, and have helped to propagate explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in violation of Pope Pius XI’s explicit prohibition of such instruction as contained in Divine Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, while seeking to hold as “orthodox” the conciliar church’s inversion of the ends proper to Holy Matrimony.

No matter all this, though, Jorge Mario Bergoglio wants every one of his “bishops” to support what he supports, namely, welcoming unrepentant sinners who are steeped in lives of an unapologetic perversity and proving them with access to what purports to be Holy Communion without going to confession and to “bless” that “stable, loving” relationships if the occasion arises for them to do so. The real reason why “Pope Francis” sacked “Bishop Strickland” is the latter’s outspokenness against sodomy, including his trip to Los Angeles, California, to denounce the Los Angeles Dodgers’ presentation of a “community service” award to the blasphemous “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence."

Related to this is Non-Papa Jorge's hatred of even the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that was in place universally for precisely four years before it was supplanted by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI's Ordo Missae, which went into effect on the First Sunday of Advent, November 29, 1964, because the Mass of all ages contains references to God's Divine Judgment on sinners, the need to make reparation for our sins, and the possibility of eternal damnation. Such references in the "Eucharistic celebration" are considered to be too "judgmental" and contrary to the "spirit of times," which is reflected in Paragraph Fifteen of the 2002 English translation of the conciliar sect's General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

The same awareness of the present state of the world also influenced the use of texts from very ancient tradition. It seemed that this cherished treasure would not be harmed if some phrases were changed so that the style of language would be more in accord with the language of modern theology and would faithfully reflect the actual state of the Church's discipline. Thus there have been changes of some expressions bearing on the evaluation and use of the good things of the earth and of allusions to a particular form of outward penance belonging to another age in the history of the Church. (Paragraph Fifteen of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal, 2002.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio talks about “collegiality” when it serves his purposes to browbeat the revanchists among his hierarchy and clergy to fall into life within by “smelling the scent of the sheep,” meaning never to call sinners stepped in sins of impurity, whether natural or unnatural, to correction and, failing that, to use his full plenipotentiary powers as a putative Supreme Pontiff to reshape the hierarchy so that they speak una voce dicentes as his vice-regents and emissaries. This is what a true pope should always want to do and the fact that the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have sought to advance teachings that have been condemned by Holy Mother Church’s general councils and/or her true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter should convince men who desire to defend the Faith such as “Bishop” Joseph Strickland, whom we saw once when we lived in Tyler, Texas, ten years ago as he was dining with an elderly couple at Oliveto Restaurant on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary (no, I did not introduce myself as I did not want to interfere as was having his meal with his parishioners), that, despite their best intentions and the apostolic courage that prompts them to act upon those intentions, that none of what has been happening in the past sixty six years, four months, sixteen days has anything to do with the Catholic Faith and everything to do with the rise of a counter church that is Holy Mother Church’s corrupt ape, and this is not  to mention the false pontiff's "excommunication" of Father Carlo Maria Vigano after in July of 2024.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a Stalinist, and he is an unrepenant one at that.

X. Bergoglio Indemnified Pro-Aborts in the United States of America and Around the World

Bergoglio has personally undermined members of his own “hierarchy” such as the conciliar “archbishop” of San Francisco, California, Salvatore Cordileone, who have sought to prohibit pro-abortion, pro-perversity Catholics from receiving what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination. It was scant few weeks after Cordileone banned the then Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi, from communicating within the Archdiocese of San Francisco that Jorge Mario Bergoglio personally invited him to the behind the walls at the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, whereupon he himself gave her what is believed to Holy Communion at a Novus Ordo service just five days after she condemned the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in the case of Thomas E. Dobbs, Mississippi State Health Officer v. Jackson Women’s Organization on June 29, 2022:

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) – Speaker of the House Rep. Nancy Pelosi has reportedly received Holy Communion at a Mass presided over by Pope Francis this morning, despite being banned from receiving Communion by her local ordinary, San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone.

The Democrat leader flew to Rome for a special meeting with Pope Francis, at which she received a blessing, before attending Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica.

According to the teaching of the Catholic Church, Pelosi’s vocal and persistent support for the killing of unborn children precludes the high-profile politician from receiving the Body and Blood of Christ, due to the gravely sinful and scandalous nature of both murder and the sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion.

“[Y]ou are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you [publicly] repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance,” Cordileone wrote to Pelosi in a “notification” last month.

Pope Francis, however, previously expressed opposition to barring pro-abortion politicians from Holy Communion, claiming that priests should accompany such legislators with “compassion and tenderness”.

Joe Biden told reporters last year in Rome that Pope Francis recommended he continue receiving Holy Communion, despite the U.S. president’s long-standing support for killing unborn babies.

Fresh from condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday, Pelosi’s decision to receive Holy Communion on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul at a Mass presided over by Pope Francis represents a significant development in her dissent from Church teaching.

Responding to Archbishop Cordileone’s move to ban her from Holy Communion in May, the 82 year-old Democrat had said she didn’t respect pro-life people “foisting” their views on others.

Today she told diplomats in Rome that “faith is an important gift, not everyone has it but it is the path to so many other things.” (Pelosi receives Holy Communion at Novus Ordo service presided over by Jorge Mario Bergoglio.)

Many of the Argentine Apostate’s “episcopal” appointees here in the United States of America, for example (Blase Cupich, Joseph Tobin, John Stowe, Robert McElroy, et al.) have been indifferent to, if not dismissive of, pro-life Catholic candidates for public office as well as initiatives taken at the state level to try to restore some semblance of protection to the innocent preborn.

This dismissive attitude was held and expressed openly by the disgraced protector of clerical abusers who stood at one point of being accused of such abuse himself, Roger “Cardinal” Mahony, the conciliar “archbishop” of Los Angeles, California, from June 25, 1985, to March 1, 2011, who said the following in 2009 as the ubiquitous shadow president Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” was being debated in the Congress of the United States of America during eight months following Obama’s inauguration of a “presidency” that might (or might not) end on January 20, 2025:

When asked by CNSNews.com whether he agreed with Cardinal Rigali that the bill funds abortion and should be amended to explicitly prohibit abortion funding, Cardinal Mahony said: “This is way beyond my field. My field is immigration. I really haven’t kept up on that, and I spend all my time on this other. You have to get somebody who spends time on that.”

When asked whether he believed abortion should be funded under the health care bill, Cardinal Mahony said: “No, but that’s what the president said, too, so.” (Roger Mahony: Abortion Beyond His Pay Grade; for a review of the truth about Obama's claims concerning abortion funding in ObamaCare, see Richard Doerflinger Re: Summary of Current Amendments; see also part of a transcript of an interview between a member of the United States House of Representatives, Bart Stupach, D-Michigan, with the Fox News Channel last week, Democrat MI Congressman Bart Stupak states that Obama and Pelosi's contention that abortion isn't in healthcare "is just not true.")

Let me reiterate the simple truth that there is no moral equivalency between the absolute right to life of the innocent preborn and the plight of illegal immigrants who have chosen to flaunt the just laws of a sovereign nation. None.

It does, however, tell us a great deal about Roger "Cardinal" Mahony's priorities that he can admit publicly that abortion-funding in ObamaCare's nationalization of the health-care industry is “way beyond my field" and that he hasn't "kept up on that, and I spend all my time" on immigration." All his time? All his time? All his time is given over to the protection of those who have violated just laws that belong to a sovereign nation to make by virtue of the Natural Law while no time is given over to the care and the defense of the most defenseless, those who lives are extinguished every day by chemical and/or surgical means? (Taken from Apostasy Is His Field, September 24, 2009.)

Roger Mahony, who is only three months older than the soon-to-be eighty-eight-year-old Jorge Mario Bergoglio, expressed what his brand of Modernist ilk has always believed by denigrating doctrinal and moral absolutes while elevating issues that do not pertain to the realm of Faith and Morals to the status of “absolutes” from which no Catholic can dissent legitimately, which is one of the reasons that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has such affinity for an actual, honest-to-badness baby killing such as Emma Bonino, whom he has praised repeatedly and upon whom he paid a call at her house following her recent hospitalization:

Pope Francis made a home visit to a former Foreign Minister of Italy and member of the European Parliament, Emma Bonino, who also heads Italy's "Più Europea (More Europe)" political party. The Pope made the stop in central Rome following his visit to the Pontifical Gregorian University where he had met with the institution's academic community on Tuesday morning. Emma Bonino, 76 years old, was recently discharged from the health facility where she was hospitalised for respiratory difficulties. 

Surprise visit

The Pope wished to meet with her in what was a surprise visit. Upon leaving her home, people outisde asked the Pope about his visit and how she was doing as she had been dealing with cancer in the past. The Pope respondend, "very well....she is always cordial."

Previous meetings

Pope Francis and Emma Bonino have met several times in the past, starting back in November 2015 when she participated in the Wednesday General Audience in the Paul VI Hall. Together with Rome's deputy prosecutor, Michele Prestipino, and Maria Rita Parsi, Bonino presented new initiatives in favour of refugee children by the Italian foundation ‘La fabbrica della pace.’

On 8 November 2016, Pope Francis met with her privately at the Apostolic Palace. The Holy See Press Office reported at the time that "the conversation focused above all on the issues of migratory flows, the reception of migrants and their integration in society."

Given Emma Bonino's work in favour of migrants, Pope Francis praised her efforts during an informal meeting also in 2015 at the Casa Santa Marta with the director of Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper, Luciano Fontana. On that occasion, the Pope noted how she has offered great service to Italy by helping the nation get to know Africa. (Pope makes home visit to Italian parliamentarian.)

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Pope Francis made a private visit to notorious Italian abortionist Emma Bonino today after she was recently discharged from hospital following breathing problems.

Late Tuesday morning, Pope Francis made an unannounced visit to Bonino at her residence in Rome. Francis had left the Vatican to be present at the Pontifical Gregorian University for a series of public meetings with the university community earlier in the morning.

Shortly after, his cavalcade made the short drive through the historic center to Bonino’s home. According to La Repubblica – an Italian daily with left-leaning communist origins – Francis told reporters outside that Bonino was “very well,” when asked about her health. Bonino had been hospitalized in intensive care earlier in October after experiencing breathing difficulties.

Francis commented that the visit was a “cordial” one.

Bonino is widely acknowledged as one of the key lobbyists and leading voices who brought about the legalization of abortion in Italy. Notwithstanding this, Francis has repeatedly praised her during his pontificate, most recently saying in 2022 that he has “great respect for her,” though adding he did not “share her ideas.”

Bonino, who has publicly supported Kamala Harris in the 2024 U.S. election, had an illegal abortion when she was 27 years old, and after spending four months abroad evading arrest, returned to Italy where she served a 10-day prison term. Bonino credited her arrest with causing the topic of abortion to take center stage in Italy.

She subsequently became a heroine in the eyes of the left-wing media, and notorious for performing abortions with a homemade device, operated by a bicycle pump. She founded the Information Centre on Sterilization and Abortion (CISA) in 1975, which lobbied to promote abortion in Italy before its legalization in 1978. 

As such, she was described in 2017 as being at least partially responsible for over 6 million abortions since 1978 and has personally boasted that she and her group committed 10,141 illegal abortions. 

Bonino is a career politician, having been a member of the European Parliament. She spent many terms in the Italian Chamber of Deputies and was appointed as Italy’s foreign minister in 2013. 

Francis first praised her in February 2016 in an interview with the Italian daily Corriere Della Serra. He described the notorious abortion advocate as one of the nation’s “forgotten greats,” comparing her with great historical figures such as Konrad Adenauer and Robert Schuman.

Acknowledging her differing views, Francis said, “true, but never mind. We have to look at people, at what they do.”

Some months later in November 2016, Francis then received Bonino in a private audience in her capacity as minister of Foreign Affairs. According to the Holy See Press Office at the time, the meeting was “mostly on the topics of the influx of migrants, of welcoming migrants, and their integration.”

July 2017 saw Bonino speak in a Catholic church in northern Italy, after praise from Pope Francis, while pro-life advocates were ejected from the church due to their protests at her presence.

Yet the history of Pope Francis and Bonino goes further back than 2016. As foreign minister, Bonino, along with President Georgio Napolitano and his key ministers, were granted an audience with Francis on June 8, 2013, only two months after he ascended to the papacy.

In April 2014, Bonino called Pope Francis to help end the hunger strike of Radical Party leader Marco Pannella. The Pope made the call and promised to join Pannella in his bid to better conditions in Italian prisons.

In May 2015, the Vatican Insider reported that Pope Francis personally invited Bonino to an audience in the Paul VI Hall within the Vatican City state.

Indeed, in a now-archived 2018 report in The Guardian, Bonino described a regular and close relationship with Pope Francis, with The Guardian calling Francis an “ally” for Bonino. According to that report, “The two, she says with a grin, are in touch. ‘We have some connections, so we pass messages quite often, through friends.’”

After the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court, Bonino argued that the ruling “makes the USA jump back 50 years.” “The Supreme Court ruling that after 50 years cancels the right to abortion in the USA is a strong reminder also for us, women and men in Italy and in Europe: on rights you can never stand still, if you do not go forward, you risk going back,” she said. (Pope Francis makes personal visit to notorious abortionist Emma Bonino. Please see Appendix C below for a review of what I have written about Bergoglio’s previous words of praise for Emma Bonino.)

Although some defenders of all things Bergoglio might contend that the man they believe is “Pope Francis” just does what Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ did when visiting the homes of public sinners (tax collectors) such as Saint Matthew the Apostle and Zacheus, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe that Emma Bonino is a public sinner. He has said simply that he doesn’t
“agree” with all her “positions.”

Positions?

Emma Bonino is a baby-killer.

This is not a “position.”

This is a matter of unrepentantly defying the Fifth Commandment’ prohibition on the direct, intentional taking of all innocent life without exception, reservation, or qualification.

What does that matter to Jorge Mario Bergoglio?

Nothing.

“Pope Francis” already has been quick with the sharpest possible denunciations and condemnations of President Donald John Trump for deporting illegal immigrants who have committed heinous acts of violence (see Always Ready to Defend Violent Felons, Never Able to Speak the Names of Their Victims).

Moreover, anyone who would dare contend that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been trying to “convert” Emma Bonino would be hard-pressed to find any empirical evidence for such a contention.

Is there any evidence he has tried to convert Emanuel Macron?

Is there any evidence he tried to convert Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi.

Is there any evidence he tried to convert Anthony Fauci?

Is there any evidence he tried to convert Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr?

To quote the grifting pro-abort who turned his years of drinking at the public trough into an industry of influence-peddling to benefit himself and his grifting family members, “Come on, man.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio made it a point to visit Emma Bonino because he admire dthis baby-killer, and he wishes to stress the fact that illegal immigration is more important to him than doing anything other than issuing a few gratuitous statements about abortion now and again.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio would have praised Margaret Sanger one of the “forgotten greats” a century ago, and it is not for nothing that his friend Emma Bonino has been hailed as the “Margaret Sanger of Italy.”

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s visit to Emma Bonino was scandalous.

Then again, everything he does is scandalously offensive to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the temporal and eternal good the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross to redeem.

VI. Each Conciliar “Pope” Has Been A Destroyer of the Catholic Faith

The papacy is the Divinely instituted guarantor of the Catholic Faith, but this Holy Faith has been under attack by each of the conciliar "popes," including Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as they have been destroyers of the “foundations of faith and morals. Pr

As Pope Saint Pius X noted in a 1912 allocution to Italian priests, “"Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope,” meaning one of two things in this instance: either those who dissent from a man they think is a true pope are not holy or, of course, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not the pope.

Indeed, no man destined for what most Catholics believes was a "papacy of restoration" would ever say that it was necesssary to demolish the "bastions" of the Catholic Faith:

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391)

Pope Pius VIII wrote the following about the razing of those bastions in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditii Humiliate Nostrae, May 24, 1829:

We open Our heart with joy to you, venerable brothers, whom God has given to Us as helpers in the conduct of so great an administration. We are pleased to let you know the intimate sentiments of Our will. We also think it helpful to communicate those things from which the Christian cause may benefit. For the duty of Our office is not only to feed, rule, and direct the lambs, namely the Christian people, but also the sheep, that is the clergy.

2. We rejoice and praise Christ, who raised up shepherds for the safekeeping of His flock. These shepherds vigilantly lead their flocks so as not to lose even one of those they have received from the Father. For We know well, venerable brothers, your unshakeable faith, your zeal for religion, your sanctity of life, and your singular prudence. Co-workers such as you make Us happy and confident. This pleasant situation encourages Us when We fear because of the great responsibility of Our office, and it refreshes and strengthens Us when We feel overwhelmed by so many serious concerns. We shall not detain you with a long sermon to remind you what things are required to perform sacred duties well, what the canons prescribe lest anyone depart from vigilance over his flock, and what attention ought to be given in preparing and accepting ministers. Rather We call upon God the Savior that He may protect you with His omnipresent divinity and bless your activities and endeavors with happy success.

3. Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner.[1] All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel.[2] With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."[3]

4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion. They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]

5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated. Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.

6. When this corruption has been abolished, then eradicate those secret societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world. Having cast off the restraints of true religion, they prepare the way for shameful crimes. Indeed, because they concealed their societies, they aroused suspicion of their evil intent. Afterwards this evil intention broke forth, about to assail the sacred and the civil orders. Hence the supreme pontiffs, Our predecessors, Clement XII, Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII,[11] repeatedly condemned with anathema that kind of secret society. Our predecessors condemned them in apostolic letters; We confirm those commands and order that they be observed exactly. In this matter We shall be diligent lest the Church and the state suffer harm from the machinations of such sects. With your help We strenuously take up the mission of destroying the strongholds which the putrid impiety of evil men sets up.

7. We want you to know of another secret society organized not so long ago for the corruption of young people who are taught in the gymnasia and the lycea. Its cunning purpose is to engage evil teachers to lead the students along the paths of Baal by teaching them un-Christian doctrines. The perpetrators know well that the students' minds and morals are molded by the precepts of the teachers. Its influence is already so persuasive that all fear of religion has been lost, all discipline of morals has been abandoned, the sanctity of pure doctrine has been contested, and the rights of the sacred and of the civil powers have been trampled upon. Nor are they ashamed of any disgraceful crime OT error. We can truly say with Leo the Great that for them "Law is prevarication; religion, the devil; sacrifice, disgrace.'[12] Drive these evils from your dioceses. Strive to assign not only learned, but also good men to train our youth. (Pope Pius VIII, Traditii Humiliatae Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)

This was a prophetic description of conciliarism and a condemnation of the “theologies” of both Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

VIII. Each Conciliar “Pope” Has Praised the Protestant Revolution

While it is very easy to criticize Jorge Mario Bergolgio's praise of Protestantism, Catholics cannot permi themselves to be deceived  by the adversary to narrow their focus on Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s outrageous defections from the Holy Faith to such an extent that they seem to be incapable of taking a step back from the revolutionary caricature current presiding as the universal public face of apostasy to consider, if even for a moment, that the whole conciliar enterprise has been and continues to be a revolutionary attack upon everything to do with Catholic Faith, Morals, and Worship.

No one can contend seriously that Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI did not praise Protestantism when each either addressed personally and/or sent correspondence to at the Rockefeller Foundation created and funded anti-life World Council of Churches?

To the Reverend Doctor Philip Potter
General Secretary, World Council of Churches

The World Council of Churches celebrates, during the present session of the Central Committee, the twenty-fifth anniversary of its foundation. It gives us a welcome occasion to offer our congratulations and the assurance of our prayer.

These years have been rich in activities and events, and the present celebration is surely more than a commemoration of past history. The World Council of Churches has been created in order, by the grace of God, to serve the Churches and Ecclesial Communities in their endeavours to restore and to manifest to all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church. We earnestly pray that the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of wisdom, may enlighten and strengthen you and that in the obedience of faith you may make progress towards achieving the one hope which belongs to our call (Cfr. Eph. 4, 4).

On the occasion of our visit to the World Council of Churches in Geneva in 1969, we expressed our deep appreciation for the development of the relations between the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church, two bodies indeed very different in nature, but whose collaboration has proved fruitful (Cfr. AAS 61, 1969, 504). It is our sincere desire that this collaboration may be pursued and intensified, according to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council.

We wish to say a special word of congratulation and encouragement to you, Mr General Secretary, to the members of the Central Committee and to the devoted staff of the World Council of Churches, gathered at this time in Geneva. We would like you to know that we keep you in our prayers and that we follow your work with keen interest and unfailing goodwill.  (Letter to Dr. Philip Potter, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, August 6, 1973, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)

Remember, this was before the days of the internet and instant news. Newscasters in the United States of America were busy covering the events of the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activity, known colloquially as “The Watergate Committee” in the summer of 1973. Most Catholics did not know of Montini’s letter to Philip Potter on the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Lord that year, not that a lot of them would have objected to its text.

However, some of us might, if we had been aware of it, have come to a realization of the enormity of the apostasy that was before us represented by the following words contained in the letter cited just above:

The World Council of Churches has been created in order, by the grace of God, to serve the Churches and Ecclesial Communities in their endeavours to restore and to manifest to all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church. Letter to Dr. Philip Potter, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches, August 6, 1973, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)

Wow.

How can anyone think that this wretched, theologically, liturgically and morally corrupt little Marxist-sympathizer could have been a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter? 

The World Council of Churches has been given the mission by God to “restore and to manifest all that perfect communion in faith and love which is the gift of Christ to his Church”?

Well, this may not have been Bergoglio's "new ecumenical spring," but it is rather closely related.

In other words, the World Council of Churches was the center of “Christian unity” of what Montini believed was the Catholic Church watched as an interesting observer to see how this diabolical organization would fulfill its “mission.”

It was to commemorate the fifteenth anniversary of Montini/Paul VI’s address to the World Council of Churches in 1969 that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II went to the headquarters of the World Council of Churches in John Calvin’s former home base of Geneva, Switzerland, to give an address to a group of “ecumenical leaders” on June 12, 1984. Although there is no English language translation of the future “Saint John Paul the Great’s” address, a contemporary report in The New York Times provided its general theme:

GENEVA, June 12— Pope John Paul II began a six-day tour of Switzerland today and renewed a pledge to strive for unity among all Christian churches.

The Pope made the pledge in a speech at the headquarters of the World Council of Churches here hours after his arrival, saying, “The simple fact of my presence here among you, as Bishop of Rome paying a fraternal visit to the World Council of Churches, is a sign of this will for unity.”

He spoke at a worship service in the chapel of the Protestant council’s Ecumenical Center.

”From the beginning of my ministry as Bishop of Rome,” he said, ”I have insisted that the engagement of the Catholic Church in the ecumenical movement is irreversible and that the search for unity was one of its pastoral priorities.”

Pope’s 22d Foreign Journey

The Pope ‘s visit to Switzerland, his 22d foreign journey since becoming the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, was to have taken place three years ago but was put off by the assassination attempt in which he was wounded in St. Peter’s Square.

”God ordained that this visit could not take place already in the spring of 1981 but only today,” the Pope said in greeting President Leon Schlumpf after he had kissed the ground at Zurich Airport.

The Pope then went to Geneva, where he addressed the World Council of Churches and also visited the European center of the Orthodox Church. There, he assured Metropolitan Damaskinos, the Exarch of Europe, of the Roman Catholic will to remove obstacles to healing the age-old split between the Western and Eastern churches.

Saluting the work of the center in fostering ”better reciprocal knowledge of East and West,” the Pope said, ”This reciprocal knowledge has still to be deepened and purified of all prejudices or mistaken judgments, so that the truth may make us free.” He emphasized the Vatican’s ”expectancy of full communion between our churches.”

Before reaching Geneva, the city of Calvin, the reformer, John Paul celebrated mass in a stadium in Lugano, the principal center of Italian-Swiss Roman Catholicism. Christian Unity Stressed.

He spent the night in Fribourg, the seat of Switzerland’s main Roman Catholic university. But the emphasis of the papal visit to this nation of 6.3 million inhabitants, of whom 47.6 percent are Catholic and 44.3 Protestant, was on Christian unity.

The Pope made this explicit in his first statement on Swiss soil, in greeting President Schlumpf. He said, ”The challenge that modern times represent for humanity and Christianity makes us Christians feel the more painfully the unhappy splits and polarizations that, as in the past, divide us even today.”

John Paul added that all Christians were increasingly demanding ”witness for Christ” in an increasingly secularized world. This obliges Christian leaders to make ”even greater efforts to overcome all outward and inward divisive obstacles, gradually, in the full truth and love of Christ,” the Pope said.

In his greeting to the Pope, Dr. Philip Potter, general secretary of the World Council of Churches, listed the common endeavors by Protestants and Catholics to achieve friendly relations. But he said that in applying the Gospel to problems such as violation of human rights, race, class and sex oppression, the struggles for justice and peace – issues in which he said the World Council ‘‘had demonstrated concrete solidarity with the poor and the oppressed” – no unity had been achieved. ‘

”It has been precisely at this point that we have encountered the tragedy of our divisions between the churches and within them,” the Protestant leader said.

”And it is also at this time that we are facing the breakdown of any viable world economic and political order, and the universalizing of a ruthless military culture which threatens humanity and God’s will for the preservation of his creation.”

The Pope did not address some of these themes in the same spirit. The World Council is considered a leading spokesman for the grievances of developing countries against the West. But John Paul repeated his church’s ”defense of human beings and their dignity, their liberty, their rights.” He also restated his often expressed fears for the future of humanity ”in a world tempted by suicide.” (Future Faux Conciliar Saint in Switzerland, Stresses Delusional Unity.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II included representatives from the anti-family, anti-life, statist, feminist, New Age World Council of Churches when he presided over an “ecumenical day” at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls in Rome, Italy, on January 18, 2000, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter and the beginning of the Chair of Unity Octave in the Catholic Church that has been transformed into the “Week of Christian Unity” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism:

I would like once again to thank the Lord who has enabled us to spend this important ecumenical day together. After meeting this morning to pray in St Paul’s Basilica, we are gathered round this festive table for a pleasant, fraternal agape. I express my deepest gratitude to each of you, venerable and dear Brothers.

I specifically thank: 

– the Delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, representing His Holiness Bartholomew I, Ecumenical Patriarch;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, representing His Beatitude Petros VII, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, representing His Beatitude Ignace IV Hazim, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East;

– the Delegation from the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, representing His Beatitude Diodoros, Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem;

– the Delegation from the Patriarchate of Moscow, representing His Holiness Alexei II, Patriarch of Moscow and All the Russias;

– the Delegation from the Patriarchate of Serbia, representing His Beatitude Pavle, Serbian Patriarch;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Patriarchate of Romania, representing His Beatitude Teoctist, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Greece, representing His Beatitude Christódoulos, Archbishop of Athens and All Greece;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Poland, representing His Beatitude Sawa, Orthodox Metropolitan of Warsaw and All Poland;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Albania, representing His Beatitude Anastas, Archbishop of Tirana and All Albania;

– the Delegation from the Orthodox Church of Finland, in the person of the Archbishop of Karelia and All Finland;

– the Delegation from the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, representing His Holiness Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of the See of St Mark;

– the Delegation from the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, representing His Beatitude Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East;

– the Delegation from the Armenian Apostolic Church, representing His Holiness Karekin II, Catholicos and Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians; I also remember his predecessor, Karekin I;

– the Delegation from the Catholicosate of Cilicia for Armenians (Atelias, Lebanon), representing His Holiness Aram I, Catholicos of Cilicia;

– the Delegation from the Assyrian Church of the East, representing His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Catholicos and Patriarch of the Assyrian Church of the East;

– the Delegation from the Anglican Communion, in the person of the Archbishop of Canterbury;

And lastly, the Delegations from:

– the Old Catholic Church  Union of Utrecht;

– the Lutheran World Federation;

– the World Methodist Council;

– the Disciples of Christ;

– the Pentecostal Church;

– the World Council of Churches.

Lastly, I thank the Abbot General, the Abbot and the monastic community of St Paul, who have generously offered us hospitality, arranging everything with the utmost care for the success of our meeting today. I invoke God’s protection and blessing upon each and every one, as I recall that it was in St Paul’s Basilica that John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council. (To Ecumenical Delegations for the opening of the Holy Door in Saint Paul outside the Wall.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II addressed the same delegations at Saint Paul Outside the Walls on January 25, 2001, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle.

Not to be outdone, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, just two months into his false pontificate in 2005, addressed Dr. Samuel Kobia, the general secretary of the World Council of Churches, in the Vatican as he, “Pope Benedict XVI,” praised “spiritual ecumenism,” an apostasy that was the brainchild of Abbe Paul Couturier, who was a direct disciple of the theological and biological evolutionist named Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, S.J.:

“Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:2). With these words of Saint Paul, I gladly welcome you and the members of the delegation from the World Council of Churches. After your installation as General Secretary you had planned to visit my beloved predecessor Pope John Paul II. Though this hope was never realized, I thank you for representing the World Council of Churches at his funeral, and I express my gratitude for the message which you sent to me on the occasion of the solemn inauguration of my own ministry as Bishop of Rome.

Relations between the Catholic Church and the World Council developed during the Second Vatican Council, where two observers from Geneva were present at all four sessions. This led in 1965 to the establishment of the Joint Working Group as an instrument of ongoing contact and cooperation, which would keep in mind the common task of unity in answer to the Lord’s own prayer, “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:21). Next November an important consultation on the future of the Joint Working Group will be held to mark the fortieth anniversary of its founding. My hope and prayer is that its purpose and working methodology will be further clarified for the sake of ever more effective ecumenical understanding, cooperation and progress.

In the very first days of my Pontificate I stated that my “primary task is the duty to work tirelessly to rebuild the full and visible unity of all Christ’s followers.” This requires, in addition to good intentions, “concrete gestures which enter hearts and stir consciences… inspiring in everyone that inner conversion that is the prerequisite for all ecumenical progress” (Missa pro ecclesia, 5).

Pope John Paul II often recalled that the heart of the search for Christian unity is “spiritual ecumenism”. He saw its core in terms of being in Christ: “To believe in Christ means to desire unity; to desire unity means to desire the Church; to desire the Church means to desire the communion of grace which corresponds to the Father’s plan from all eternity. Such is the meaning of Christ’s prayer: “Ut unum sint” (Encyclical Letter Ut Unum Sint, 9).

It is my hope that your visit to the Holy See has been fruitful, strengthening the bonds of understanding and friendship between us. The commitment of the Catholic Church to the search for Christian unity is irreversible. I therefore wish to assure you that she is eager to continue cooperation with the World Council of Churches. Again, I offer a special word of encouragement to you, Mr General Secretary, to the members of the Central Committee and to the entire staff, as you work to lead and renew this important ecumenical body. Please know that you are in my prayers and that you have my unfailing goodwill. “May grace and peace be yours in abundance” (2 Pt 1:2). (To the General Secretary and the members of the World Council of Churches, June 16, 2005.)

Following the example of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II before passing the torch of apostasy to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was completely unfazed by the pro-Communist, pro-abortion, pro-contraception, pro-perversity, pro-feminism, pro-paganism World Council of Churches support for one unbridled evil after another. They were fit “partners” in the “search for unity,” something that the now Antipope Emeritus made clear on January 25, 2008, at the Basilica of Saint Paul Outside the Walls as he address Samuel Kobia and the delegation from the World Council of Churches that he headed:

I am pleased to greet all of you who are gathered for the Ninth General Assembly of the World Council of Churches being held in Porto Alegre to reflect on the theme: God in your grace, transform the world. In a special way I greet the General Secretary, Dr Samuel Kobia, Archbishop Dadeus Grings, the Bishops of the Catholic Church in Brazil and all those who have worked for the realization of this important event. To all of you I express my heartfelt good wishes in the words of Saint Paul to the Romans: “Grace toyou and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”(Rom 1:7).

Mindful of our shared baptismal faith in the Triune God, the Catholic Church and the World Council of Churches seek ways to cooperate ever more effectively in the task of witnessing to God’s divine love. After forty years of fruitful collaboration, we look forward to continuing this journey of hope and promise, as we intensify our endeavours towards reaching that day when Christians are united in proclaiming the Gospel message of salvation to all. As we together make this journey, we must be open to the signs of divine Providence and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for we know that “the holy objective of reconciling all Christians in the unity of the one and the only Church of Christ transcends human powers and gifts” (Unitatis Redintegratio, 24). Our trust therefore is solely in the prayer of Christ himself: “Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one” (Jn 17: 11).

During this General Assembly thousands of Christians join in this same prayer for unity. As we ask God in his grace to transform the world, we pray that he will bless our ecumenical dialogue with the progress we so ardently desire.

Assuring you of my spiritual closeness and reaffirming the Catholic Church’s intention to continue a solid partnership with the World Council of Churches in its important contribution to the ecumenical movement, I invoke God’s abundant blessings of peace and joy upon all of you. (Benedict XVI’s greetings to Dr. Samuel Kobia .)

“Shared baptismal faith in the Triune God”?

How can Catholics share a “faith” with those who support abortion, divorce, contraception and perversity under cover of the civil law? How can Catholics share a “faith” with those who reject Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, Sacred Tradition, and the indissolubility of Sacred Scripture? How?

“Solid partnership with the World Council of Churches in its important contribution to the ecumenical movement”?

Come on, wake up.

How can the Catholic Church enter into any kind of “partnership” with those who promote sin, the very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death and that caused His Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart to be pierced through and through with Seven Swords of Sorrow, under cover of the civil law?

“Papal” appointees such as the infamous Walter “Cardinal” Kasper, who has been retired for thirteen years now but still helps to serve as an apologist for Bergoglio's completion of the process of conciliar degeneracy, and his successor as the president of “Pontifical” Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Kurt “Cardinal” Koch, have only been doing what their “popes” (Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict, Bergoglio/Francis) have wanted done in the field of false ecumenism.

Indeed, it was during the reign of the supposed “pope of Tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in 2010 that Walter Kasper praised the World Council of Churches during an address in England:

So we should ask the same question the crowd asked Peter on the first Pentecost in Jerusalem: What can we do and what should we do?

Before answering this question let me say this: Much has been done in the last hundred years. We can be grateful to the Spirit who guided us, who inspired and who impelled us. We can be grateful for the work of the World Council of Churches, we can be grateful for the Second Vatican Council and all the work which has been done since. With the help of God’s Spirit, we have been able to achieve much more in the last one hundred years than in many hundred years before. There is no reason for disappointment. Today Christians are closer together than ever before. The Spirit helped us to rediscover each other not as enemies, not as strangers or competitors but as Christians, as brothers and sisters in Christ. Today we pray together, we work together, we share daily life and we share it often in mixed confessional families, in our workplaces, in leisure time events and in many other circumstances.

Today at Pentecost we give thanks that the one Spirit was bestowed upon us, on Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants, and that we are all baptised in the one Spirit, but it should be also today a Spirit of tongues of fire, a Spirit which gives us burning hearts for unity. (Kasper’s Remarks.)

Yet it is, of course, that this is not only what Walter “Cardinal” Kasper or his successor, Kurt “Cardinal” Koch, believe. It is what “Saint John Paul the Great” believed. It is what Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI believed. It is what Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes.

What did Saint Paul have to say about “praying” with those outside of the Catholic Faith. Oh, I am so glad that you bothered to ask. Consider these words of the late Bishop George Hay (1729-1811) of over two hundred years ago now:

St. Paul also exhorts us to “give thanks to God the Father, who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints in light, who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His beloved Son.” (Col. 1:12) Where it is manifest that as the true Faith of Jesus Christ is the only light that conducts to salvation, and that it is only in His Kingdom — that is, in His Church — where that heavenly light is to be found, so all false religions are darkness; and that to be separated from the Kingdom of Christ is to be in darkness as to the great affair of eternity. And indeed what greater or more miserable darkness can a soul be in than to be led away by seducing spirits, and “departing from the faith of Christ, give heed to the doctrine of devils”. (1 Tim. 4:1) St. Paul, deploring the state of such souls, says that they “have their understandings darkened, being alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance: that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts”. (Eph. 4:18)

On this account the same holy apostle exhorts us in the most pressing manner to take care not to be seduced from the light of our holy Faith by the vain words and seducing speeches of false teachers, by which we would certainly incur the anger of God; and, to prevent so great a misery, He not only exhorts us to walk as children of the light in the practice of all holy virtues, but expressly commands us to avoid all communication in religion with those who walk in the darkness of error. “Let no man deceive you with vain words, for because of these things cometh the anger of God upon the children of unbelief; be ye not, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were theretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord; walk ye as the children of the light,

. . . and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness“. (Eph. 5:6)

Here, then, we have an express command, not only not to partake with the unfruitful works of darkness — that is, not to join in any false religion, or partake of its rites or sacraments — but also, not to have any fellowship with its professors, not to be present at their meetings or sermons, or any other of their religious offices, lest we be deceived by them, and incur the anger of the Almighty, provoke Him to withdraw His assistance from us, and leave us to ourselves, in punishment of our disobedience.

 (3) St. Paul, full of zeal for the good of souls, and solicitous to preserve us from all danger of losing our holy Faith, the groundwork of our salvation, renews the same command in his Epistle to the Romans, by way of entreaty, beseeching us to avoid all such communication with those of a false religion. He also shows us by what sign we should discover them, and points out the source of our danger from them: “Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who cause dissensions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and to avoid them; for they that are such serve not Our Lord Christ, but their own belly, and by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent”. (Rom. 16:17)

See here whom we are to avoid — “those that cause dissensions contrary to the ancient doctrine“; all those who, hating, left the true Faith and doctrine which they had learned, and which has been handed down to us from the beginning by the Church of Christ, follow strange doctrines, and make divisions and dissensions in the Christian world. And why are we to avoid them? Because they are not servants of Christ, but slaves to their own belly, whose hearts are placed upon the enjoyments of this world, and who, by “pleasing speeches and good words, seduce the hearts of the innocent” — that is, do not bring good reasons or solid arguments to seduce people to their evil ways, so as to convince the understanding, for that is impossible; but practice upon their hearts and passions, relaxing the laws of the gospel, granting liberties to the inclinations of flesh and blood, laying aside the sacred rules of mortification of the passions and of self-denial, promising worldly wealth, and ease, and honors, and, by pleasing speeches of this kind, seducing the heart, and engaging people to their ways.

 (4) The same argument and command the apostle repeats in his epistle to his beloved disciple Timothy, where he gives a sad picture, indeed, of all false teachers, telling us that they put on an outward show of piety the better to deceive, “having an appearance, indeed, of godliness, but denying the power thereof;” then he immediately gives this command: “Now these avoid: for of this sort are they that creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires”; and adds this sign by which they may be known, that, not having the true Faith of Christ, and being out of His holy Church — the only sure rule for knowing the truth — they are never settled, but are always altering and changing their opinions, “ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth“; because, as he adds, “they resist the truth, being corrupted in their mind, and reprobate concerning the Faith”. (2 Tim. 3:5)

 Here it is to be observed that, though the apostle says that silly weak people, and especially women, are most apt to be deceived by such false teachers, yet he gives the command of avoiding all communication with them in their evil ways, to all without exception, even to Timothy himself; for the epistle is directed particularly to him, and to him he says, as well as to all others, “Now these avoid”, though he was a pastor of the church, and fully instructed by the apostle himself in all the truths of religion; because, besides the danger of seduction, which none can escape who voluntarily expose themselves to it, all such communication is evil in itself, and therefore to be avoided by all, and especially by pastors, whose example would be more prejudicial to others. (The Laws of God Forbidding All Communication in Religion With Those of a False Religion.)

Who appointed Walter Kasper?

"Pope Saint John Paul the Great.”

Who retained Kasper and appointed Koch?

The “pope of Tradition,” the late Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

Who retained Koch for the past twelve years?

The Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

The “spirit” has led these apostates to “new” and “more profound” understandings of what they think is Divine Revelation.

Well, you betcha that the “spirit” has led them in such a manner. Unfortunately for them–and for those who follow them–the “spirit” who leads them is none other than the fallen angel whose bidding they do almost all of the time, which is why they can ignore Pope Pius XI’s reiteration of the ban on the mania of “inter-religious prayer” services as stated in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, for which they have have such a total contempt:

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated, as Cyprian bears witness: “The Bride of Christ cannot be made false to her Spouse: she is incorrupt and modest. She knows but one dwelling, she guards the sanctity of the nuptial chamber chastely and modestly.”The same holy Martyr with good reason marveled exceedingly that anyone could believe that “this unity in the Church which arises from a divine foundation, and which is knit together by heavenly sacraments, could be rent and torn asunder by the force of contrary wills.” For since the mystical body of Christ, in the same manner as His physical body, is one, compacted and fitly joined together, it were foolish and out of place to say that the mystical body is made up of members which are disunited and scattered abroad: whosoever therefore is not united with the body is no member of it, neither is he in communion with Christ its head. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

“During the lapse of centuries, the mystical Spouse of Christ has never been contaminated, nor can she ever in the future be contaminated.” In other words, it is impossible for one to represent the Catholic Church, whether in an official or unofficial capacity, and knowingly contradict her teaching and continue to remain a member in her. Just as pro-aborts such as the late Edward Moore Kennedy expelled themselves from Holy Mother Church by their support of surgical baby-killing under cover of the civil law as a “woman’s right to choose” without any formal declaration of excommunication, so is it the case that those who defect from the Faith on one point by means of what they believe–not by what they attempt to “declare” as binding of the Catholic faithful–from the Faith by virtue of having violated the Divine Positive Law. It is that simple. There is no “reconciliation” between Catholicism and conciliarism.

How is this consonant with the following words of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943?

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Moreover, Montini/Paul VI, Wojtyla/John Paul II, and Ratzinger/Benedict each gave “joint blessings” with the faux “archbishops” of Canterbury, thereby signifying the legitimacy and validity of Anglican orders in a de facto manner even if was not their intention. Words matter. Actions matter.

By what stretch of logic does the passage of time confer validity on that which is false?

False ecumenism is evil, and those who have engaged in it have done the devil’s work, not Our Lord’s.

VII. “Inculturation of the Gospel” Led to the Pachamama Scandal

As to the Pachamama idol at Amazonia synod in 2019, one must remember that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was only following path set out previously by  Karol Josezf Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as each participated in pagan rituals or esteemed the symbols of false idols with their own hands.

As egregious as Bergoglio’s serial acts of pantheistic idolatry are as direct violations of the First Commandment, they are have become very standard fare in the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s Pantheon of Apostasy and are evocative of the time that Raymond Arroyo of the Eternally Wishful Television Network tried to spin “Pope” John Paul II’s participation in an Aztec ceremony that resulted in the dumping of an urn of ashes upon his head in Mexico City, Mexico, on August 1, 2002, as follows: “You may think that you just witnessed a pagan ceremony, but what you just saw was a rich example of the inculturation of the Gospel.” Wishful thinking could not wipe away a blatant act of apostasy twenty-one years ago, and anyone who can come to the defense of Wojtyla or Benedict’s participation in pagan ceremonies does not understand the binding precepts of the First Commandment as countless millions of Catholics have preferred to be tortured to death rather than even give the appearance of lending credibility to the acts that took place in front of a putative Successor of Saint Peter. (Rather than take up space in the main body of this commentary, I will reprise photographic evidence of like acts of apostasy committed by the conciliar “popes” in the past decades.)

For the moment, however, suffice it to say that the Holy Machabees, who are commemorated on August 1 (the Feast of Saint Peter’s Chains), each year, would do nothing to defile the true religion of their time, Judaism, even when tempted to do so as they knew that they had a solemn obligation to worship the true God, Who never countenances any rivals. Dom Prosper Gueranger commented on the heroic sacrifice of the seven holy brothers while noting also that August contains more feasts than any other month in Holy Mother Church’s liturgical calendar:

The August heavens glitter with the brightest constellations of the sacred cycle. Even in the sixth century, the Council of Tours remarked that this month was filled with filled with the feasts of the saints. My delights are to b with the children of men, says Wisdom: and in the month which echoes with her teachings she seems to have made it her glory to be surrounded with blessed ones, who, walking with her in the midst of the paths of judgment, have in finding her found life and salvation from the Lord. This noble court is presided over by the Queen of all grace, whose triumph consecrates this month and makes it the delight of that Wisdom of the Father, who, once enthroned in Mary, never quitted her. What a wealth of divine favours do the coming days promise to our souls! Never were our Father’s barns so well filled as at this season, when the earthly as well as the heavenly harvests are ripe.

While the Church on earth inaugurates these days by adorning herself with Peter’s chains as with a precious jewel, a constellation of seven stars appears for the third time in the heavens. The seven brothers Machabees preceded the sons of Symphorosa and Felicitas in the bloodstained arena; they followed divine Wisdom even before she had manifested her beauty in the flesh. The sacred cause of which they were the champions, their strength of soul under the tortures, their sublime answers to the executioners were so evidently the type reproduced by the latter martyrs, that the Fathers of the first centuries with one accord claimed for the Christian Church these heroes of the synagogue, who could have gained such courage from no other source than their faith in the Christ to come. For this reason they stand alone of all holy persons of the ancient covenant have found a place on the Christian cycle; all martyrologies and calendars of the East and West attest the universality of their cultus, while its antiquity is such as to rival that of St. Peter’s chains in that same basilica of Eudoxia where their precious relics lie.

At the time when in the hope of a better resurrection they refused under cruel torments to redeem their lives, other heroes of the same blood, inspired by the same faith, flew to arms and delivered their country from a terrible crisis. Several children of Israel, forgetting the traditions of their nation, had wished it to follow the customs of strange peoples; and the Lord, in punishment, had allowed Judea to feel the whole weight of a profane rule to which it had guiltily submitted. But when King Antiochus, taking advantage of the treason of a few and the carelessness of the majority, endeavoured  by his ordinances to blot out the divine law which alone gives power to power over man, Israel, suddenly awakened, met the tyrant with the double opposition of revolt and martyrdom. Judas Macabeus in immortal battles reclaimed for God the land of his inheritance, while by the virtue of their generous confession, the seven brothers also, his rivals in glory, recovered, as the Scripture says, the law out of his hands of the nations, and out of the hands of the king. Soon afterwards, craving mercy under the hand of God, Antiochus died, devoured by worms., just as later on were to die the first and last persecutors of the Christians, Herod Agrippa and Galerius Maximian.

The Holy Ghost, who would Himself had down to posterity the acts of the protomartyr of the New Law, did the same with regard to the passion of Stephen’s glorious predecessors in the ages of expectation. Indeed, it was he who then, as under the law of love, inspired with both words and courage these valiant brothers, and their still more admirable mother, who, seeing her seven sons one after the other suffering the most horrible tortures, utter nothing but burning exhortations to die. Surrounded by their mutilated bodies, she mocked the tyrant who, in false pity, wished her to persuade at least the  youngest to save his life; she bent over the last child of her tender love and said to him: My son, have pity upon me, that bore thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up to this age. I beseech thee, my son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing and mankind also: so thou shalt not fear this tormentor, but being made a worthy partner with thy brethren, receive death, that in thy mercy I may receive thee again with thy brethren. And the intrepid youth ran in his innocence to the tortures; and the incomparable mother followed her sons. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year: Time After Pentecost Book IV—Volume 13, pp. 234-236.)

Consider how the Holy Machabees refused to violate the tenets of Judaism, which was the true religion at the time they lived. They were willing to make any and all sacrifices, including their own lives, and to endure all torments rather than even give the appearance of simulating anything approaching respect to a false religion. The Holy Machabees knew that false religions are hideous in the sight of the true God.

Time after time, though, we have been eyewitnesses to an endless parade of men who have claimed to be Successors of Saint Peter or of the Apostles engage in acts of the sort that the Holy Machabees refused to do upon the penalty of torments and death, including Bergoglio’s acts of apostasy in Canada. The apostates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have not only not dared to esteem false idols, to engage in false worship and to give credence to every false religion on the face of the earth and to rank unbelief but to claim that their doing such unspeakable acts of sacrilege and apostasy in the service of what they claim is the Gospel’s call to “dialogue,” a “call” that is nonexistent.

VIII. Speaking As One Who Kept His Blinders In Place for Decades

As I explained so many times before, a lot of the “conservative” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics are attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the tragic belief that those structures are the Catholic Church and not its counterfeit ape and thus they have been making up myths about the two supposedly “conservative” “popes,” Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, since the Polish Phenomenologist stepped out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Monday, October 16, 1978. I know about this as I was one of Wojtyla/John Paul II’s mythmakers between that time until he gave permission for girl altar boys in 1994, which started a twelve-year process of having my eyes opened, if ever so slowly, to the truth that we have had no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9. 1958.

To serve as a fervent apologist for Wojtyla/John Paul II required one to project one’s own Catholic beliefs into the mind of what I came to understand was a “moderate” (Girondist/Menshevik) revolutionary by taking whatever scraps that I could find to convince myself that all evidence of the man’s Modernist bent meant nothing other than “confusion,” not apostasy.

To wit, all of my own former efforts to project Catholicity into the mind and the heart of the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II were founded in looking at bits and pieces of the puzzle, refusing to admit that the false "pontiff" expressed most publicly a belief in various condemned propositions (including false ecumenism, the new ecclesiology, inter-religious dialogue, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, praising false religions for the "good+" that they do and how they can contribute to "world peace," etc.). Undeterred by these inconvenient little facts, I sang "the old songs" to defend Wojtyla/John Paul II for far too long. This is how the "old songs" went:

1. It was within a week of his election on October 16, 1978, that John Paul II said that he wanted to see priests back in their clerical garb and women religious back in their habits. He's traditionally-minded, I told people repeatedly.

2. He tried to put catechesis back on the "right track" with the issuance of the post-synodal exhortation Sapientia Christianae

3. He told off the Communists in Poland in June of 1979, saying in a "homily" at an outdoor "Mass" in Victory Square in Warsaw that no one could ever remove Christ as the center of history. See, he's not an appeaser like Paul VI, I said triumphantly.

4. John Paul II whacked the American bishops over the head but good during his first pilgrimage to the United States of America in October of 1979, using some of their own pastoral letters against them, knowing full well that they were not enforcing their own documents. He told Catholic educators assembled at The Catholic University of America on October 7, 1979, and I was one of those educators in attendance that day, that the Church needed her theologians to be "faithful to the magisterium." I gloated as John Paul II said this, staring in the direction of the notorious dissenter named Father Charles Curran, a priest of the Diocese of Rochester, New York, who was sitting two rows in back of me, dressed in a jacket and tie. It was later that same day that the "pope" denounced abortion as the nine justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America sat in the very front row of chairs on the Capitol Mall during an outdoor "Mass," saying in a most stirring manner, "And when God gives life, it is forever!"

5. Two months thereafter, in December of 1979, Father Hans Kung was declared by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to be ineligible to hold a chair in theology at Tubingen University in Germany (all right, all right, "other arrangements" were made to permit Kung to stay). "Let the heads roll," I told my classes at Allentown College of Saint Francis de Sales that day. "Let the heads of the dissenters roll."

6. John Paul II wanted to correct abuses in the Novus Ordo liturgial abomination, using his Holy Thursday letter, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980, going so far as to state:

As I bring these considerations to an end, I woul like to ask forgiveness-in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear brothers in the episcopate-for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council, may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and the veneration due to this great sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in the future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people. 

See, I said proudly, to one and all. He's going to "fix" things, isn't he? The issuance of Inaestimabile Donum two months later, which I would wave in the faces of "disobedient" conciliar priests/presbyters for about a decade before it began to dawn on me that there was going to be no enforcement of "rules" in an ever-changing and ever-changeable liturgical abomination, was "proof," I said at the time, of how the "pope" is "turning things around in right direction. I wasn't the only one. The Angelus, a publication of the Society of Saint Pius X, commented favorably on some of these things itself in 1980.

7. "Pope" John Paul II personally opened a Perpetual Adoration Chapel in the Piazza Venezia in Rome at the behest of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, also mandating daily periods of Solemn Eucharistic Adoration in each of the four major basilicas in Rome. He used his pilgrimage to South Korea in 1984 to state that he wanted to see Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration established in all of the parishes of the world.

8. Father Charles Curran was finally denied in 1986 the right to teach as a theologian in Catholic institutions and Father Matthew Fox, O.P., was forbidden to teach in Catholic institutions by John Paul II's "defender of the faith," Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, and dismissed from the Order of Preachers in 1992 for his New Age "creation spirituality" beliefs.

9. John Paul II would take various American "bishops" to task during the quinquennial (or ad limina apostolorum) visits, pointedly asking the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann of the Diocese of Rockville Center in 1983 why sixteen of his diocese's parishes did not have regularly scheduled confessions during the recently concluded Easter Triduum. Being dissatisfied with McGann's answer ("Our priests are very busy, Your Holiness"), John Paul said, "Excellency, I was not too buy to hear Confessions in Saint Peter's on Good Friday." McGann got into further trouble later that day in April of 1983 when he was talking at lunch with John Paul and the other New York Province "bishops" about how most young people today do not know their faith and are thus in theological states of error, inculpable for their ignorance. John Paul II put down his soup spoon and said, "I agree with you. You are correct. However, the bishops and priests who are responsible for these young people being in states of error go directly to Hell when they die." McGann turned ashen, reportedly having difficulty eating for three days. "Ah, what a pope we have," I said when learning of this from Roman contacts.

10. Silvio Cardinal Oddi, then the Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, told me personally in his office on the Via della Concilazione on October 10, 1984, the very day that the first "indult" for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition was issued, "I want the Mass of Saint Pius V back! The Pope wants the Mass of Saint Pius V back! We will get the Mass of Saint Pius V back!" Cardinal Oddi explained that there was much opposition to what the "pope" wanted to, that he had to move cautiously and with conditions. He made it clear, however, that it was the mind of the "pope" for the "old Mass" to return. 

Such a litany could go on and on and on. Oh, did I mention that I did indeed "sing the old songs" quite literally? Yes, indeed, my friends, I stood with several thousand people outside and across the street from what was then called the Apostolic Delegation (now called the Papal Nunciature) on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., on the evening of Saturday, October 6, 1979, serenading "Pope" John Paul II with endless renditions of "Stolat, stolat, may you live a hundred years!" Get the idea?

Sure, sure, sure I was always "uncomfortable" with ecumenism in particular and the whole ethos of Vatican II in general. John Paul II was going to "fix" things, I convinced myself. No more "Hamlet on the Tiber" as had been experienced under Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI. I simply ignored those things that contradicted my delusional concept of who Karol Wojtyla was and what he believed; that he had been a leading revolutionary at the "Second" Vatican Council and was a thorough-going Modernist in both theological and philosophical terms.

Now, having listed the scraps that I thought, delusionally, meant that a “restoration” was near, intellectual honesty compels me to explain what I had to overlook about Wojtyla/John Paul II’s Modernism, especially as regards false ecumenism and his abject refusal to seek the conversion of anyone, Catholic or non-Catholic, to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no truly just social order, noting that everything about the false conciliar religion has been premised upon false ecumenism, which has spawned a cottage industry of "inter-religious" "prayer" services, workshops, conferences, “dialogue” sessions, and heretical “joint agreements.”

One of the first things I chose to ignore in the heady rush of what appeared to be a “firm” Catholic “pope” was Karol Josef Wotyla/Saint John Paul II’s commitment to the false ecumenism that had been initiated by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Blessed Paul VI a central feature of his 9,666 day tenure as the universal public face of apostasy, starting with the address that he gave to the "cardinals" on Tuesday, October 17, 1978:

First of all, we wish to point out the unceasing importance of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and we accept the definite duty of assiduously bringing it into effect. Indeed, is not that universal Council a kind of milestone as it were, an event of the utmost importance in the almost two thousand year history of the Church, and consequently in the religious and cultural history of the world.

However, as the Council is not limited to the documents alone, neither is it completed by the ways applying it which were devised in these post-conciliar years. Therefore we rightly consider that we are bound by the primary duty of most diligently furthering the implementation of the decrees and directive norms of that same Universal Synod. This indeed we shall do in a way that is at once prudent and stimulating. We shall strive, in particular, that first of all an appropriate mentality may flourish. Namely, it is necessary that, above all, outlooks must be at one with the Council so that in practice those things may be done that were ordered by it, and that those things which lie hidden in it or—as is usually said—are "implicit" may become explicit in the light of the experiments made since then and the demands of changing circumstances. Briefly, it is necessary that the fertile seeds which the Fathers of the Ecumenical Synod, nourished by the word of God, sowed in good ground (cf. Mt 13: 8, 23)—that is, the important teachings and pastoral deliberations should be brought to maturity in that way which is characteristic of movement and life. (First Urbi et Orbi Radio message, October 17, 1978.)

Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II sure found "those things which lie hidden in" the "Second" Vatican Council" as he made manifestly explicit what he believed was "implicit" in his vaunted "Second" Vatican Council, fooling the sappy likes of me by throwing some conciliar fairy dust in our eyes as he talked about getting priests back in their clerical garb and consecrated religious sisters back into their habits and demanding doctrinal orthodoxy from theologians even though he was not doctrinally orthodox and let most of the ultra-progressive conciliar revolutionaries remain in perfectly good standing as sons and daughters of what he claimed was the Catholic Church.

What those of us who were fighting what we thought was the “good fight” of the Catholic Faith at this time did not realize—and what so many within the structures of the false conciliar sect have yet to recognize—is that is as impossible for conciliarism to protect the Sacred Deposit of Faith as it is based upon false principles of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry. It cannot do anything but spread error and harm souls.  We are merely witnessing the manifestation of the inherent degeneracy of conciliarism's false premises. 

One need not document all the ways that Wojtyla/John Paul II promoted false ecumenism as it has been done so on this site many times and in countless other places. The man of the Assisi "World Day of Peace" travesties who praised every false religion under the sun, thereby violating the First and Second Commandments repeatedly, institutionalized religious indifferentism to such an extent that even many Catholics within the conciliar structures who run "pro-life" websites and blogs wax glowingly about "other Christians" as though there is any other religion than the true one, the Catholic Faith.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is simply the end product of sixty-six years, four months, sixteen days of falsehoods dating back to the dark day on which Angelo Roncalli claimed to be "Pope John XXIII" on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude. 

Part two of this retrospective will review the Abu Dhabi accord and its relationship to Bergoglio's globalism, which is simply euphemism for Maxism.

Dom Prosper Gueranger on Thursday in the First Week of Lent

Today, Thursday, March 13, 2025, is Thursday in the First Week of Lent.

Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., reflected on today’s liturgy as follows in The Liturgical Year:

Today’s Station is in the Church of St. Laurence, in Paneperna, one of those which the piety of the Faithful of Rome has built in honor of this the most celebrated of the Martyrs of the Holy City.

COLLECT

We beseech thee, O Lord, mercifully to regard the devotion of thy people; that mortifying their bodies by fasting, their minds may be refreshed by good works. Through Christ, our Lord. Amen.

EPISTLE

Lesson from the Prophet Ezekiel 18:1-19

In those days: The word of the Lord came to me, saying: What is the meaning that you use among you this parable as a proverb in the land of Israel, saying, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the children are set on edge?” As I live, saith the Lord God, this parable shall be no more to you a proverb in Israel. Behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine; the soul that sinneth, the same shall die. And if a man be just, and do judgment and justice, and hath not eaten upon the mountain, nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and hath not defiled his neighbor’s wife, nor come near to a menstruous woman; and hath not wronged any man, but hath restored the pledge to the debtor, hath taken nothing away by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment, hath not lent upon usury, nor taken any increase, hath withdrawn his hand from iniquity, and hath executed true judgment between man and man, hath walked in my commandments, and kept my judgments, to do according to the truth; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord God.

These words of the Prophet declare to us the wonderful mercy of God towards the Gentiles, who are preparing to pass from darkness to light by the grace of holy Baptism. The Jews had a favorite proverb: The Fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the teeth of the Children are set on edge: but God assures us, even in the Old Testament, that sins are personal, that is, they belong to him who commits them, and to no one else; so that the son of a wicked father, if he walk in the path of righteousness, shall find mercy and salvation. The Apostles and their Disciples preached the Gospel to the Gentiles, and the Gentiles were obedient to the call; they were the children of idolaters, and yet they were seen flocking to the Font of regeneration, abjuring the evil ways of their fathers, and becoming the objects of God’s love. The same happened in the conversion of the Barbarians of the West; it is happening now in our own times, among infidel nations; and many will be the Catechumens who, at the coming Easter, will receive the sacrament of Baptism.

God frequently visits children with temporal punishments, because of the sins of their parents; it is a providence, which acts as a check upon men, deterring from them the evil out of fear of bringing misery upon their families. But in the moral order, each individual is treated according to his own merits or demerits; and as God does not impute to a virtuous son the iniquities of the father, so neither do the virtues of the father cover the son’s iniquity. Philip the Fair was the grandson of St. Louis; and Wulfere, the wicked king of Mercia, was father of the two Saints, Wulfhad and Ruffin. Similar contrasts are often found in families, for, as the Scripture says: God hath left man in the hand of his own counsel … Before man is life and death, good and evil; that which he shall choose, shall be given unto him. (Ecclesiasticus 15:14, 18) And yet, such is the mercy of the Lord our God, that if a man have made a bad choice, but afterwards cast away from himself the evil, and turn to what is good, he shall surely live, and his repentance shall restore to him what he had forfeited.

 

GOSPEL

 

Sequel of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew 15:21-28

At that time: Jesus went from thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon. And behold a woman of Canaan who came out of those coasts, crying out, said to him: Have mercy on me O Lord, thou Son of David: my daughter is grievously troubled by a devil. Who answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying: Send her away, for she crieth after us. And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel. But she came, and adored him, saying: Lord, help me. Who answering said: It is not good to take the bread of the children, and to cast it to the dogs. But she said: Yea, Lord; for the whelps also eat of the crumbs that fall from the table of their masters. Then Jesus answering, said to her: O woman, great is thy faith: be it done to thee as thou wilt. And her daughter was cured from that hour.

Jesus is in admiration at this woman’s Faith; he praises her for it; he would have us imitate her. And yet she was a Gentile; probably she had been an idolatress; but maternal love induces her to come to Jesus, and throw herself at his feet. She obtains from him her daughter’s cure, and undoubtedly her own conversion. It is an illustration of the consoling promise we have just been hearing from the Prophet Ezekiel—there are chosen souls in every race, even in that cursed one of Canaan. Our Lord treats this woman with apparent harshness, although he intend to grant her what she asks: he would have her faith gain strength by being tried, and, by the trial, deserve to be rewarded. Let us pray during these days of mercy with persevering confidence. The daughter of this Canaanite woman was troubled by a devil, that is, her body was possessed by an evil spirit. How many are there, everywhere in the Church, whose souls are a prey to Satan, by their being in the state of mortal sin! Are they conscious of their misery? Do they beg of our Lord to have mercy on them, and deliver them? And if, at first, he defer their pardon, do they humble themselves like this woman of our Gospel, who confesses that she quite deserves this contempt wherewith Jesus seems to treat her? Lost sheep of the House of Israel! make good use of this holy season, when your Good Shepherd is so nigh unto you. Before forty days are elapsed, he will be put to death, and the people that shall deny him shall not be His. (Daniel 9:26) Before forty days are over, we shall be celebrating the anniversary of this great sacrifice; and the sinner that shall not be converted from the error of his ways, and shall not have come to Jesus, as did this humble woman of Canaan—will deserve to be forever rejected. Let us, then, be earnest in the great work of our conversion, and fit ourselves for pardon. Such is the generosity of our Heavenly Father, that if we desire, with all the sincerity of our soul, to be once more his faithful Children, he will give us more than the crumbs which fall from his table; he will give us Jesus, the Bread of Life; and oh! what a pledge of reconciliation is that! (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Thursday in the First Week of Lent.)

As we pray for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries and for an end to their false sect, we must, of course, pray to Our Lady very fervently for our own conversion so that, quite indeed, we will ever be ready to worthily receive her Divine Son in Holy Communion.

This time of apostasy will pass, but it is the time that God has appointed from all eternity for us in which to live and thus to sanctify and save our immortal souls as the consecrated slave of His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of His Most Blessed Mother.

Every Rosary we pray can, if prayed attentively while meditating upon the Sacred Mysteries contained therein, help to plant a few seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter of thus of right order in a world that recognizes Christ the King and His Blessed Mother as Our Immaculate Queen.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.