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

As alluded to in the first part of this review, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been a consistent friend of globalists, statists, socialists, and outright Communists. He has unfailingly supported the entire globalist agenda, and he was an enthusiastic apologist for the global scamdemic five years ago. “Pope Francis” eagerly closed up his churches, order his “bishops” to cooperate with the fascists in the civil government, urged everyone to “mask up” and to obey the “social distancing” rules that even the nefarious, discredited Anthony Fauci admitted had no “science” to support them, and he was completely supportive of the Wuhan Virus poisoned jabs when they became available in December of 2020 and went so far as to impose “vaccine mandates” for everyone in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River as well as for those who traveled with on the antipapal plane:

ABOARD THE PAPAL PLANE (AP) — Pope Francis said Wednesday he didn’t understand why people refuse to take COVID-19 vaccines, saying “humanity has a history of friendship with vaccine.s,” and that serene discussion about the shots was necessary to help them.

“Even in the College of Cardinals, there are some negationists,” Francis said Wednesday, en route home from Slovakia.

He noted that one of them, “poor guy,” had been hospitalized with the virus. That was an apparent reference to U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, who was hospitalized in the U.S. and placed on a ventilator last month after contracting the virus.

Francis was asked about vaccine skeptics and those who oppose vaccine mandates by a Slovakian reporter, given that some events during his four-day pilgrimage to the country were restricted to people who had gotten COVID-19 jabs. The issue is broader, however, as more and more governments adopt vaccine mandates for certain categories of workers, sparking opposition.

“It’s a bit strange, because humanity has a history of friendship with vaccines,” Francis said, noting that children for decades have been vaccinated against measles, mumps and polio “and no one said anything.”

He hypothesized that the “virulence of uncertainty” was due to the diversity of COVID-19 vaccines, the quick approval time and the plethora of “arguments that created this division,” and fear. Medical experts say vaccines have been tested and used on tens of millions of people and have been proven to be effective in reducing serious hospitalizations and deaths.

Significantly, Francis didn’t cite the religious objection used by some who refuse the vaccines. Some conservatives have refused to get the shots citing the remote and indirect connection to lines of cells derived from aborted fetuses.

The Vatican’s doctrine office has said it is “morally acceptable” for Catholics to receive COVID-19 vaccines based on research that used cells derived from aborted fetuses. Francis has said it would be “suicide” not to get the jab and both Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI have been fully vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech shots.

Francis noted that the Vatican had vaccinated its residents, staff and their families “with the exception of a very small group” and “they’re studying how to help them.”

For those who are still afraid, he said: “They have to clarify that and talk with serenity.” (Pope questions vaccine skeptics, including cardinals.)

Bohumil Petrik, Denník Štandard: Vaccination has divided Christians, also in Slovakia. You say that getting the vaccine is an act of love. And when you do not get the vaccine, what would you call it? Some believers have felt discriminated against and there are different approaches in the different dioceses on this point. Even before your visit, this visit could only be accessed if [someone was] vaccinated, then it was changed, even those who did rapid tests could attend and so on... So, we would all like to know how to get along, how to reconcile on this issue.

Pope Francis: Humanity has a history of friendship with vaccines. As children, we got them for measles, for other things, for polio. All the children were vaccinated and no one said anything. Then this [opposition] happened. This was perhaps due to the virulence, the uncertainty not only about the pandemic, but also about the different vaccines, and also the reputation of some vaccines which are nothing more than distilled water. This created fear in people. Then others who say that it is a danger because with the vaccine you are infected. So many arguments that have created this division. Even in the College of Cardinals there are some deniers and one of these, poor guy, is hospitalized with the virus. The irony of life. I do not know how to explain [the opposition] well. Some say it comes from the diversity of where the vaccines come from, which are not sufficiently tested and they are afraid. We must clarify and speak with serenity about this. In the Vatican, everyone is vaccinated except a small group which they are studying how to help. ((Bergoglio in-flight press conference from Slovakia.)

Ideologues such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio are so blinded by their attachment to every leftist shibboleth imaginable that he accepts all statist pronouncements with a submissive that he refuses to render to the binding decrees of say, the Council of Florence, the Council of Trent, the [First] Vatican Council, and the anti-Modernist decrees of Pope Saint Pius X. Bergoglio does not even consider the Ten Commandments are binding upon people who find themselves in what he calls “extraordinary” circumstances and he has never made one reference to any condemnations of sodomy found in Holy Writ.

This is how “Pope Francis” disparaged the Commandments in 2015:

It was on Friday, January 27, 2017, the Feast of Saint John Chrysostom, that “Pope Francis” yet again demonstrate his revulsion for those who believe that it is necessary to keep all of the Commandments perfectly:

‘Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…’ All the commandments, all of them… Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward. And the present of a Christian, of such a Christian, is how when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks… Confined souls… This is faintheartedness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope. May the Lord make us grow in memory, make us grow in hope, give us courage and patience each and free us from that which is faintheartedness, being afraid of everything…  Confined souls in order to save ourselves. And Jesus says: ‘He who wills to save his life will lose it.’” (Fear of Everything--the "sin" that paralyes Christians.)

How ironic it is, therefore, that the Argentine Apostate accepts religiously the ideologically based decrees of mere contingent beings whose bodies are destined one day for the corruption of the grave while deconstructing and disparage the binding, immutable precepts found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and even in the Natural Law.

To wit, to cite the quotation above from four years ago, Jorge Mario Bergoglio said that the Wuhan Virus “vaccines” were well-tasted and that it was “suicide” not to get them. Moreover, he said that he could not understand why people would refuse to get them and that he was, patronizingly, seeking a way to make the conciliar Vatican’s vaccine refuseniks to see the error of their ways.

In this regard, Bergoglio is very much like the man he truly despises, President Donald John Trump, in that he has made a conscious decision to shut himself off from all documentation about the harm caused by the “vaccines,” to say nothing about how, despite his false sect’s pronouncement on the supposed “morality” of “vaccines” derived from the cell lines of butchered babies, he thinks as little about the connection between Big Pharma’s commitment to the chemical and surgical assassination of the innocent preborn as he does to the poisons contained in the “salvific” injections that are thoroughly documented at this late date.

Not to be belabor the point, it is useful in this context to demonstrate how the falsity of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes on a matter of legitimate scientific debate and inquiry:

Important information coming out of the ongoing UK Covid-19 Inquiry  is “slipping between the cracks” of media coverage, YouTube commenter John Campbell, Ph.D., reported on a recent episode of his show.

Campbell played clips of testimony by Kate Scott, who represents the U.K.’s Covid Vaccine Injured & Bereaved (VIBUK). Kate’s husband, Jamie, suffered a traumatic brain injury and was left severely disabled by the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Kate’s testimony is part of the inquiry’s fourth module, investigating issues related to the COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics.

Jamie was an athlete, a high-power executive and an active husband and father of two boys until he nearly died after experiencing vaccine-induced immune thrombosis and thrombocytopenia. He was in a coma for four weeks and five days.

Jamie survived, Kate explained, but his life will never be the same. His traumatic brain injury affects his thinking processes and his emotions. He is partially blind and he will never be able to work again, to live independently or to look after their children.

Kate said that she and her group were testifying to draw attention to the fact that many people were injured by the vaccine, to remove the stigma of vaccine injury, and to compel the government and pharmaceutical companies “to look again at how to deal with the inconvenient fact of vaccine injury and bereavement and the lives it has shattered.”

She said the very first serious side effects from the AstraZeneca vaccine, “should have rung an alarm with the MHRA” — Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency — and the U.K. “government that there was a serious problem. However, no action was taken.”

She presented data that VIBUK obtained via a freedom of information law request showing that as of Nov. 30, 2024, 17,519 vaccine injury victims have made claims to the government’s Vaccine Damage Payment scheme.

Of those, she said, only 194 victims have been notified that they are entitled to payment and only 55 have received any payment. The maximum allowed payment is 120,000 pounds (approximately $150,000).

Kate also revealed that people are deemed ineligible for compensation if they are considered less than 60% disabled and that many people receive diagnoses that they are 59% disabled.

“A percentage disablement is also somewhat offensive,” she said. “Regardless of if it’s 10% or 59% or, Jamie, way over 60%, or dead — I guess that’s 100% disabled — there’s no compensation if you fall below that [60%].”

“The consequence of being told, ‘sorry you’re only 55% disabled,’ it’s awful, it’s devastating and then there’s nothing for you, no one to help.”

Commenting on her testimony, Campbell asked, “How on earth can a clinician adjudicate someone is only 59% disabled? Why not 58? Why not 61? How can you be 59% disabled? I don’t understand that. I simply don’t understand it.”

Kate added, “Statistics are interesting, aren’t they? Within our group, [for] 100% of the people in it, [the vaccine] was not ‘safe and effective.’”

The group recommended that pharmaceutical companies should not fund the government agencies that regulate them. They also said the Yellow Card scheme — which is the U.K.’s adverse events reporting system for medicines, vaccines, medical devices and other products — should be mandatory rather than voluntary.

Kate also said the government should follow up when people file yellow cards. Many people in their group had filed cards, but no one ever contacted them to investigate.

“We are important,” she said. “We’re part of this pandemic story.”

Campbell asked, “Why is it that so many things only come to light from freedom of information requests?” He said it’s a pity these stories are not being picked up by the media. “Powerful testimony, not well-covered, unfortunately,” he said.

The authors analyzed the VHA electronic health record data system, which has data on over 9 million veterans, most of whom are older and have “a high burden of underlying medical conditions.”

They identified people in the database who had taken the boosters and compared their outcomes with similar people who had not. They analyzed data collected between Oct. 2, 2023, and Jan. 3, 2024.

The authors identified approximately 590,000 people out of the 9 million records who took the XBB.1.5 booster. The researchers then used a statistical algorithm to choose the same number of people from the unvaccinated cohort who they thought best matched the vaccinated cohort according to measured variables using a statistical algorithm.

Those who chose to get vaccinated were older and chronically sicker. On average, they were 7.1 years older, 46.8% more likely to have chronic kidney disease, 41.9% more likely to have diabetes, 45.1% more likely to have chronic heart disease, 65.3% more likely to have chronic heart failure, 38.3% more likely to have chronic lung disease, 36.0% more likely to suffer from dementia.

They had more comorbidities, a higher Care Assessment Need score for mortality, more primary care encounters in the last two years, more recent COVID-19 vaccinations, more recent COVID-19 infections, and were 74.1% more likely to have received an immunosuppressive or cancer treatment within the last year.

Commenting on the methodology, Children’s Health Defense Senior Research Scientist Karl Jablonowski said, “I would not cry foul, but it would certainly have strengthened their paper with trivial effort to also include the health outcomes for the unmatched group” — meaning the rest of the unvaccinated cohort in the records.

Jablonowski said it also would have strengthened the paper if the authors had included the rate of non-SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infections, hospitalizations and deaths among the groups studied.

“The authors would argue that such measurements are outside the scope of vaccine effectiveness, and they would be correct,” Jablonowski said. “The measurements are however squarely within the scope of vaccine safety.”

The authors found that over a mean follow-up of 176 days, vaccine efficacy was -3.26 against SARS-CoV-2 infection, 16.64% against SARS-CoV-2-associated hospitalization and 26.61% against SARS-CoV-2-associated death. They noted the “relatively low” efficacy against hospitalization and death “declined rapidly over time.”

The authors did not explain why efficacy may have been negative.

There are two reasons vaccine efficacy turns negative, according to Jablonowski. He said:

“Either the vaccinated group is getting more unhealthy, or the unvaccinated group is getting healthier. The vaccine could diminish the immune system, allowing for an infection to take hold of the host more than in an unvaccinated person. The unvaccinated comparator group acquires the infection and gains natural immunity, which, in every known instance, is more protective than vaccine-induced immunity.

“In either scenario, it is preposterous to recommend any medical intervention that will leave a person worse off. That is the opposite of medicine.”

Hulscher noted the paper’s findings corroborate five other peer-reviewed studies demonstrating negative efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines.

A paper published in Cureus in December 2024 found that vaccinated people had an 85% greater chance of developing COVID-19 infection relative to their unvaccinated peers. Another study of people in Iceland during the Omicron wave published in JAMA Network Open in 2022 the odds of reinfection were 42% higher for those who received two or more doses compared to those with one dose or less.

A paper published in Nature Communications in June 2022 reported that the effectiveness of both Pfizer and Moderna against Omicron strains waned to negative efficacy after one to three months, Hulscher wrote.

A 2023 Cleveland Clinic study found the risk of COVID-19 infection increased with the number of vaccine doses, and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that vaccinated children without prior infection were more likely to get infected and to develop symptomatic COVID-19 than their unvaccinated counterparts.

“It’s time for these infection-promoting genetic injections to be immediately removed from global markets,” Hulscher wrote. (Media Failing to Cover ‘Powerful Testimony’ of People Injured by COVID Vaccines.)

The victims of the Wuhan Virus poisoned jabs have been as invisible to Jorge Mario Bergoglio have been the victims of illegal immigrant violent crime such as Laken Riley, Jocelyn Nungaray, and Rachel Morin.

The Talmudophilic Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the very epitome of the Jews who refused to understand the nature of the miracles that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wrought before their own very eyes:

And they reasoned among themselves, saying: Because we have no bread.  17 Which Jesus knowing, saith to them: Why do you reason, because you have no bread? do you not yet know nor understand? have you still your heart blinded?  18 Having eyes, see you not? and having ears, hear you not? neither do you remember.  19 When I broke the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took you up? They say to him, Twelve.  20 When also the seven loaves among four thousand, how many baskets of fragments took you up? And they say to him, Seven.

21 And he said to them: How do you not yet understand? (Mark 8:16-21.)

It is probably the case, humanly speaking, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio will never understand his errors as he is a proud man incapable of admitting his errors. Indeed, according to published reports, he has spent some time “working” most of the past twenty-nine days while hospitalized, and when Jorge Mario Bergoglio is at “work” the good of souls, including his own, is always in jeopardy.

Jorge the Disciplinarian

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not only a firm believer in the secular magisterium of the Marxist-Leninist globalist state and agencies such as the “World Health Organization” and non-governmental groups such as Klaus Schwab’s “World Economic Forum,” he, the proponent of “episcopal collegiality” and the “synodal path,” does not cease to use all of the plenipotentiary power at the command of one who believes himself to be a legitimate Successor Saint Peter to discipline those within the conciliar hierarchy who dissent from globalist mandates:

A Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico described his removal from office by Pope Francis on Wednesday as “totally unjust.”

Bishop Daniel Fernández Torres, who has led the Diocese of Arecibo since 2010, said he had been asked to resign because he “had not been obedient to the pope nor had I been in sufficient communion with my brother bishops of Puerto Rico.”

The Holy See press office announced on March 9 that the pope had relieved the 57-year-old bishop of the pastoral care of his diocese. The Vatican did not give a reason for the pope’s decision.

Pope Francis appointed Bishop Álvaro Corrada del Río, S.J., bishop emeritus of Mayagüez, as apostolic administrator of the diocese in the north of the island of Puerto Rico, an unincorporated territory of the United States.

In a March 9 declaration, published on the diocesan website, Fernández Torres strongly objected to his removal.

He said: “I deeply regret that in the Church where mercy is so much preached, in practice some lack a minimum sense of justice.”

“No process has been made against me, nor have I been formally accused of anything and simply one day the apostolic delegate [the pope’s representative in Puerto Rico] verbally communicated to me that Rome was asking me to resign.” (Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico says his removal by Pope Francis is ‘totally unjust’.)

Interjection Number One:

What “Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres, refused to accept was that, while there are canonical processes for the removal of bishops and pastors in the Catholic Church, a true pope, which he believed Jorge Mario Bergoglio to  be, is not bound by those procedures as he is Holy Mother’s supreme governor and legislator. He can exercise his plenipotentiary powers at any time even if it appears unjust and unfair in the human order of things.

Bergoglio’s quick action to remove Daniel Fernandez Torres over the matter of vaccine mandates three years ago should serve as a correlative proof of the fact that he does not possess the Catholic as no true pope would demand that the consciences of Catholics are bound by the diktats of anti-life statists who openly support the depopulation programs of the “global reset of humanity” to promote “sustainable development goals” while accustoming the masses to being but mere vassals of the civil state whose movements, thoughts, words, or actions are restricted/and/or monitored.

Back to the 2022 Catholic News Agency report about “Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres:

“A successor of the apostles is now being replaced without even undertaking what would be a due canonical process to remove a parish priest.”

He went on: “I was informed that I had committed no crime but that I supposedly ‘had not been obedient to the pope nor had I been in sufficient communion with my brother bishops of Puerto Rico.’”

“It was suggested to me that if I resigned from the diocese I would remain at the service of the Church in case at some time I was needed in some other position; an offer that in fact proves my innocence.”

“However, I did not resign because I did not want to become an accomplice of a totally unjust action and that even now I am reluctant to think that it could happen in our Church.”

The imminent removal of Fernández Torres was reported on March 8 by ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish-language news partner. (Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico says his removal by Pope Francis is ‘totally unjust’.)

Interjection Number Two:

“Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres’s “reluctance” to think that something like what happened to him three years ago could actually happen demonstrates that he was absolutely clueless, perhaps even willfully so, about the fact that things far more offensive to the Invisible Head of the Catholic Church, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, have become commonplace in what he, Fernandez Torres, refuses to see as Holy Mother Church’s counterfeit ape, the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

As noted many times before on this site, the "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe in the new ecclesiology that has been condemned repeatedly by the authority of the Catholic Church (see The New Ecclesiology: Documentation).

They have made consistent and unrepentant warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than warfare against the very immutable nature of God Himself and has been and continues to be nothing other than the recrudescence of the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism.

The "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe in the false ecumenism of conciliarism that includes Joseph Ratzinger's rejection of the "ecumenism of the return" that is in direct contradiction to the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, reiterated so clearly and forcefully by Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868, Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894, and Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and Jorge Margo Bergoglio’s flat-out denial, stated on numerous occasions, that the Catholic Church seeks the conversion of non-Catholics or that Holy Mother Church has any “monopoly” on truth should prove conclusively that he is an active agent of Antichrist.

The "popes" and many of the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism have either given "blessings" with or been "blessed" by the "ministers" of non-Catholic religions (for just one such example, see Argentine Cardinal kneels to receive Protestant 'blessing'; other photographs indicative of a revolution against the Catholic Faith may be viewed at Church Revolution in Pictures, which contains some photographs that should not be seen by the young, a telling commentary on the shameless nature of the false religion of conciliarism).

The "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe in a concept of religious liberty that was condemned by Pope Pius VI, Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791, and by Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, and, among others, Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, and Libertas, June 20, 1888.

The "popes" and the "bishops" and the "priests" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism participate in "liturgies" that are abominable in the sight of God and that have done grave damage to souls by accustoming them to profanation in the context of what purports to be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and by denying them Sanctifying Grace, and they have stated repeatedly the Mosaic Covenant was not superseded by the New and Eternal Covenant that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted on Maundy Thursday at the Last Sunday and ratified by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday.

In the current circumstance, of course, it should have been clear to "Bishop" Daniel Fernandez Torres that "collegiality" and "synodality" are the most important qualifications for being in "good standing" under Jorge Mario Bergoglio as those who smack of "triumphalism" in their supposed episcopal roles will smacked down and booted out in short order.

There was, therefore, utterly no foundation for “Bishop” Daniel Fernandez Torres to have been surprised at what happened to him. I mean, look at what happened to the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculta within a year  of Jorge's accession to the presidential chair of apostasy, and he dealt a death knell to Summorum Pontificum on July 16, 2021, the Commemoration of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, although the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter was given a "papal" reprieve with various conditions. "Pope Francis" has got himself a "to do" list with which he is proceeding very methodically to overthrow the few remaining bastions of Catholicism that remain in his false religious sect and to establish new bastions that have been condemned by our true popes as their inspirations and fortifications are of preternatural origins. Just ask "Bishop" Joseph Strickland and Bishop Carlo Maria Vigano (it is evidently the case that the late Bishop Richard Williamson consecrated Vigano as a true bishop).

We return now to the 2022 news report about the now former “bishop” of Arecibo, Puerto Rico:

The news agency said that the bishop had clashed with other bishops in Puerto Rico, a Caribbean island with six dioceses.

ACI Prensa explained that Fernández Torres had initially resisted sending his seminarians to the new Interdiocesan Seminary of Puerto Rico, approved by the Vatican in March 2020.

The bishop of Arecibo had also supported conscientious objection to compulsory vaccination against COVID-19 in a statement published on Aug. 17, 2021.

He made the intervention after Pedro Pierluisi, the governor of Puerto Rico, issued an executive order that all government and healthcare workers, both in public and private institutions, must be vaccinated, as well as workers in the hotel industry.

In his letter, the bishop said that “it is legitimate for a faithful Catholic to have doubts about the safety and efficacy of a vaccine given that what the pharmaceutical companies or drug regulatory agencies say is in no way a dogma of faith.”

“And that safety and efficacy are relevant and necessary data for moral judgment,” he explained.

ACI Prensa reported that Fernández Torres refused to sign a joint statement issued on Aug. 24 by the Puerto Rican bishops which said that “there is a duty to be vaccinated and that we do not see how a conscientious objection can be invoked from Catholic morality.”

The news agency said that Archbishop Ghaleb Moussa Abdalla Bader, the apostolic delegate to Puerto Rico, reportedly requested the resignation of Fernández Torres, who refused, citing reasons of conscience.

It said that the bishop was summoned to the Vatican but did not make the trip due to the pandemic.

Fernández Torres was born in Chicago, Illinois, on April 27, 1964. He was ordained a priest of the Diocese of Arecibo in 1995, at the age of 30.

In 2007, Benedict XVI named him an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of San Juan de Puerto Rico. Three years later, he was appointed bishop of Arecibo.

ACI Prensa said that Fernández Torres was an outspoken critic of gender ideology, describing new legislation in February 2021 as “religious persecution” and a violation of parental rights.

The news agency said that the case of Fernández Torres recalled that of the Paraguayan Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano, who was removed from office by Pope Francis on Sept. 25, 2014.

Livieres Plano had overseen a thriving seminary in his Diocese Ciudad del Este. He was dismissed after an apostolic visit amid accusations of a lack of collegiality.

The bishop was also criticized for his handling of the case of a priest who had served as vicar general until shortly before the visitation. The priest had faced allegations of sexual impropriety, which he denied.

Livieres Plano said that he had refused to sign a resignation letter “on his own initiative, thus wanting to testify to the end of the truth and the spiritual freedom that a Pastor should have.”

He decried what he said was an attempt to impose “ideological uniformity” on Paraguay’s bishops using “the euphemism of ‘collegiality.’”

The bishop, who was ordained a priest of Opus Dei, died on Aug. 14, 2015, due to a liver condition. (Catholic bishop in Puerto Rico says his removal by Pope Francis is ‘totally unjust’.)

Vaccine mandates in the name of “collegiality” became part of the “irreducible minima” of being considered as “Catholic” in “good standing” withing the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism during the scamdemic, and while the late “Bishop” Rogelio Livieres Plano may have had a “thriving diocese,” to compare his situation with that of Daniel Fernandez Torres is manifestly ludicrous as Livieres Plano permitted the notorious clerical abuser and cult leader Father Carlos Urrutigoity to serve as his diocesan vocations director while he, Livieres Plano, persisted in an arrogant denial of all the documented facts about what Urrutigoity had become part of the public record because of various lawsuits and investigation (a summary of the facts can be found in: Pray for the Children, The Early Years of Father Carlos Urrutigoity’s homosexual career and Exploiting Traditionalist Orders: The Society of St. John in addition to my own Still No Excuses For Those Who Defend the Society of Saint John).

Jorge’s Hatred of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition

As is well known and has been documented on this website scores upon scores of times, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has a seething, diabolical hatred for the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and he, the “merciful pope,” has been unsparing in his dripping contempt for and condemnation of Catholics within the conciliar structures who have been flocking to what they believe to be true offerings of the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

Thus, it was not surprising in the slightest when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who had gotten tired of waiting for Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to die, revoked his predecessor’s Summorum Pontificum when he issued Traditiones Custodes on July 16, 2021, the Commemoration of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

Many have been the times in the past one hundred forty-four months when Jorge Mario Bergoglio has attacked his favorite targets, that is, believing Catholics, by calling them “Pharisees,” “rigid,” “hateful,” “Pelagians” and other choice pejoratives, and one of the very first things he did after he became “Pope Francis” on March 13, 2013, was to initiate a veritable persecution of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata because one faction within the group was said to be causing “divisions” by its devotion to the modernized form of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on the First Sunday of Advent, December 3, 1960, that underwent a slight revision in 1962 with the insertion of the name of Saint Joseph into the Canon of Mass, thus demonstrating that the Canon is no longer the unbreakable, unchangeable rule of the Catholic Faith. The Argentine Apostate essentially eviscerated the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata and singled them out as necessary for “correction.”

This is what Jorge Mario Bergoglio said in 2016 to “Father” Antonio Spadoro, S.J., about young Catholics who were attracted to the “extraordinary form” of the “one Roman Rite”:

I ask him: "Other than those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of habit or devotion, can this desire express something else? Are there dangers?"

[Pope:] "I ask myself about this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless. I have at times found myself in front of people who are too rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: how come so much rigidity? You dig, you dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, at times perhaps something else... [sic] The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid." (Rorate Caeli Blogspot.)

Revolutionaries must use the “mental illness” card to denounce, belittle and disparage those who are said to be “counterrevolutionaries." Bergoglio has done this throughout his career as a lay presbyter, and he, who turns eighty-five years of age in five months, has worn out so many “mental illness cards” as “Pope Francis” that one wonders if the Vatican Printing Office has to print out new decks of such cards every week.

Perhaps it is useful to examine a few of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s false contentions about the Immemorial Mass of Tradition that he made in the final section of his “explanatory letter” than accompanies Traditiones Custodes:

The vota submitted by the Bishops there emerged a great insistence on the full, conscious and active participation of the whole People of God in the liturgy, [15] along lines already indicated by Pius XII in the encyclical Mediator Dei on the renewal of the liturgy. [16] The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium confirmed this appeal, by seeking “the renewal and advancement of the liturgy”, [17] and by indicating the principles that should guide the reform. [18] In particular, it established that these principles concerned the Roman Rite, and other legitimate rites where applicable, and asked that “the rites be revised carefully in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet present-day circumstances and needs”. [19] On the basis of these principles a reform of the liturgy was undertaken, with its highest expression in the Roman Missal, published in editio typica by St. Paul VI [20] and revised by St. John Paul II. [21] It must therefore be maintained that the Roman Rite, adapted many times over the course of the centuries according to the needs of the day, not only be preserved but renewed “in faithful observance of the Tradition”. [22] Whoever wishes to celebrate with devotion according to earlier forms of the liturgy can find in the reformed Roman Missal according to Vatican Council II all the elements of the Roman Rite, in particular the Roman Canon which constitutes one of its more distinctive elements. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

First, the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church has not been reformed many times.

Pope Saint Pius V enshrined the Mass of the Roman Curia for universal use in Quo Primum in 1570 to standardize the offering of Holy Mass as there were various regional and/or local variations. He specifically forbade the use of rites that less than two hundred years old to place those rites beyond the “innovations” of the likes of John Hus and Martin Luther that inspired some Catholics to adapt in various ways for their own purposes. However, the Missale Romanum of Pope Saint Pius V was such a fitting expression of the universal experience of the Latin Rite of the preceding one thousand years that even the bishops in most of the places that could prove local usage prior to 1370 chose to use it.

While it is true that Pope Saint Pius X and Pope Pius XII made their own changes, none of these resembled the creation of a synthetic liturgy, noting as I did in G.I.R.M. Warfare: The Conciliar Church's Unremitting Warfare Against Catholic Faith and Worship that the changes authorized by Pope Pius XII were a matter of great contention at the time but nevertheless contained nothing heretical and nothing that detracted from the expression of the Holy Faith in the proper collects of Holy Mass (see the anti-sedevacantist Dr. Carol Byrne’s discussion found of these changes at: 1951-1955: The Vatican Started the Liturgical Reform. One can follow the rest of her series from thereon. See also Pre-“Second Vatican Council” Liturgical Changes: Road to the Conciliar liturgy and Liturgical Revolution.)

In this regard, therefore, it is intellectually dishonest (what else is new?) for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to have claimed that Pope Pius XII’s Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947, called for the sort of “full, active, and conscious participation” of the faithful in the Sacred Liturgy, although the current reigning antipope would have been on firmer ground to have cited our last true pope’s address to the congress of Italian liturgists in 1956 that was filled with praise for the reforms he authorized upon the misrepresentations made to him by Fathers Annibale Bugnini, C.M., and Ferdinando Antonelli, O.F.M. (see Dr. Byrne’s Tectonic Shifts & Fault Lines in Pius XII’s Assisi Address.)

Nevertheless, however, “Pope Francis” referred to Mediator Dei, not to the Assisi address of nine years later, and to claim the text of Mediator Dei on behalf of the Novus Ordo spirit of manic “participation” is indeed intellectually dishonest. Permit me a chance to explain by quoting directly from Mediator Dei:

24. But the chief element of divine worship must be interior. For we must always live in Christ and give ourselves to Him completely, so that in Him, with Him and through Him the heavenly Father may be duly glorified. The sacred liturgy requires, however, that both of these elements be intimately linked with each another. This recommendation the liturgy itself is careful to repeat, as often as it prescribes an exterior act of worship. Thus we are urged, when there is question of fasting, for example, “to give interior effect to our outward observance.”[28] Otherwise religion clearly amounts to mere formalism, without meaning and without content. You recall, Venerable Brethren, how the divine Master expels from the sacred temple, as unworthily to worship there, people who pretend to honor God with nothing but neat and wellturned phrases, like actors in a theater, and think themselves perfectly capable of working out their eternal salvation without plucking their inveterate vices from their hearts.[29] It is, therefore, the keen desire of the Church that all of the faithful kneel at the feet of the Redeemer to tell Him how much they venerate and love Him. She wants them present in crowds — like the children whose joyous cries accompanied His entry into Jerusalem — to sing their hymns and chant their song of praise and thanksgiving to Him who is King of Kings and Source of every blessing. She would have them move their lips in prayer, sometimes in petition, sometimes in joy and gratitude, and in this way experience His merciful aid and power like the apostles at the lakeside of Tiberias, or abandon themselves totally, like Peter on Mount Tabor, to mystic union with the eternal God in contemplation.

25. It is an error, consequently, and a mistake to think of the sacred liturgy as merely the outward or visible part of divine worship or as an ornamental ceremonial. No less erroneous is the notion that it consists solely in a list of laws and prescriptions according to which the ecclesiastical hierarchy orders the sacred rites to be performed.

26. It should be clear to all, then, that God cannot be honored worthily unless the mind and heart turn to Him in quest of the perfect life, and that the worship rendered to God by the Church in union with her divine Head is the most efficacious means of achieving sanctity. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)

Pope Pius XII did commend the efforts of those who produced missals to make the texts of the Mass easily accessible to the faithful, and he also noted that the faithful could join in the singing at High Masses. However, he also wrote that the absence of these accidentals do not detract in any way from the efficacy of a Mass offered validity by a true priest:

105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the “Roman Missal,” so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share. This can be done in more than one way, when, for instance, the whole congregation, in accordance with the rules of the liturgy, either answer the priest in an orderly and fitting manner, or sing hymns suitable to the different parts of the Mass, or do both, or finally in high Masses when they answer the prayers of the minister of Jesus Christ and also sing the liturgical chant.

100. These methods of participation in the Mass are to be approved and recommended when they are in complete agreement with the precepts of the Church and the rubrics of the liturgy. Their chief aim is to foster and promote the people’s piety and intimate union with Christ and His visible minister and to arouse those internal sentiments and dispositions which should make our hearts become like to that of the High Priest of the New Testament. However, though they show also in an outward manner that the very nature of the sacrifice, as offered by the Mediator between God and men,[102] must be regarded as the act of the whole Mystical Body of Christ, still they are by no means necessary to constitute it a public act or to give it a social character. And besides, a “dialogue” Mass of this kind cannot replace the high Mass, which, as a matter of fact, though it should be offered with only the sacred ministers present, possesses its own special dignity due to the impressive character of its ritual and the magnificence of its ceremonies. The splendor and grandeur of a high Mass, however, are very much increased if, as the Church desires, the people are present in great numbers and with devotion.

107. It is to be observed, also, that they have strayed from the path of truth and right reason who, led away by false opinions, make so much of these accidentals as to presume to assert that without them the Mass cannot fulfill its appointed end. (Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei, November 20. 1947.)

The conciliar revolutionaries have made the accidentals essential to the “fullness” of the liturgy.

The mania for activity, a total rejection of the true concept of active participation found in Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei, has resulted in the replacement of true interior participation with mindless activity and verbosity, all of which detract from the nature of the Mass, turning what purports, albeit falsely, to be the Sacred Mysteries into an anthropocentric, communitarian exercise of mutual self-congratulations.

The participation of the lay faithful at Holy Mass requires them to be recollect before Mass, to spend time in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, to pray some of the wonderful prayers found in the various Latin-English hand missals, many of which have been reprinted in recent years. True participation in the Mass requires us to follow the Mass carefully while meditating upon the beauty of the prayers. The Mass is ever ancient, ever new. Its fixed nature conveys the inestimable treasures contained in all its rites and prayers.

There is constant food for thought, no matter how many times we have celebrated a particular feast day or have heard a particular reading. And just as it is the case that honor and glory are added to God and grace is added to the world each time a priest celebrates Holy Mass, so is it also the case that our prayerful, interior participation in Mass (and the prayers we offer therein, as well as those we offer before and afterward) helps to build up the Mystical Body of Christ. Each ligament in the Mystical Body helps to support each other, as Saint Paul noted. None of us in the laity knows the efficacy of our prayers here in this vale of tears. But we are called to be faithful to our prayers, both the formulaic prayers found in the Mass and in Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary and our own mental prayer, the development of which is an important part of passing through the stages of spiritual perfection. It is the Mass which provides us the perfect framework to become more perfect lovers of the Blessed Trinity who are ever eager to serve Him in all aspects of our daily lives. Indeed, our very lives are meant to be offerings of praise and petition to God. That is why we are to be prepared for Holy Mass. For it is in the Mass that we are reminded day in and day out to conform everything about our very being to the standard of the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is re-presented before our very eyes in the greatest miracle we can ever behold in this mortal life.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes not one word of this as he believes that the Catholic liturgy—as well as everything else about the Catholic Faith—must be an expression of the “times” in which men live, not an act of solemn reverence for the Most Holy Trinity as the Sacrifice of the Holy Cross is perpetuated in an unbloody manner.

It is now time to return to the next passage of the Argentine Apostate’s “explanatory letter” that “accompanied” Traditionis Custodes:

A final reason for my decision is this: ever more plain in the words and attitudes of many is the close connection between the choice of celebrations according to the liturgical books prior to Vatican Council II and the rejection of the Church and her institutions in the name of what is called the “true Church.” One is dealing here with comportment that contradicts communion and nurtures the divisive tendency — “I belong to Paul; I belong instead to Apollo; I belong to Cephas; I belong to Christ” — against which the Apostle Paul so vigorously reacted. [23] In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity”, [24] they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation. [25] (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Explanatory Letter to Traditionis Custodes, July 16, 2021.)

This all would have been true if the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the Catholic Church and if the conciliar “popes” have been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter.

As the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s whole set of false teachings rests up its aforementioned warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than an unremitting warfare upon the nature of God, His immutability and the immutability of His Divine Revelation that has been taught without any alteration from Apostolic times, a believing Catholic understands that, quite to the contrary of what Bergoglio asserts, the counterfeit church of conciliarism cannot be the Catholic Church, and the conciliar “popes,” having ascribed to condemned and anathematized tenets long before their apparent “elections,” have not been true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. For further proofs of these claims, please re-read  Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card.

Jorge of the Amazon (or George, George, George of the Jungle)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has used the novelty of the “synod of bishops” to make it appear that his own long-held revolutionary schemes can be endorsed by “final synodal documents” whose conclusions are always a foregone conclusion. All the time wasted on “small group workshops” and “breakout sessions” has been to make it appear that there has been a “universal consensus” on this or that revolutionary development (the use of the 2014 and 2015 “extraordinary synods” to to justify distribution of what purports to be Holy Communion to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who lack the fig leaf of a conciliar decree of novelty, openness to “imperfect relationships” such as sodomite “couples,” the use of the 2019 Pachamama Idol Amazonian synod to permit even wider applications of the “inculturation of the Gospel,” and the 2024 “synod on synodality” to “decentralize” theological and liturgical “decision-making” except in those matters, such as the “blessing” of sodomite “couples” and the disciplining of traditional Catholics, that Jorge wants to reserve unto himself).

Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been emboldened during his twenty-nine days at Ospitale Gemelli to “double down” on his revolutionary “synodal process” to complete his plan to make what he thinks is the Catholic Church subservient to the “voice of the people” rather than to the God’s Divine Revelation and, at that, only those “people” who think as Bergoglio thinks, that is, with the mind of the devil himself:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) -Pope Francis approved a new three-year process to consider reforms for the global Catholic Church, the Vatican said on Saturday, in a sign the 88-year-old pontiff plans to continue on as pope despite his ongoing battle with double pneumonia.

Francis has extended the work of the Synod of Bishops, a signature initiative of his 12-year papacy, which has discussed reforms such as the possibility of women serving as Catholic deacons and better inclusion of LGBTQ people in the Church.

The synod, which held an inconclusive Vatican summit of bishops on the future of the Church last October, will now hold consultations with Catholics across the world for the next three years, before hosting a new summit in 2028.

Francis approved the new process for reforms on Tuesday from Rome's Gemelli hospital, where he is being treated, the Vatican said on Saturday.

The pope has been in hospital for more than a month and his prolonged public absence has stoked speculation that he could choose to follow his predecessor Benedict XVI and resign from the papacy.

His friends and biographers have insisted, however, that he has no plans to step down. The approval of a new three-year process indicated he wants to continue on, despite his age and the possibility he might face a long, fraught road to recovery from pneumonia, given his age and other medical conditions.

"The Holy Father ... is helping push the renewal of the Church toward a new missionary impulse," Cardinal Mario Grech, the official leading the reform process, told the Vatican's media outlet. "This is truly a sign of hope."

BRINGING CHURCH 'UP TO DATE'

Francis, who has been pope since 2013, is widely seen as trying to open up the staid global Church to the modern world.

However, the pope's reform agenda has upset some Catholics, including a few senior cardinals. They have accused him of watering down the Church's teachings on issues such as same-sex marriage, and divorce and remarriage. (Pope Francis, showing plans to stay on, starts new Catholic reform process.)

“Trying to open up the staid global church to the modern world?”

Gee, where have we heard that before?

Well, the whole conciliar enterprise was meant to be an “opening to the world,” which was made possible by the shell game template to effect a veritable revolution that was concocted by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII prior to and during the first session of the “Second” Vatican Council:

In the years leading up to the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII entrusted the preparation of the documents that would be discussed by the Council to a Preparatory Commission, headed by the venerable Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani (1890-1979). The Preparatory Commission ended up drafting a total of nine schemas on a variety of topics. It was these schemas that would be rejected by the Council Fathers as excessively rigid, condemnatory in tone, and too “Scholastic” in style. The majority of the documents were rejected in favor of what have gone on to become the sixteen documents of Vatican II.

Until recently, we in the English speaking world had no way to assess the alleged inferiority of Ottaviani’s original schemas; we had to simply take the word of the Council Fathers and periti. Thankfully, however, in 2012 a priest of Marquette University, Fr. Joseph A. Komonchak, laboriously translated six of the nine schemas into English. We are happy to link Fr. Komonchak’s excellent translations below.

Five of the nine schemas are available, with expansive footnotes and helpful commentary by Fr. Komonochak. The original Vatican II schemas available in English are: 

On the Sources of Revelation (De fontibus revelationis)

Defending Intact the Deposit of Faith

On the Christian Moral Order

On Chastity, Marriage, the Family and Virginity 

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

On the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God and Mother of Men

In reading these original schemas, one is struck by their clarity, their directness, and, relative to the subsequent conciliar documents, their brevity. It is also interesting to see how these documents are notably different from the documents that were eventually promulgated. For example, “On the Sources of Revelation” states very plainly that there are two sources of revelation which constitute a single deposit of faith; Dei Verbum, on the other, is emphatic that there is but one source of revelation which is passed on in two “modes of transmission.” 

The source material is interesting as well. The footnotes of the discarded schemas reveals an abundant number of citations from Pascendi, Mortalium Animos, the Syllabus and even the anti-Modernist oath, none of which are cited in the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example.

The tone is markedly different from the final conciliar documents; instead of the humble “searching for truth” (1) that we note in the conciliar documents, the original schemas lucidly and authoritatively proclaim the truth, as well as about the errors which pervert it. De fontibus revelationis, subject to so much scorn by the Council Fathers, issued several formal condemnations. In order to see the difference in tone between the two sets of documents, consider the first as passage from the schema “On the Christian Moral Order”, paragraph 6:

[The Church] grieves, however, that many people are transgressing the divine law, more from weakness than from wickedness, though rarely without grave guilt. It notes with great horror that errors are being spread everywhere, errors that open the way to perdition and close the gate of salvation. There are those who deny a personal God and so deprive the natural law of its foundation; there are those who, repudiating the mission of Christ, reject the law of the Gospel; there are those who rely only on human principles in explaining the moral order and therefore rob it of its genuine and ultimate obligation and sanction…Their impiety and impudence reach such a point that they attempt to assault heaven and to remove God himself from the midst. With notorious wickedness and equal foolishness they are not afraid to state that there is no supreme, most wise and most provident God distinct from the universe; there are those who maintain that the moral law is subject to changes and to evolution even in fundamental matters…”

Now compare this with a parallel passage from Gaudium et Spes chapter 21, also dealing with atheism:

The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God’s temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind.”

When the Council got underway, the progressive Council Fathers saw the schemas of Ottaviani as an obstacle to their program of reform. Cardinal Bea, one of the more influential Cardinals and a favorite of Pope John XXIII, explained to his progressive colleagues:

We must help the Holy Father achieve his goals for the Council, the ones he expresses in his radio messages and in his exhortations. These are not the same as those of the schemas, either because the Theological Commission, which directs them, is closed to the world and to ideas of peace, justice, and unity, or because of the division of the work and a lack of co-ordination. They’ve made room for everything except the Holy Spirit. (2)

Thus, these schemas, which were ‘closed to the world’, were replaced with what we currently have, the defects of which we are all painfully aware. As they were never adopted, these schemas have no authority; but in reading them, one cannot help but contemplating the council that might have been. (Original Vatican II Schemas.)

Well, the council “might have been” never came about because it was never the intention of the Rosicrucian Mason and Modernist Sillonist, Roncalli/John XXIII, to anything other than a “bait and switch” that was pulled off by a thirty-five year-old German “new theologian” named Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, the mythical “restorer of tradition” himself:

Fr. Joseph Ratinger was the personal assistant of Card. Frings of Cologne who was not only a member of the Central Preparatory Committee of the Council, but also President of the West German Episcopal Conference (which, as we have seen in a previous article, was the most militant of all the European groups pressing for radical revolution in the Church from the 1950s).

This piece of background information will be useful to keep in mind when we consider that Card. Frings gave Prof. Ratzinger the task of assessing the original drafts for their suitability to be forwarded to the Council, and of preparing written material that the Cardinal could present orally during the voting sessions.

There is enough evidence from various sources to show that whatever statements the Cardinal made during the Council sessions, he was mostly following (from memory because of his failing eyesight) a script written by the Prof. Ratzinger. Examples are provided by biographers, Peter Seewald and Norbert Trippen.¹ The latter identified numerous instances from documentary evidence of Card. Frings’s interventions at the Council as having been written by Ratzinger.

But the clinching piece of evidence comes from Ratzinger himself who described in some detail, without showing any awareness of the comic nature of the situation, the procedure that took place at the German-speaking Anima College in Rome to prepare Frings for his role at the Council. According to his own account, the elderly Cardinal was subjected to several sessions in front of the young Ratzinger, in which he had to memorize a text drawn up and read out to him by Ratzinger, and rehearse it well before delivering it at the Council.²

So, in the interests of transparency, it would be more accurate to attribute Frings’s statements in the aula to the influence of Fr. Ratzinger, even if not everything he said was memorized exactly word for word, and allowing for perhaps some additional twists inserted by the Cardinal himself. To give some examples:

1. Schema on the Sources of Revelation

Fr. Ratzinger rejected the original draft of the schema on the Sources of Revelation in 1962, after it had been approved by the Central Preparatory Commission and Pope John XXIII. To replace it, at least in part, he recommended the schema De Verbo Dei presented by his fellow-progressivist, Card. Bea, President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity.

No sound reason for the substitution was given, only the arbitrary judgement by Ratzinger that the new text “deals with the same subject, but in a better way.”³ It is now clear that what he meant by “better” was “more Protestant,” for his own work on the subject of Revelation was an attempt to achieve a reconciliation between Catholic and Lutheran positions.

The original schema had followed the de Fide teaching of the Church, clearly set out in the Manuals that there are two distinct fonts of Revelation: Scripture and Tradition, by which is meant that the content of the Church’s doctrine is derived from those two sources. But Ratzinger contended that there is only one source of Revelation, the Word of God continually speaking throughout the ages in a never-ending dialogue between God and man.

The new formulation appealed strongly to the neo-modernists who readily accepted Ratzinger’s arguments that the Council of Trent had an “incomplete” conception of Revelation and that its decree was the result of a “compromise” between opposing forces in the debating sessions.⁴

He concluded that while Revelation, in its “historical and material content,” may be closed, it is nonetheless still open to further interpretation by “theological work today, with its new insight.” In other words, Revelation is both closed and open, and is subject to change. This is a typical example of the use of sophistry to allow two contradictory statements to be true at the same time, and leeway for a reinterpretation of Revelation by an elite cadre of academic theologians (including himself) to be imposed on the rest of the Church.

Where does that leave the content of the Church’s doctrine otherwise known as the Deposit of the Faith? Evidently out in the cold, for it is hardly ever alluded to today. It is not difficult to see how this happened. Neo-modernists have no interest in the actual content of Revelation which consists of supernatural truths proposed to the intellect, and which must be accepted on the authority of God revealing.

Ratzinger saw Revelation as a “speech act” of God that requires a “dialogue partner” (man) before it can be considered “real.” Revelation, it seems, can only attain the status of reality if it comes with “active participation.” This implies that man himself is a constituent part of Revelation, with a determining role in its interpretation and application to changing circumstances of life.

His hypothesis that Revelation receives its validity from man’s response is a superficially plausible but fallacious argument drawn from his own “Personalist” philosophy. St Thomas Aquinas taught that supernatural truth (of which Revelation is composed) exists independently of the person seeking to know it, and that it has an objective, intrinsic value completely outside of human consciousness.

It is not the response of man that gives Revelation its value; it is the truth of Revelation that gives value to man; but it can only do so if it is independent of man. There is, therefore, no “personal” approach to the divinely revealed message available in this life other than to accept those truths that the Church locates either in Scripture or Tradition and that she presents to us as infallibly true in her Ordinary or Universal Magisterium.

In rejecting the original schema on the Sources of Revelation, Ratzinger tried to justify his departure from Catholic orthodoxy on the following grounds:

“The text was … utterly the product of the ‘anti-modernist’ mentality that had taken shape about the turn of the century. The text was written in a spirit of condemnation and negation ... [it] had a frigid and even offensive tone to many of the Fathers … the content of the text was new to no one. It was exactly like dozens of text-books familiar to the Bishops from their seminary days: and in some cases, their former professors were actually responsible for the texts now presented to them.”⁵

This tells us all we need to know about the anti-traditional basis of Vatican II’s “New Theology” which is represented in all the revised schemata. Ratzinger, as we can see from the above quote, was adamant that the anti-modernist crusade of Pope St. Pius X should be overturned and defeated. His objection to the “spirit of condemnation and negation” (which Pope John XXIII later attributed to the “prophets of doom”) is ironic, considering that he himself employs the same spirit in his own rejection and condemnation of the pre-Conciliar Manuals.

It is obvious from his reference to a “frigid and even offensive tone to many of the Fathers” that he was concerned only with defending the opinions of the progressivists Bishops at the Council who, by definition, discounted the teaching of the approved Manuals insofar as they reflected the orthodoxy and discipline of the reigning Magisterium. Let us not forget that defending the interests of the progressivists entails trouncing the position of the traditionalist Fathers who had produced the first schemata (and who were greatly shocked by the reformed versions).

Adding insult to injury, he then proceeded to make disparaging remarks about the “Manualist” seminary formation of the traditional Bishops, suggesting that they had been indoctrinated with rigid and antiquated theories.

It seems that this was an oblique way of accusing the teaching of the Magisterium (reflected in the approved theological Manuals) of having taught faulty theology about Revelation in seminaries for centuries.

This impression is strengthened by the fact that Ratzinger was a follower of 20^th-century ressourcement theologians led by Fr. Henri de Lubac SJ. Their methodology was to bypass the Manuals and go directly to the Bible and the early Fathers, interpreting them in Protestant style according to their own lights. No wonder the results of their academic research were often opposed to Catholic teaching. (Ratzinger’s Role in the Rejection of Vatican II Original Documents.)

Do not let anyone, putative priest, or outright layman, deceive into believing their own delusional misconceptions about Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who lived and died as a Modernist who never accept the fact that God is immutable and so is His teaching.

Thus, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s use of “synods” with predetermined conclusions was simply a continuation of what happened at the “Second” Vatican Council although unlike the pseudo-scholarly Ratzinger, Senor Jorge, who cares nothing for any kind of theology, has been simply projecting his own Modernist, pagan, and Marxist presuppositions as the work of the “Holy Spirit” at his “synods” even though the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity has guided Holy Mother Church infallibly since Pentecost Sunday in the absolute permanence of the Catholic Faith that is not “determined” by the “people” nor influenced by the historical conditions in which they live nor their own unwillingness to live in accord with the binding precepts of the Divine and Natural Laws.

The false “pontiff’s” Querida Amazonia, February 2, 2020, therefore, basically endorse the Amazonia Synod’s “final document” with his own words of encouragement for one “base community” experiment after another:

It is a little more than interesting that some of the “conservative” commentaries  that I have read about Querida Amazonia have praised its “clarity” when it is nothing other than a Modernist vehicle to promote a naturalist view of indigenous peoples despite the references to seemingly Catholic beliefs that contain the double-minded meaning mentioned twice before in this commentary.

In truth, of course, Querida Amazonia was truly cleverly disguised instrument of advancing a form of “liberation theology” without attempting to be as frank as the late Gustavo Guttierez and the eighty-six-year-old Leonardo Boff, each of whom have been held in high esteem by “Pope Francis,” who learned a form of “liberation theology” known as the “theology of the oppressed” that is at the heart of Querida Amazonia:

Leonardo Boff, well-known leader of Liberation Theology, posted the following message on his Twitter on August 5, 2019:

"Exchanging correspondence with me, Pope Francis recalled a meeting we had in San Miguel, Argentina, from February 23-29, 1972, and sent me this photo. He is the fourth from the right."

Above is the mentioned photo; we marked both the future Pope and the theologian with a red arrow: Boff is sitting in the first row, Bergoglio standing in the second. A snapshot of Boff's posting can be seen below.

Actually, both Bergoglio and Boff met in a conference of professors from the Faculty of Philosophy and Theology at the Jesuit University of San Miguel in Argentina. Fr. Jorge Bergoglio – he had been ordained a priest in 1969 – was a professor there.

Shortly after Medellin (1968) where Paul VI gave free rein to Liberation Theology, meetings like the one shown above were taking place to put it in effect. Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez was launching his first book and Fr. Leonardo Boff also wrote his first work that same year.

 Jesuit Fr. Juan Carlos Scannone, then-rector of the Faculty and the mentor of Fr. Bergoglio, was preparing "Theology of the Oppressed People," which is an Argentine version of Liberation Theology. Fr. Bergoglio was a strong partisan of it.

Thus we see that the leftist position of Pope Francis was present from the very beginning of his career.

As found at Tradition in Action: Bergoglio & Boff: Old acquaintances. Bergoglio is pictured in the third row, standing between two women and a cleric in lay clothing.

The goal of “liberation theology” is to promote “Marxism with a Christian face” by annihilating the individual in favor of a collectivist concept of “Man” that has no room for Christ the King and His true Church, which is why Bergoglio uses Querida Amazonia as an instrument to promote “communitarianism.” In other words, Bergoglio believes with the supposedly “moderate” Madame Defarge (Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton) that “it takes a village to raise a child.”

Here is one such example in a passage quoted earlier in this commentary from Querida Amazonia:

71. In this regard, the indigenous peoples of the Amazon Region express the authentic quality of life as “good living”. This involves personal, familial, communal and cosmic harmony and finds expression in a communitarian approach to existence, the ability to find joy and fulfillment in an austere and simple life, and a responsible care of nature that preserves resources for future generations. The aboriginal peoples give us the example of a joyful sobriety and in this sense, “they have much to teach us”.[101] They know how to be content with little; they enjoy God’s little gifts without accumulating great possessions; they do not destroy things needlessly; they care for ecosystems and they recognize that the earth, while serving as a generous source of support for their life, also has a maternal dimension that evokes respect and tender love. All these things should be valued and taken up in the process of evangelization.[102] (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Querida Amazonia, February 2, 2020.)

Proponents of “liberation theology” have long used “base communities” as the means to brainwash the poor in underdeveloped nations to believe in a false gospel of social liberation from poverty and a “redemption” in terms of “economic justice” and, in these latter days, “environmental justice.” This why Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself stressed the importance of “base communities” in Querida Amazonia:

96. Base communities, when able to combine the defence of social rights with missionary proclamation and spirituality, have been authentic experiences of synodality in the Church’s journey of evangelization in the Amazon region. In many cases they “have helped form Christians committed to their faith, disciples and missionaries of the Lord, as is attested by the generous commitment of so many of their members, even to the point of shedding their blood”.[137]

97. I encourage the growth of the collaborative efforts being made through the Pan Amazonian Ecclesial Network and other associations to implement the proposal of Aparecida to “establish a collaborative ministry among the local churches of the various South American countries in the Amazon basin, with differentiated priorities”.[138] This applies particularly to relations between Churches located on the borders between nations. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Querida Amazonia, February 2, 2020.)

Leaving a discussion of “synodality” until a bit later in this commentary, suffice it to say that “base communities” are code word for Marxist organizing, which is why so many in the conciliar structures in the United States of America had such an affinity for the late Saul Alinksy’s “community organizing” efforts.

The late Father Enrique Rueda, who died in 2009, gave an interview during the “pontificate” of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II that explained the nature of “base communities,” which have been particularly supportive of Communism in Brazil, El Salvador and Nicaragua, at a time when many of us, including this writer, believed that “Pope John Paul II” would an end to “liberation theology” once and for all:

Q. In supporting the F.M.L.N. and the Sandinistas and Salvador Allende's Unidad Popular, et cetera the "liberation theology" crowd has to work with declared Marxist-Leninists who are atheists strongly opposed to religion of any sort. How is that contradiction justified?

A. I have a training manual for "base communities"—a term I'll explain in a minute. It says that Marxism has three meanings: As a "science" for understanding society; as a "program of action" for changing society; and, as a philosophy. The line is that a Christian not only can be, but must be, a Marxist to understand society and work to change it in the proper way. As for philosophy, they assert that theism is an old-fashioned part of Marxism and that it is really unnecessary to Marxist practice. I find it very significant that this particular manual also states that the function of a Marxist is to become involved in promoting violence. It says so in so many words.

Q. What is the Popular Church movement in Nicaragua?

A. The Popular Church, condemned by Pope John Paul II in a letter to the bishops of Nicaragua in 1982, has as its basic unit what is called the "base community." This is a group of people who commit themselves as a group to engage in the study of society from a "biblical" point of view and then to do something about it by direct action. But "biblical" does not mean in this case what traditional Christians mean by it. Here it means the basic tenets of "liberation theology."

So in fact the "base community" is what ordinary Marxists would term a "cell," but of the so-called Popular Church rather than of the Communist Party. And the Popular Church is the alternative that the "liberation theologians" offer to the traditional Catholic Church in those cases where the bishops and priests refuse to accept the teachings and practices of "liberation theology."

Q. What is the relationship of the Popular Church to the Sandinista regime?

A. In the case of Nicaragua where the "liberation" theologians rejected the authority of Archbishop Obando y Bravo and the Church hierarchy, these "base communities" provide support for Marxism and the Sandinistas within the Catholic Church. When a bishop goes to visit a neighborhood to promote traditional Catholic teaching and practices, people from the "base communities" have been known to stone him. In one case they physically assaulted a bishop who tried to enter a church occupied by a base community. They are functioning as a political arm of the Marxists within the Catholic Church.

Q. Am I correct that "base communities" are being organized in El Salvador in support of the terrorist F.M.L.N.?

A. Absolutely. A number of priests, nuns, and lay people in El Salvador are using the badge of Christianity and Catholicism to promote violent Marxist revolution. But I want to point out that the Latin American country with the largest number of these "base communities" is Brazil. That is where you will find the greatest influence of Marxism within the Catholic Church.

Q. Why is so little said about this in the Catholic congregations of America?

A. First, for the benign reason that you are talking about two separate continents. In many cases the parishioners are uninformed and the priests may know little about it or may agree with it. In a number of areas, you now find "Justice and Peace Commissions" which basically sympathize with "liberation theology" and which you find active in support of the F.M.L.N. and the Sandinistas. But almost no one uses the old language of Marxism. They say they are for "economic and social justice"; they attack "unaccountability of multinational corporations," not capitalism; and, they demand "economic democracy" and "self-determination" rather than use the word revolution.

Q. So they wrap their real intentions in words that sound idealistic?

A. Yes, and that brings me to the second problem—the lack of education of so many Americans about what the concepts of Marxism are and how they are rephrased in "liberation theology" and other areas. (Interview with Father Enrique  Rueda.)

A superb researcher on subjects pertaining to Marxism's presence in what she thinks is the Catholic Church, Mrs. Stephanie Block, who rejects sedevacantism, has written extensively about the cooperation between the lords of what she believes is the Catholic Church and Alinsky’s “community organizing” along the same vein:

What is to be made of Small Christian Communities? Do they serve or threaten the Church?

Their history presents cause for concern. Small Christian Communities (SCCs) are known, among Latin American Marxists, as “base” or “basic” communities: comunidades des base. They were fostered as vehicles of “conscientization” in liberation theology. In their book, Dangerous Memories, Bernard Lee and Michael Cowan write: “The strongest support for this movement [of SCCs] came from the Medellín conference of Latin American bishops in 1968, which faced the Church in the direction of liberation theology and basic Christian communities.”

SCCs spread into North America through various “progressive” programs. For example, the “National Pastoral Plan for Hispanic Ministry,” produced by the US bishops' Secretariat for Hispanic Affairs in 1988 linked the creation of small ecclesial communities to conscientization, community development, and community organizing. It presented SCCs as “a model of Church that nourishes and fosters ministries by women,” and stated that it would “value the role of small ecclesial community in the promotion of women.” The SCC was to be the vehicle through which Hispanic Catholics would “develop a form of conscientization and commitment to justice.”

The Mexican American Cultural Center in San Antonio is one such liberationist hub in the United States. Its bookstore carries the title: How Can We Use the Gospels as a Basis for Our Action? One item in it is a politicized imitation of the Magnificat, written by leaders of a San Antonio activist group, COPS (Communities Organized for Public Service). It is included as a model of how “to reflect on the Gospels in order to find the proper response to our own situation.”

Such use of Scriptures is a characteristic of liberationist thought. COPS is one of dozens of related interfaith political action organizations around the country, including many Catholic parishes. A disconcerting number have small faith communities built into them, in which participants pray together and study the Bible together, examining Scripture "in the context of community.” Stephanie Block is director of special research projects for the Wanderer Forum Foundation. She has written A Commentary on the Campaign for Human Development (1997), A Commentary on the Industrial Areas Foundation (1998), and A Commentary on the USCCB and Environmentalism (2000). She also edits The Pepper Newsletter for Los Pequenos de Cristo in New Mexico. (Small Faith Communities.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s reference to “base communities” in Querida Amazonia is not accidental. He knows, perhaps better than anyone else, that these communities have been instruments of promoting Marxism throughout Brazil, and it is also no accident that one of  “liberation theology’s” strongest “episcopal” promoters, the Claudio “Cardinal” Hummes, who long scoffed at priestly celibacy as the total giving of a man whose soul is to conformed to the Priesthood and the Victimhood of the Chief Priest of every Mass, Our Lord Himself, and who would consider Pope Saint Siricius’s imposition of celibacy even on married priest in the fourth century (!) as of utterly no relevance to him, was one of the driving forces behind the so-called Amazonian Synod six years ago, in 2019.

Hummes was an original supporter of “liberation theology” and worked very hard to promote “base communities” when he was the conciliar “archbishop” of San Andre, Brazil, from 1975 to the time when he was appointed by Wojtyla/John Paul II to be the “archbishop” of San Paolo, Brazil, in 1998. An article on the anti-sedevacantist Tradition in Action website mentioned Hummes’s efforts in support of “base communities”:

In the ‘60s the Brazilian Catholic bishops and clergy took a vocal position against Capitalism and the agricultural and livestock production structure of the country. Many adopted the Marxist jargon on how the rich were exploiting the poor and began to call for “reforms of the structures.” Leading this movement was the charismatic leader Helder Camara, the “Red Archbishop” of the cities of Olinda and Recife.

Helder Camara, the ‘Red Archbishop’ prepared the way for Liberation Theology

The religious adopted either a “reformist line” or a “revolutionary line.” In the first, the priests, monks and nuns would instigate and organize strikes and take part in public demonstrations on social and economic issues. The second was more directly communist and preached armed struggle. These two currents prepared the way for Liberation Theology, which in 1968 was “baptized” by Paul VI in Medellin, Colombia, and brought so much harm for South and Central Americas.

It was under the influence of both the Stalinist PCdoB, which infiltrated almost all the worker unions, and Liberation Theology, which had the support of the clergy, that Lula da Silva came to light in the last decades of the 20^th century. A union leader, he was beneficiary of the Christian Base Communities – CBCs – which were supported by Catholic Prelates such as the Cardinal of São Paulo Evaristo Arns and the Bishop of Santo André, Cláudio Hummes (later Archbishop of São Paulo). The CBCs became a national force and, based on them and with the support of the PCdoB, Lula da Silva founded the Workers Party in 1980 (Partido dos Trabalhadores – PT) and run unsuccessfully for President three times before achieving victory in the 2002 election.

In 1980, Lula said: “Only strong parties and strong unions can prevent small groups from taking over the country and perpetuate themselves in the power.”

Showing his communist bent, Lula declared: “When we speak of Socialism the question soon arises: What type of Socialism? Some people have ready models in their minds: the Soviet, the Cuban, I could even say that I have a model in my mind. … But to it is still very difficult to make these simple people discuss Socialism, because what normally happens is that those who have fixed ideas in their minds try to shove them down the workers’ throat.”

At this time he expressed one of the principles of his career as agitator: “We cannot eternally wait for the propitious moment for a strike. The one who creates the moment is the worker.”

With these few examples my reader has an idea of the debt Lula da Silva has toward both the Stalinist Communism and the Liberation Theology of the CBCs. (Stalinism in Brazil.)

By the way, do you know who appointed Claudio “Cardinal” Hummes as the prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy?

None other than that “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, in 2006. Hummes served as prefect of the clergy congregation until 2010 after he had reached the Montini/Paul VI imposed “retirement” age of seventy-five.

I would submit that there is “clarity” contained in the text of Querida Amazonia, which, no matter cleverly hidden, is a clear endorsement of the Marxist policies that have been followed by many of the conciliar “bishops” in Brazil for the past sixty years, and there is equal clarity in the indult Jorge Mario Bergoglio's indult for the introduction of "indigenous traditions" in a so-called "Mayan rite" (see Bergoglio Extols and Idolizes the Very Pagan Practices that Our Lady Sought to Eradicate).

Synodality

Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio made only one reference to the conciliar appropriation and adaptation of the term “synodality” from the heretical and schismatic Orthodox churches in Querida Amazonia, February 2, 2020, it is important to note for the purposes of this commentary that Jorge Mario Bergoglio's support for "synodality" is nothing new as the very existence of the “consultative” body called the “Synod of Bishops” was designed by Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI to institute conciliarism’s heresy of “episcopal collegiality” at the Roman level. Bergoglio has made it clear from the very beginnings of his false “pontificate” twelve years ago that he wants to completely decentralize decision-making in his false religious sect to afford the “local churches” to innovate as they see fit.

Bergoglio, much like his predecessors before him, has expressed his admiration for “synodality” by the Orthodox. Indeed, he did so almost immediately after taking his stage name of “Pope Francis” on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, and expressed this very specifically in the interview on July 29, 2013, while en route to Rome after his trip to Brazil for World Hootenanny Day:

Francis: The steps I have taken in these four and a half months, come from two sources: the content of what had to be done, it all comes from the source of the General Congregations that we Cardinals had. They were things that we Cardinals asked for to the one who’d be the new Pope.

I remember that I asked for many things, thinking of someone else.

That is, we asked, this has to be done… for instance, the Commission of eight Cardinals, we know that it’s important to have an outside consultation, not the consultations that take place, but from the outside. And this is in line — here I make a sort of abstraction, thinking, however, to explain it — in the line increasingly of the maturation of the relation between the Synodality and the Primacy.

That is, these eight Cardinals favor Synodality, they help the different episcopates of the world to express themselves in the government itself of the Church. Many proposals were made, which have not yet been put into practice, such as the reform of the Synod’s Secretariat, the methodology; such as the Post-Synodal Commission which has a permanent character of consultation; such as the Cardinals’ Consistories with topics that aren’t so formal, such as, for instance, canonization, but also subjects, etc. Well, the source of the contents comes from there. (Press Conference in English.)

In actual truth, however, the only things are left for the conciliar revolutionaries to transfer downward from the various Vatican dicasteries to the national "episcopal" conferences are the actual appointment of men to be "bishops," pending "ratification" by the "Bishop of Rome," and complete authority to render decisions on doctrinal matters that have been under the purview of the conciliar Congregation for the Deconstruction, Deformation and Destruction of the Faith. Other than those matters, however, the conciliar creation called national episcopal conferences (each has a smattering of true bishops as those of the Uniat rites are, at least for the most part, validly consecrated as bishops) already have great latitude.

Bergoglio also stressed the need for “synodality” in opening address that he gave to his pre-cooked “Synod of Bishops” on the family in 2015 that paved the way for the pre-cooked text of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016:

The Synod, as we know, is a journey undertaken together in the spirit of collegiality and synodality, on which participants bravely adopt parrhesia, pastoral zeal and doctrinal wisdom, frankness, and always keep before our eyes the good of the Church, of families and the suprema lex, the Salus animarum.

I should mention that the Synod is neither a convention, nor a parlor, nor a parliament or senate, where people make deals and reach compromises. The Synod is rather an Ecclesial expression, i.e., the  Church that journeys together to read reality with the eyes of faith and with the heart of God; it is the Church that interrogates herself with regard to her fidelity to the deposit of faith, which does not represent for the Church a museum to view, nor even something merely to safeguard, but is a living source from which the Church shall drink, to satisfy the thirst of, and illuminate, the deposit of life.

The Synod moves necessarily within the bosom of the Church and of the holy people of God, to which we belong in the quality of shepherds – which is to say, as servants. The Synod also is a protected space in which the Church experiences the action of the Holy Spirit. In the Synod, the Spirit speaks by means of every person’s tongue, who lets himself be guided by the God who always surprises, the God who reveals himself to little ones, who hides from the knowing and intelligent; the God who created the law and the Sabbath for man and not vice versa; by the God, who leaves the 99 sheep to look for the one lost sheep; the God who is always greater than our logic and our calculations.

Let us remember, however, that the Synod will be a space for the action of the Holy Spirit only if we participants vest ourselves with apostolic courage, evangelical humility and trusting prayer: with that apostolic courage, which refuses to be intimidated in the face of the temptations of the world – temptations that tend to extinguish the light of truth in the hearts of men, replacing it with small and temporary lights; nor even before the petrification of some hearts, which, despite good intentions, drive people away from God; apostolic courage to bring life and not to make of our Christian life a museum of memories; evangelical humility that knows how to empty itself of conventions and prejudices in order to listen to brother bishops and be filled with God – humility that leads neither to finger-pointing nor to judging others, but to hands outstretched to help people up without ever feeling oneself superior to them.

Confident prayer that trusts in God is the action of the heart when it opens to God, when our humors are silenced in order to listen to the gentle voice of God, which speaks in silence. Without listening to God, all our words are only words that are meet no need and serve no end. Without letting ourselves be guided the Spirit, all our decisions will be but decorations that, instead of exalting the Gospel, cover it and hide it.

Dear brothers, as I have said, the Synod is not a parliament in which to reach a consensus or a common accord there is recourse to negotiation, to deal-making, or to compromise: indeed, the only method of the Synod is to open up to the Holy Spirit with apostolic courage, with evangelical humility and confident, trusting prayer, that it might be He, who guides us, enlightens us and makes us put before our eyes, with our personal opinions, but with faith in God, fidelity to the Magisterium, the good of the Church and the Salus animarum.

In fine, I would like to thank: His Eminence Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod; His Excellency, Archbishop Fabio Fabene, Undersecretary; and with them I thank the Rapporteur, His Eminence Cardinal Peter Erdő and the Special Secretary, His Excellency Archbishop Bruno Forte; the Presidents-delegate, writers, consultors, translators and all those who worked with true fidelity and total dedication to the Church. Thank you so much! (Full text of remarks at Synod opening.)

“Pope Francis” believes that the Sacred Deposit of Faith does not consist of a “museum of memories” that must be safeguarded by what he thinks is the Catholic Church. No, the Sacred Deposit of Faith is a starting point from which to “reference” the concrete situations in which people live today. One cannot contend that he intends to maintain the doctrine of the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage by looking for ways to circumvent it as one blasphemously contends the effort to do so is the work of the “Holy Spirit” and is proof of the “God who surprises.” This is the work of evil spirits, not the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. Jorge’s “god” is not the true God of Divine Revelation. He is immutable. So are His doctrines. Anyone who thinks that this kind of heretical, blasphemous denial of the very nature of God and His Revelation is going to “defend doctrine” is either insane or just completely intellectually dishonest. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a Catholic. He is not a member of the Catholic Church.

Pope Saint Pius X, quoting the words of Pope Gregory IX, explained the pride of heretics as follows:

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."

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 Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Saint Pius X had described each of the conciliar “popes” with prophetic clarity. Bergoglio’s five predecessors have simply made it more possible for him to be so bold as to make certain what they tried to obfuscate with contradiction, paradox and ambiguity: that a false, ephemeral sense of “love” is all that matters, not doctrine. This can be termed as the “theology” of Burt Bacharach and Hal David (“What the world needs now is love, sweet love”).

Berogoglio’s revolution against the Catholic Faith is really nothing new. Everything that he believes is textbook Modernism, and it is has been condemned word-for-word by one true pope after another, including by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors, December 9, 1864, Pope Saint Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, July 1, 1907, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, and Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.

A good summary of Bergoglio’s revolutionary goals—and those of his false church—was provided by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, No. 38)

There is not one part of this passage that does not apply entirely to the agenda of the counterfeit church of conciliarism as exemplified so well in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is the first conciliar “pope” to have been trained in the milieu of conciliarism’s false Modernist precepts, each of which is based upon a number of condemned heresies and errors. Indeed, the entirely of the passage above describes both the stated and implied goals of Querida Amazonia perfectly as Bergoglio has always used the cover of “synodality” to justify giving what he thinks are the sacraments to Catholics who are divorced and civilly “remarried” without the fig leaf of a conciliar degree of martial nullity, it is what he is doing now to “baptize” the work of Claudio Hummes and other revolutionaries in Brazil.

None of this has anything to do with the Catholic Faith, and it is redundant to say anything more Jorge Mario Bergoglio other than exhort those who read this website to Our Lady that her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ will put an end to this era of apostasy and betrayal by miraculously restoring a true pope to the Throne of Saint Peter.

On the Second Sunday of Lent

The lesson appointed for Mass today, March 16, 2025, the Second Sunday of Lent, was taken from the First Epistle of Saint Paul to the Thessalonians:

Brethren: Even as you have learned from us how you ought to walk to please God - as indeed you are walking we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus to make even greater progress. For you know what precepts I have given to you by the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that you abstain from immorality; that every one of you learn how to possess his vessel in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and overreach his brother in the matter, because the Lord is the avenger of all these things, as we have told you before and have testified. For God has not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness, in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Thessalonians 4: 1-7.)

Dom Prosper Gueranger also explained the lesson from Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Thessalonians by teaching us that the Apostle to the Gentile was showing us the “manner of life” that “should be followed by Christians,” a manner of life that is far, far different than the pagan spirit that permeates the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s “reconciliation” the world and its errors.

Here the apostle shows what manner of life should be followed by Christians; and the Church, by repeating his words, exhorts the faithful to profit of the present season of grace, and regain the beauty of the image of God, which the grace of Baptism first gave them. A Christian is a ‘vessel of honour,’ formed and enriched by the hand of God; let him, therefore, shun whatsoever would degrade his noble origin, and turn him into a vessel of dishonor, fit only to be broken and cast with the unclean into the sink of hell. The Christian religion has so far ennobled man, that even his very body may share in the soul’s sanctity; on the other hand it teaches us that this sanctity of the soul is impaired, yea, altogether effaced, by the loss of the body’s purity. The whole man, therefore, both body and soul, is to be reformed by the practices of this holy season. Let us purify the soul by the confession of our sins by compunction of heart, by the love of God; and let us give back its dignity to the body, by making it bear the yoke of penance, that that so it may b be, henceforth, subservient and docile to the soul, on the day, of the general resurrection, may partake in her eternal bliss. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Volume V, Lent—Book 1, pp. 186-190, 192-194.)

Most of the people alive today do not know God.

To paraphrase the late Father John Anthony Hardon, S.J.: Let me repeat myself in order to be very clear.

Most of the people alive today do not know God.

What do I mean?

I shan’t tarry in an explanation.

We live during a very unique and perhaps almost entirely unparalleled time in human history in which there are large segments of the world’s population who live only for their pleasures of their senses and who view themselves, others and the events of the world solely through natural eyes of the body. Unlike even the pagans and barbarians of yore who were bound together in some kind of cult of belief, however inchoate, and a form of public pietas, many hundreds of millions of people around the world give no thought to anything other than the events of the moment.

This is true even here in the United States of America as more and more of the products of America’s concentration camps and publicly-financed institutions of indoctrination (public schools) are godless self-seekers who know nothing about the fact that they have immortal souls created in the image and likeness of God and that have been redeemed by the Most Precious Blood of His Co-Equal, Co-Equal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The thought of sudden death never occurs to them, which is why so many of them are compelled to go to bars and other “establishments” where diabolical noise that is marketed as “music” is played as but a tragic foretaste of the screeching, screaming, pounding and endless pains that will be their lot for all eternity in the fiery dungeon of hell if they do not convert to the true Faith and reform their lives as they seek to make reparation for their sins.

Additionally, most Protestants, Orthodox and a significant number of Catholics attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in the mistaken belief that they are in the Catholic Church and not her counterfeit ape do not know Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the immutable truths truly He has entrusted exclusively to our mater and magister, Holy Mother Church, for their infallible explication and eternal safekeeping. Aping either Protestant “pastors” and alleged “Scriptural scholars” or the conciliar “pontiffs,” most nominal Protestants and Catholics project their own self-serving beliefs about what God should be and teach rather than submit themselves to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law iwithout exception and without complaint.

Moreover, there is a very small but nevertheless disproportionately influential number of people in the United States of America and elsewhere in the world who rejected the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ whose souls are captive to the adversary by means of Original Sin. Blinded by this captivity to the forces of darkness, Talmudists, Kabbalists, Zionists, Masons (and naturalists of all descriptions, permutations and variations), Mohammedans, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, Theosophists, tree worshippers, ancestor worshippers, Animists and their “Great Thumb,” Baha’ites, Zoroastrians, occultists, devil worshippers and others add to social discord, especially in times of natural disasters, catastrophes, wars and outbreaks of contagion and pestilence. Almost the entirety of American social life is supposed to bow the head and bend the knee by keeping silent about the Holy Name of Jesus publicly so that those Who deny, if not mock and despise, His Sacred Divinity will not “feel” “offended” or “bullied.”

Through no merits of our own, those of us who have baptized and confirmed as members of Holy Mother Church have the capacity to see the deeper supernatural meaning in all the events of our lives in in the events of the world and also during this time of betrayal and apostasy when robber barons sort clerical clothing, don liturgical vestments, and occupy and control the structures and institutions of the Catholic Church. We are not to be agitated or shaken by the events of a world gone mad. We are to entrust ourselves at all times to the loving hands of Our Lady and to beg her for the graces won for us by her Divine Son during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday to be steadfast in the Holy Faith.

The Gospel passage that is read at today’s Holy Mass, which is the same as the Gospel passage read yesterday, Ember Saturday in Lent, reminds us of the glory that will be ours if we persevere to the end in a state of Sanctifying Grace.

Dom Prosper Gueranger explained this in reflection on this day, Reminiscere or Transfiguration Sunday:

The subject offered to our consideration, on this Second Sunday, is one of the utmost importance for the holy Season. The Church applies to us the lesson which our Savior gave to three of his Apostles. Let us endeavor to be more attentive to it than they were.

Jesus was about to pass from Galilee into Judea, that he might go up to Jerusalem, and be present at the Feast of the Pasch. It was that last Pasch, which was to begin with the immolation of the figurative lamb, and end with the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. who taketh away the sins of the world. Jesus would have his disciples know him. His works had borne testimony to him, even to those who were, in a manner, strangers to him; but as for his disciples, had they not every reason to be faithful to him, even to death? Had they not listened to his words, which had such power with them, that they forced conviction? Had they not experienced his love, which it was impossible to resist? and had they not seen how patiently he had borne with their strange and untoward ways? Yes, they must have known him. They had heard one of their company, Peter, declare that he was the Christ, the Son of the Living God. (Matthew 16:16) Notwithstanding this, the trial to which their faith was soon to be put, was to be of such a terrible kind, that Jesus would mercifully arm them against temptation by an extraordinary grace.

The Cross was to be a scandal and stumbling block (1 Corinthians 1:23) to the Synagogue, and, alas! to more than it. Jesus said to his Apostles, at the Last Supper: All of you shall be scandalized in me this night. (Matthew 26:31) Carnal-minded as they then were, what would they think, when they should see him seized by armed men, handcuffed, hurried from one tribunal to another, and he doing nothing to defend himself! And when they found, that the High Priests and Pharisees, who had hitherto been so often foiled by the wisdom and miracles of Jesus, had now succeeded in their conspiracy against him, — what a shock to their confidence! But, there was to be something more trying still: the people, who, but a few days before, greeted him so enthusiastically with their Hosannas, would demand his execution, and he would have to die, between two thieves, on the Cross, amidst the insults of his triumphant enemies.

Is it not to be feared that these Disciples of his, when they witness his humiliations and sufferings, will lose their courage? They have lived in his company for three years; but when they see that the things he foretold would happen to him are really fulfilled, will the remembrance of all they have seen and heard keep them loyal to him? or will they turn cowards and flee from him?—Jesus selects three out of the number who are especially dear to him: Peter, whom he has made the Rock, on which his Church is to be built, and to whom he has promised the Keys of the kingdom of heaven; James, the son of Thunder, who is to be the first Martyr of the Apostolic College; and John, James’ brother, and his own Beloved Disciple. Jesus has resolved to take them aside, and show them a glimpse of that glory which, until the day fixed for its manifestation, he conceals from the eyes of mortals.

He therefore leaves the rest of his Disciples in the plain near Nazareth, and goes, in company with the three privileged ones, towards a high hill, called Thabor, which is a continuation of Libanus, am which the Psalmist tells us was to rejoice in the Name of the Lord. (Psalm 88:13) No sooner has he reached tin summit of the mountain, than the three Apostle observe a sudden change come over him; his Face shines as the sun, and his humble garments become white as snow. They observe two venerable men approach, and speak with Him upon what he is about to suffer in Jerusalem. One is Moses, the lawgiver; the other is Elias, the Prophet, who was taken up from earth on a fiery chariot, without having passed, through the gates of death. These two great representatives of the Jewish Religion, the Law and the Prophets, humbly adore Jesus of Nazareth. The three Apostles are not only dazzled by the brightness which comes from their Divine Master; but they are filled with such a rapture o delight, that they cannot bear the thought of leaving the place. Peter proposes to remain there forever, and build three tabernacles, for Jesus, Moses and Elias. And whilst they are admiring the glorious sight, and gazing on the beauty of their Jesus human Nature, a bright cloud overshadows them and a voice is heard speaking to them: it is the voice of the Eternal Father, proclaiming the Divinity of Jesus, and saying: This is my beloved Son!

This transfiguration of the Son of Man, this manifestation of his glory, lasted but a few moments; his mission was not on Thabor; it was humiliation and suffering in Jerusalem. He therefore withdrew into himself the brightness he had allowed to transpire and when He came to the three Apostles, who, on hearing the voice from the cloud, had fallen on their faces with fear, — they could see no one save only Jesus. The bright cloud was gone; Moses and Elias had disappeared. What a favor they have had bestowed upon them! Will they remember what they have seen and heard? They have had such a revelation of the Divinity of their dear Master! — is it possible, that when the hour of trial comes, they will forget it, and doubt his being God? And, when they see him suffer and die, be ashamed of him and deny him? Alas! the Gospel has told us what happened to them.

A short time after this, our Lord celebrated his Last Supper with his Disciples. When the Supper was over, he took them to another mount, Mount Olivet, which lies to the east of Jerusalem. Leaving the rest at the entrance of the Garden, he advances with Peter, James, and John, and then says to them: “My soul is sorrowful even unto death: stay you here, and watch with me.” (Matthew 26:38) He then retires some little distance from them, and prays to his Eternal Father. The Heart of our Redeemer is weighed down with anguish. When he returns to .his three Disciples, he is enfeebled by the Agony he has suffered, and his garments are saturated with Blood. The Apostles are aware that he is sad even unto death, and that the hour is close at hand when .he is to be attacked: are they keeping watch? Are they ready to defend Him? No: they seem to have forgotten Him; they are fast asleep, for their eyes are heavy. (Matthew 26:43) Yet a few moments, and all will have: led from him; and Peter, the bravest of them all, will be taking his oath that he never knew the Man.

After the Resurrection, our three Apostles made ample atonement for this cowardly and sinful conduct, and acknowledged the mercy wherewith Jesus had sought to fortify them against temptation, by showing them his glory on Thabor, a few days before his Passion. Let us not wait till we have betrayed him: let us at once acknowledge that he is our Lord and our God. We are soon to be keeping the anniversary of his Sacrifice; like the Apostles, we are to see him humbled by his enemies and bearing, in on stead, the chastisements of Divine Justice. We must not allow our faith to be weakened, when w behold the fulfillment of those prophecies of David and Isaias, that the Messias is to be treated as a worm of the earth, (Psalm 21:7) and be covered with wounds, so a to become like a leper, the most abject of men, and the Man of sorrows. (Isaiah 53:4) We must remember the grand things of Thabor, and the adorations paid him by Moses and Elias, and the bright cloud, and the void of the Eternal Father. The more we see Him humbled, the more must we proclaim His glory an divinity; we must join our acclamations with the of the Angels and the Four-and-Twenty Elder whom St. John, (one of the witnesses of the Transfiguration,) heard crying out with a loud voice: The Lamb that was slain, is worthy to receive power and divinity, and wisdom, and strength, an honor, and glory, and benediction! (Revelation 5:12)

The Second Sunday of Lent is called, from the first word of the Introit, Reminiscere; and also Transfiguration Sunday on account of the Gospel which is read in the Mass.

At that time: Jesus taketh unto him Peter and James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart: and he was transfigured before them. And his face did shine as the sun: and his garments became white as snow. And behold there appeared to them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then Peter answering, said to Jesus: Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. And as he was yet speaking, behold a bright cloud overshadowed them. And lo, a voice out of the cloud, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: hear ye him. And the disciples hearing, fell upon their face, and were very much afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said to them: Arise and be not afraid. And when they lifted up their eyes, they saw no one, but only Jesus. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying: Tell the vision to no man, till the Son of Man shall be risen from the dead.

Thus did Jesus encourage his Apostles, when the time of temptation was near; he sought to impress them with his glory, that it might keep up their faith in that trying time when the outward eye would see nothing in his person but weakness and humiliation. Oh! the loving considerateness of divine grace, which is never wanting, and shows us, in so strong a light, the goodness and the justice of our God! Like the Apostles, we also have sinned; like them, we have neglected to profit of the help that was sent us from heaven; we have shut our eyes against the light; we have forgotten the fair vision that was granted us, and which made us so fervent and happy—and we fell. We have not, then, been tempted above our strength, (1 Corinthians 10:13) and it is indeed our own fault that we committed sin. The three Apostles were exposed to a terrible temptation, when they beheld their Divine Master robbed of all his majesty; but how easy for them to resist the temptation, by thinking of what they had seen but a few days before? Instead of that, they lost their courage, and forgot prayer, which would have brought their courage back; and thus, the favored witnesses of Thabor became cowards and deserters in the Garden of Mount Olivet. There was but one thing left them to do—throw themselves upon the loving mercy of their Jesus, as soon as he had triumphed over his enemies; they did so, and his generous Heart pardoned them.

Let us imitate them here too. We have abused the grace of God and rendered it fruitless by our want of correspondence. The fountain of this Grace is not yet dried up; as long as we are in this world, we may always draw from this source, which comes from the Blood and merits of our Redeemer. It is Grace that is now urging us to the amendment of our lives. It is given to us in abundance during the present time, and it is given mainly by the holy exercises of Lent. Let us go up the mountain with Jesus; there, we shall not be disturbed by the noise of earthly things. Let us there spend our forty days with Moses and Elias, who, long before us, sanctified this number by their fasts. Thus, then the Son of Man shall have risen from the dead, we will proclaim the favors he has mercifully granted us on Thabor.

The readings in today's Divine Office contain Pope Saint Leo the Great's explanation as to what Our Lord desired to accomplish by permitting Saints Peter, James and John to see a glipse of His radiant glory atop Mount Thabor in the presence of Moses and Elias:

Dearly beloved brethren, the Lesson from the Holy Gospel which, entering in by our bodily ears, hath knocked at the door of our inner mind, calleth us to understand a great mystery. This, by the grace of God, we shall the more readily do, if we return to consider what hath been told us just before. The Saviour of mankind, even Jesus Christ, laying the foundations of that faith whereby the ungodly are called to righteousness and the dead to life, instilled into the minds of His disciples, both by the voice of His teaching and the wonder of His works, that they should believe Him, the one Christ, to be both the Only-begotten Son of God and the Son of man. Had they believed Him one of these and not the other, it had availed them nothing to salvation; and the danger was equally great, of holding the Lord Jesus Christ to be God without the Manhood, or Man only without the Godhead, since we are constrained to acknowledge that He is perfect God and perfect Man, and that as there is in the Godhead perfect Manhood, so there is in the Manhood perfect Godhead.

To strengthen, therefore, the saving knowledge of this faith, the Lord had asked His disciples what, among the differing opinions of men, it was their own belief and judgment as to Who He was. Then did the Apostle Peter, by the revelation of That Father Who is above all, rising above fleshly things, yea, outstripping the thoughts of men, then did he fix the eyes of his mind upon the Son of the living God, and confess the glory of the Godhead, for he looked not on the substance of the flesh and blood only. And in all the exaltation of this faith so well did he please God, that he was gifted with that joyous blessing, the hallowed establishment of that impregnable rock, whereon the Church being founded, should prevail against the gates of hell and the laws of death; neither, when anything is to be bound or loosed, is any bound or loosed in heaven, otherwise than as the judgment of Peter hath bound or loosed it upon earth.

But, dearly beloved brethren, it behoved that the height of this understanding, which the Lord praised, should rest upon a foundation, and that foundation, the mystery of the lower nature, lest the faith of the Apostle, carried away by the glorious acknowledgment of the Godhead in Christ, should deem it unworthy and unnatural for the impassible God to take into Himself the frailty of our nature; and should thus believe that in Christ the Manhood had been so glorified as to be no longer able to suffer pain, or be dissolved in death. And therefore it was that, when the Lord said how that He must go up unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and rise again the third day, and the blessed Peter, bright with heavenly illumination, and still glowing from the passionate acknowledgment of the Divine Sonship, by a natural, and, as seemed to him, a godly shrinking, could not bear the mention of mockery and insult and a cruel death, he was corrected by the merciful rebuke of Jesus, and moved rather to desire to be a partaker in the sufferings of his Master.  (As found in Matins, The Divine Office, Second Sunday of Lent. The New English Edition of The Mystical City of God explains Our Lady's account of the Transfiguration of her Divine Son atop Mount Thabor. See The Transfixion, Chapter Six: Book Six.)

As she has been throughout the history of the Church, including during the pontificate of Pope Saint Gregory the Great, Our Lady is our sure refuge in our own times of apostasy and betrayal. She wants to lead us to the glories of Heaven that were foreshadowed to our first pope and the sons of Zebedee atop Mount Thabor.

Our Lady has told us that we are in the crossing of her arms and in the folds of her mantle. Shouldn’t this be enough for us as we run to her every day, protected by her Brown Scapular and showing our heart’s oblation to her by praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit?

We have Our Lady. She will shower us with the graces won for us by her Divine Son on the wood of the Holy Cross. She has told us that her Immaculate Heart will triumph in the end. May we keep close to her and to her Most Chaste Spouse, Saint Joseph, who is the patron of departing souls, so that we can have a blessed eternity in Heaven, where we can praise the Most Blessed Trinity with all of the angels and all the saints. 

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon. 

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.