Jorge Mario Bergoglio: A Man of Sin

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is, of course, a figure of Antichrist. He supports all that is opposed to the teaching of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, up to and including reaffirming adherents of false religions in their false sects and, of course, reaffirming those who commit sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in lives that can lead them only to Hell. 

Jorge Mario Bergolio's entire person and revolutionary agenda has been described in Holy Writ: 

[3] Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, [4] Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. [5] Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things? (2 Thessalonians 2: 3-5.)

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that Antichrist cometh, even now there are become many Antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last hour. [19] They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us. [20] But you have the unction from the Holy One, and know all things. (2 John 2: 18-20.)

Bergoglio is just the latest of the conciliar “popes” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who has proved himself to be one among of the many Antichrists referred to by Saint John the Evangelist in his Second Epistle. They are not with what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, she who enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy, has taught from time immemorial without any corruption or even the slightest taint of error. They have shown themselves to be manifest heretics as each succeeding wave of them has become bolder and bolder in their public celebration of every falsehood and error imaginable. They are truly shameless in their conceits. Moreover, the conciliar revolutionaries have not had the unction from God the Holy Ghost as they have propagated the heresy that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity can “lead” what they assert is the Catholic Church in “new directions” that contradict articles contained within the Sacred Deposit of Faith.  

These men of sin, precursors and figures of the “man of sin” who is Antichrist himself, have devoted themselves entirely to the propagation of lies and to the celebration of sin in the name of “love,” “mercy,” and “compassion.” Although many “conservatives” and traditionally-minded Catholics who are as of yet still attached to the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are rending their garments and gnashing their teeth over the public celebration of adultery, fornication, perversity, cross-dressing and the bodily mutation known as “gender change,” the truth of the matter is that the conciliar revolution has long championed the cause of the sin of heresy, starting with the “new ecclesiology” that came to the forefront with the issuance of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, that contained the following heretical proposition that became the basis for “inter-religious dialogue,” “inter-religious ‘prayer’ meetings” and a process of supposed “popes” treating the clergy of false religions as “sharing” in the “mission” that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles, the first bishops, on Ascension Thursday:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.)

The presence of this passage in Lumen Gentium was engineered in large part by none other than a German peritus at the "Second" Vatican Council, Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who was acting upon a recommendation by a German Lutheran "observer" at the "Second" Vatican Council, suggested should be placed into the text of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, in order to give formal recognition to the "elements" of "sanctification" that exist the "ecclesial" (Protestant) "communities" and in the Orthodox churches. In other words, the man who is considered the "great dogmatist" helped to attack the Sacred Deposit of Faith at the "Second" Vatican Council to help to give birth to the heresy that is the "new ecclesiolgy," whose principal contention was refuted prophetically by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

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

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that everyone is part of "the church," which is true if one is referring to the church of the adversary, who is the driving force behind his relentless effort to strip away the last bastions of anything remotely recognizable as part of Catholic Faith, Worship, and Morals. He hates Catholic doctrine with a diabolical fervor, and he is unashamed in condemning those who hold to its holy integrity.

As he has demonstrated throughout his false "pontificate," "Pope Francis" is a particular friend of those who persist in sins, whether natural or unnatural or both, against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. He gave a "green light" to his "bishops" to give him cover to find a way to redefine what passes for Catholic morality within the confines of the counterfeit church of conciliarism almost as soon as he appeared on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on March 13, 2013, and it was within a short period of time that such figures as Walter "Cardinal" Kasper and Oscar Andres Maradiaga were unleashed to prepare the way for Amoris Laetitia in late-2013 and early-2014. Jorge's first "exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, and the "extraordinary synod" of "bishops" in 2014 and the "ordinary synod" of "bishops" in 2015. (Among many other articles, see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven, Always Asking All The Wrong Questions, part one, Always Asking All the Wrong Questions, part two, Jorge Cooks the Books, Going the Way of All Heretical Sects, The Rubicon Was Crossed Fifty Years Ago, part one and A New Sense for a New Faith, part two.)  Amoris Laetitia is simply the "pontifical" enshrinement of the following false approach that moral theology that Pope Pius XII noted in 1957 existed among members of the Society of Jesus:

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

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

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

Thus it is that Senor Jorge's much discussed remarks made on Thursday, June 16, 2016, as he answered questions from Roman presbyters are really nothing new. While Novus Ordo Watch Wire has provided a very good analysis and commentary of the false "pontiff's" remarks, I believe it useful for the relatively few readers of this site to contrast Bergoglio's belief that fornication between a man and woman that has continued for a long period of time constitutes "real marriage," which is what he believes about Catholics who are divorced and civilly "remarried" without a conciliar decree of marital nullity, with what Pope Pius XI had to say on the exact same subject in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.

This is the original Catholic News Agency report before Jorge's minders in the "Press Office of the Holy See" "revised" his answer, changing the false "pontiff's" statement that the "great majority" of marriages in his false religious sect are invalid to a "portion" of such marriages are invalid:

A layman asked about the “crisis of marriage” and how Catholics can help educate youth in love, help them learn about sacramental marriage, and help them overcome “their resistance, delusions and fears.”

The Pope answered from his own experience.

“I heard a bishop say some months ago that he met a boy that had finished his university studies, and said ‘I want to become a priest, but only for 10 years.’ It’s the culture of the provisional. And this happens everywhere, also in priestly life, in religious life,” he said.

“It’s provisional, and because of this the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null. Because they say ‘yes, for the rest of my life!’ but they don’t know what they are saying. Because they have a different culture. They say it, they have good will, but they don’t know.” …

Pope Francis attributed the marriage crisis to people who “don’t know what the sacrament is” and don’t know “the beauty of the sacrament.”

“They don’t know that it’s indissoluble, they don’t know that it’s for your entire life. It’s hard,” the Pope said.

He added that a majority of couples attending marriage prep courses in Argentina typically cohabitated.

“They prefer to cohabitate, and this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask ‘why don’t you marry?’ No, to accompany, to wait, and to help them to mature, help fidelity to mature.”  

“It’s a superstition, because marriage frightens the husband. It’s a superstition we have to overcome,” the Pope said. “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage because of their fidelity, but there are local superstitions, etc.”

“Marriage is the most difficult area of pastoral work,” he said.  (“Most marriages today are invalid, Pope Francis suggests”,Catholic News Agency, June 16, 2016; underlining added. As found at Novus Ordo Watch Wire.)  

Most of this is not new at all. Indeed, Bergoglio, courtesy of his ghostwriter, Victor Manuel Fernandez, said the same thing in Amoris Laetitia:

292. Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church, is fully realized in the union between a man and a woman who give themselves to each other in a free, faithful and exclusive love, who belong to each other until death and are open to the transmission of life, and are consecrated by the sacrament, which grants them the grace to become a domestic church and a leaven of new life for society. Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal, while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way. The Synod Fathers stated that the Church does not disregard the constructive elements in those situations which do not yet or no longer correspond to her teaching on marriage.314

293. The Fathers also considered the specific situation of a merely civil marriage or, with due distinction, even simple cohabitation, noting that “when such unions attain a particular stability, legally recognized, are characterized by deep affection and responsibility for their offspring, and demonstrate an ability to overcome trials, 313 Ibid., 28. 314 Cf. ibid., 41, 43; Relatio Finalis 2015, 70. 223 they can provide occasions for pastoral care with a view to the eventual celebration of the sacrament of marriage”.315 On the other hand, it is a source of concern that many young people today distrust marriage and live together, putting off indefinitely the commitment of marriage, while yet others break a commitment already made and immediately assume a new one. “As members of the Church, they too need pastoral care that is merciful and helpful”.316 For the Church’s pastors are not only responsible for promoting Christian marriage, but also the “pastoral discernment of the situations of a great many who no longer live this reality. Entering into pastoral dialogue with these persons is needed to distinguish elements in their lives that can lead to a greater openness to the Gospel of marriage in its fullness”.317 In this pastoral discernment, there is a need “to identify elements that can foster evangelization and human and spiritual growth”.318

294. “The choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations”.319 In such cases, respect also can be shown for those signs of love which in some way reflect God’s own love.320 We know that there is “a continual increase in the number of those who, after having lived together for a long period, request the celebration of marriage in Church. Simply to live together is often a choice based on a general attitude opposed to anything institutional or definitive; it can also be done while awaiting more security in life (a steady job and steady income). In some countries, de facto unions are very numerous, not only because of a rejection of values concerning the family and matrimony, but primarily because celebrating a marriage is considered too expensive in the social circumstances. As a result, material poverty drives people into de facto unions”.321 Whatever the case, “all these situations require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel. These couples need to be welcomed and guided patiently and discreetly”.322 That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Amoris Laetita, March 19, 2016.)

As noted just a few weeks ago in part ten of my series on Amoris Laetitia, Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe in the efficacy of the graces won for us by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross to effect the conversion of those steeped in what are, objectively speaking, Mortal Sins. Moreover, the Argentine Apostate does not believe that it is necessary for those who are sinning against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments to quit their sins as he believes them to be engaged in relationships founded on "love" that express "elements" of true marriage. 

Amoris Laetitia is the Argentine Apostate’s final, crushing blows to the immutable precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. It is at odds with both supernatural and natural truth, and it makes a mockery of the martyrdom of Saint John the Baptist, Saint Thomas More, Saint John Fisher and thousands upon thousands of other Catholics who went to their deaths defending the sanctity and indissolubility of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. This wretched document is the antithesis of such papal defenses of marriage as those of Pope Leo XIII's Arcanum, February 10, 1880, and Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.

Citing the authority of Pope Leo XIII's Arcanum, Pope Pius XI excoriated the mentality expressed in Amoris Laetitia whereby all manner of rationalizaions are given to excuse the gravity of the sin of adultery committed by Catholics who have civilly married a divorced person or who have sought to marry another after obtaining a divorce themselves, condemning as well those who engage in cohabitation under the aegis of what he called "new species of unions":

84. Assuredly, also, will there be wanting that close union of spirit which as it is the sign and mark of the Church of Christ, so also should be the sign of Christian wedlock, its glory and adornment. For, where there exists diversity of mind, truth and feeling, the bond of union of mind and heart is wont to be broken, or at least weakened. From this comes the danger lest the love of man and wife grow cold and the peace and happiness of family life, resting as it does on the union of hearts, be destroyed. Many centuries ago indeed, the old Roman law had proclaimed: "Marriages are the union of male and female, a sharing of life and the communication of divine and human rights."[63] But especially, as We have pointed out, Venerable Brethren, the daily increasing facility of divorce is an obstacle to the restoration of marriage to that state of perfection which the divine Redeemer willed it should possess.

85. The advocates of the neo-paganism of today have learned nothing from the sad state of affairs, but instead, day by day, more and more vehemently, they continue by legislation to attack the indissolubility of the marriage bond, proclaiming that the lawfulness of divorce must be recognized, and that the antiquated laws should give place to a new and more humane legislation. Many and varied are the grounds put forward for divorce, some arising from the wickedness and the guilt of the persons concerned, others arising from the circumstances of the case; the former they describe as subjective, the latter as objective; in a word, whatever might make married life hard or unpleasant. They strive to prove their contentions regarding these grounds for the divorce legislation they would bring about, by various arguments. Thus, in the first place, they maintain that it is for the good of either party that the one who is innocent should have the right to separate from the guilty, or that the guilty should be withdrawn from a union which is unpleasing to him and against his will. In the second place, they argue, the good of the child demands this, for either it will be deprived of a proper education or the natural fruits of it, and will too easily be affected by the discords and shortcomings of the parents, and drawn from the path of virtue. And thirdly the common good of society requires that these marriages should be completely dissolved, which are now incapable of producing their natural results, and that legal reparations should be allowed when crimes are to be feared as the result of the common habitation and intercourse of the parties. This last, they say must be admitted to avoid the crimes being committed purposely with a view to obtaining the desired sentence of divorce for which the judge can legally loose the marriage bond, as also to prevent people from coming before the courts when it is obvious from the state of the case that they are Iying and perjuring themselves, -- all of which brings the court and the lawful authority into contempt. Hence the civil laws, in their opinion, have to be reformed to meet these new requirements, to suit the changes of the times and the changes in men's opinions, civil institutions and customs. Each of these reasons is considered by them as conclusive, so that all taken together offer a clear proof of the necessity of granting divorce in certain cases.

86. Others, taking a step further, simply state that marriage, being a private contract, is, like other private contracts, to be left to the consent and good pleasure of both parties, and so can be dissolved for any reason whatsoever.

87. Opposed to all these reckless opinions, Venerable Brethren, stands the unalterable law of God, fully confirmed by Christ, a law that can never be deprived of its force by the decrees of men, the ideas of a people or the will of any legislator: "What God hath joined together, let no man put asunder."[64] And if any man, acting contrary to this law, shall have put asunder, his action is null and void, and the consequence remains, as Christ Himself has explicitly confirmed: "Everyone that putteth away his wife and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery."[65] Moreover, these words refer to every kind of marriage, even that which is natural and legitimate only; for, as has already been observed, that indissolubility by which the loosening of the bond is once and for all removed from the whim of the parties and from every secular power, is a property of every true marriage.

88. Let that solemn pronouncement of the Council of Trent be recalled to mind in which, under the stigma of anathema, it condemned these errors: "If anyone should say that on account of heresy or the hardships of cohabitation or a deliberate abuse of one party by the other the marriage tie may be loosened, let him be anathema;"[66] and again: "If anyone should say that the Church errs in having taught or in teaching that, according to the teaching of the Gospel and the Apostles, the bond of marriage cannot be loosed because of the sin of adultery of either party; or that neither party, even though he be innocent, having given no cause for the sin of adultery, can contract another marriage during the lifetime of the other; and that he commits adultery who marries another after putting away his adulterous wife, and likewise that she commits adultery who puts away her husband and marries another: let him be anathemae."[67]

89. If therefore the Church has not erred and does not err in teaching this, and consequently it is certain that the bond of marriage cannot be loosed even on account of the sin of adultery, it is evident that all the other weaker excuses that can be, and are usually brought forward, are of no value whatsoever. And the objections brought against the firmness of the marriage bond are easily answered. For, in certain circumstances, imperfect separation of the parties is allowed, the bond not being severed. This separation, which the Church herself permits, and expressly mentions in her Canon Law in those canons which deal with the separation of the parties as to marital relationship and co-habitation, removes all the alleged inconveniences and dangers.[68] It will be for the sacred law and, to some extent, also the civil law, in so far as civil matters are affected, to lay down the grounds, the conditions, the method and precautions to be taken in a case of this kind in order to safeguard the education of the children and the well-being of the family, and to remove all those evils which threaten the married persons, the children and the State. Now all those arguments that are brought forward to prove the indissolubility of the marriage tie, arguments which have already been touched upon, can equally be applied to excluding not only the necessity of divorce, but even the power to grant it; while for all the advantages that can be put forward for the former, there can be adduced as many disadvantages and evils which are a formidable menace to the whole of human society.

90. To revert again to the expression of Our predecessor, it is hardly necessary to point out what an amount of good is involved in the absolute indissolubility of wedlock and what a train of evils follows upon divorce. Whenever the marriage bond remains intact, then we find marriages contracted with a sense of safety and security, while, when separations are considered and the dangers of divorce are present, the marriage contract itself becomes insecure, or at least gives ground for anxiety and surprises. On the one hand we see a wonderful strengthening of goodwill and cooperation in the daily life of husband and wife, while, on the other, both of these are miserably weakened by the presence of a facility for divorce. Here we have at a very opportune moment a source of help by which both parties are enabled to preserve their purity and loyalty; there we find harmful inducements to unfaithfulness. On this side we find the birth of children and their tuition and upbringing effectively promoted, many avenues of discord closed amongst families and relations, and the beginnings of rivalry and jealousy easily suppressed; on that, very great obstacles to the birth and rearing of children and their education, and many occasions of quarrels, and seeds of jealousy sown everywhere. Finally, but especially, the dignity and position of women in civil and domestic society is reinstated by the former; while by the latter it is shamefully lowered and the danger is incurred "of their being considered outcasts, slaves of the lust of men."[69]

91. To conclude with the important words of Leo XIII, since the destruction of family life "and the loss of national wealth is brought about more by the corruption of morals than by anything else, it is easily seen that divorce, which is born of the perverted morals of a people, and leads, as experiment shows, to vicious habits in public and private life, is particularly opposed to the well-being of the family and of the State. The serious nature of these evils will be the more clearly recognized, when we remember that, once divorce has been allowed, there will be no sufficient means of keeping it in check within any definite bounds. Great is the force of example, greater still that of lust; and with such incitements it cannot but happen that divorce and its consequent setting loose of the passions should spread daily and attack the souls of many like a contagious disease or a river bursting its banks and flooding the land."[70]

92. Thus, as we read in the same letter, "unless things change, the human family and State have every reason to fear lest they should suffer absolute ruin."[71] All this was written fifty years ago, yet it is confirmed by the daily increasing corruption of morals and the unheard of degradation of the family in those lands where Communism reigns unchecked.

93. Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have admired with due reverence what the all wise Creator and Redeemer of the human race has ordained with regard to human marriage; at the same time we have expressed Our grief that such a pious ordinance of the divine Goodness should to-day, and on every side, be frustrated and trampled upon by the passions, errors and vices of men. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Readers can see that every single one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's false suppositions used in Amoris Laetitia that he repeated on Thursday, June 16, 2016, had been condemned by true and legitimate Successors of Saint Peter. 

Here is what Pope Pius XI noted in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, about “new species of unions" that are looked upon by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Victor Manuel Fernandez and other like-minded conciiliar revolutionaries believe contain "constructive elements":

Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.  

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Gee, I wonder why this was not quoted in Amoris Laetitia? (No, I wonder no such thing, of course. Just a bit of satire from a displaced and never-to-return New Yorker.)

Pope Pius XI referred to the new species of unions seventy-five years, three and one-half months ago as "hateful abominations." Bergoglio believes them to contain "elements of true love."  This is because Pope Pius XI was a true pope. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not. He is an apostate.

Unlike the conciliar revolutionaries, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori taught that God wants sinners to quit their sins now, not at some point the future, reminding his hearers that God does not command the impossible, meaning that all of the supernatural helps are available for a repentant Catholic to quit his sins and to seek to do penance for them, especially by making reparation for his own sins and those of the whole world as a consecrated slave of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary:

4. You say:” I cannot at present resist this passion." Behold the third delusion of the devil, by which he makes you believe that at present you have not strength to overcome certain temptations. But St. Paul tells us that God is faithful, and that he never permits us to be tempted above our strength. "And God is faithful, who will not permit you to be tempted above that which you are able." (1 Cor. x. 13.) I ask, if you are not now able to resist the temptation, how can you expect to resist it hereafter? If you yield to it, the Devil will become stronger, and you shall become weaker; and if you be not now able to extinguish this flame of passion, how can you hope to be able to extinguish it when it shall have grown more violent? You say: "God will give me his aid." But this aid God is ready to give at present if you ask it. Why then do you not implore his assistance? Perhaps you expect that, without now taking the trouble of invoking his aid, you will receive from him increased helps and graces, after you shall have multiplied the number of your sins? Perhaps you doubt the veracity of God, who has promised to give whatever we ask of him?” Ask, “he says,” and it shall be given  you." (Matt. vii. 7.) God cannot violate his promises.” God is not as man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said, then, and will he not do ?" (Num. xxiii. 19.) Have recourse to him, and he will give you the strength necessary to resist the temptation. God commands you to resist it, and you say: “I have not strength." Does God, then, command impossibilities? No; the Council of Trent has declared that ” God does not command impossibilities; but, by his commands, he admonishes you to do what you can, and to ask what you cannot do; and he assists, that you may be able to do it." (Sess. 6. c. xiii.) When you see that you have not sufficient strength to resist temptation with the ordinary assistance of God, ask of him the additional help which you require, and he will give it to you; and thus you shall be able to conquer all temptations, however violent they may be.  ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 119-120.)

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori’s sermon for the First Sunday of Lent is a discourse about the number of sins beyond which God will not grant forgiveness. The conciliar revolutionaries commit Martin Luther’s sin of Presumption by presuming that unrepentant sinners do not have to be exhort to reform their lives, that it is enough for them to know that they are loved by God and “welcomed” by what is thought to be the “Catholic community” without any mention of their spiritually suicidal behavior that is an incentive to others to follow them in leading lives of licentiousness. The founder of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer offered some sobering words concerning such a recklessly false notion of God and His forgiveness:

8. O folly of sinners! If you purchase a house, you spare no pains to get all the securities necessary to guard against the loss of your money; if you take medicine, you are careful to assure yourself that it cannot injure you; if you pass over a river, you cautiously avoid all danger of falling into it; and for a transitory enjoyment, for the gratification of revenge, for a beastly pleasure, which lasts but a moment, you risk your eternal salvation, saying: "I will go to confession after I commit this sin." And when, I ask, are you to go to confession? You say: “On tomorrow." But who promises you tomorrow? Who assures you that you shall have time for confession, and that God will not deprive you of life, as he has deprived so many others, in the act of sin? “Diem tenes,” says St. Augustine, “qui horam non tenes.” You cannot be certain of living for another hour, and you say: “I will go to confession tomorrow.” Listen to the words of St. Gregory: “He who has promised pardon to penitents, has not promised tomorrow to sinners.” (Hom. xii. in Evan). God has promised pardon to all who repent; but he has not promised to wait till tomorrow for those who insult him. Perhaps God will give you time for repentance, perhaps he will not. But, should he not give it, what shall become of your soul? In the meantime, for the sake of a miserable pleasure, you lose the grace of God, and expose yourself to the danger of being lost for ever.  

9. Would you, for such transient enjoyments, risk your money, your honour, your possessions, your liberty, and your life? No, you would not. How then does it happen that, for a miserable gratification, you lose your soul, heaven, and God? Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever? Oh! what temerity, what folly is it, to condemn yourself voluntarily to an eternity of torments with the hope of afterwards reversing the sentence of your condemnation! "Nemo," says St. Augustine, “sub spe salutis vultæ grotare.” No one can be found so foolish as to take poison with the hope of preventing its deadly effects by adopting the ordinary remedies. And you will condemn yourself to hell, saying that you expect to be afterwards preserved from it. Folly! which, in conformity with the divine threats, has brought, and brings every day, so many to hell. “Thou hast trusted in thy wickedness, and evil shall come upon thee, and thou shalt not know the rising thereof.” (Isa. xlvii. 10, 11.) You have sinned, trusting rashly in the divine mercy: the punishment of your guilt shall fall suddenly upon you, and you shall not know from whence it comes. What do you say? What resolution do you make? If, after this sermon, you do not firmly resolve to give yourself to God, I weep over you, and regard you as lost. ("On The Number of Sins Beyond Which God Will Not Forgive: Sermon for the First Sunday of Lent," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982. The entire texs of the sermons for Quinquagesima Sunday and the First Sunday of Lent are found in the appendices below.)

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori addressed his sermon to Catholics who attended Holy Mass. Those who lived during the years of his priesthood in the Eighteenth Century were well-instructed in the Catholic Faith, which is why the great bishop and doctor could ask, “Tell me: do you believe that heaven, hell, eternity, are truths of faith? Do you believe that, if you die in sin, you are lost for ever?” It is pretty difficult for non-practicing Catholics in the conciliar structures who have committed themselves to lives of unrepentant sin to answer Saint Alphonsus’s question in the affirmative when men such as Jorge Mario Bergolio and Victor Manuel Fernandez, et al., tell them that the path to Heaven is wide open for them as they, the conciliar revolutionaries, deny the existence of Hell and almost every single other truth of the Catholic Faith, sometimes in its entirety and at other times by means of obfuscation or by the invocation of the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolution.  

Although readers of this site know these things, I am sure that some readers have relatives and friends who are more open now to considering commentaries such as this one. Truth resonates. The truths contained in the writings from and about Saint Anthony Mary Claret, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, and Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, to say nothing of the prophetic witness given by Saint Francis Solano here in the Americas, will resonate anew in the souls of those who are open to accept the fact that the Catholic Church cannot be the author of heresy or error and that men who promote heresy and error cannot hold ecclesiastical office legitimately within her.

Pope Saint Pius X's The Oath Against Modernism condemned the proposition that the truths of the Holy Faith must be adapted to "the times" rather than those who live at each epoch be conformed to those truths:

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.   

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)

Does anyone who reads this site believe that the conciliar “popes” and their apparatchiks do not stand condemned by the very words that some of the older of those among their ranks had to swear to uphold before the advent of concilairism?

Does anyone who reads this site believe that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not stand so condemned?

The upshot of all of this is that Jorge's like-minded Jacobin/Bolshevik revolutionaries have been further emboldened to give a green light in the "internal forum" to every manner of sin against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in the name of "mercy," which has been extended for a long time even to those steeped in perverse acts against nature quite openly in many conciliar venues. Despite all of the false "pontiff's" protestations to the contrary, Amoris Laetitia is for the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony what the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service has been for the what purports to be Catholic worship in the Roman Rite: a trainwreck, a disaster. We see unfold before us the very spirit of neo-paganism decried by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI.

Alas, Amoris Laetitia did not come out of nowhere, and those within the “hierarchy” of the conciliar structures who are understandably and justifiably outraged by these latest developments really have no one else to blame as they have been active apologists for false doctrines that violate the First and Second Commandments. Even those false doctrines, of course, were made possible by the counterfeit church of conciliarism's attack on the nature of dogmatic truth, no matter the different labels ("living tradition" or "the hermeneutic of continuity") that are sloppy efforts to conceal Modernism's condemned precept of dogmatic evolutionism.

Violate the First and Second Commandments, good readers, and everything else will follow thereafter.

Why should any particular respect be given to the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments when the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity have been undermined and mocked with complete impunity?

The veritable “house of cards” that has been constructed out of the constant erosion of the sensus Catholicus by the documents of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the postconciliar “popes” has been ripped down by the septuagenarian juvenile delinquent from South America, a man who delights, absolutely delights, in “making a mess” as he springs “surprises” that he dares so blasphemously to represent as coming from God when they are nothing other than the phantasms of his heretical imagination.

There is little need to belabor this point. I have done so in this commentary, much of which reprises material used in other commentaries, only because I am aware that readers may forget the specifics of what they have read, something that is especially the case given the sheer plethora of words extant on the internet. This work on this site has tried to use the writings of our true popes to demonstrate how the heretics and apostates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism stand condemned. 

Pope Saint Silverius, whose feast day is celebrated today, Monday, June 20, 2016, was willing to defend the Catholic Faith to the point of being exiled. He died as a result of the sufferings he endured during his exile, which is why he is listed as a martyr by Holy Mother Church:

Here is an account of his life as found in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910:

Dates of birth and death unknown. He was the son of Pope Hormisdas who had been married before becoming one of the higher clergy. Silverius entered the service of the Church and was subdeacon at Rome when Pope Agapetus died at Constantinople, 22 April, 536. The Empress Theodora, who favoured the Monophysites sought to bring about the election as pope of the Roman deacon Vigilius who was then at Constantinople and had given her the desired guarantees as to the Monophysites. However, Theodatus, King of the Ostrogoths, who wished to prevent the election of a pope connected with Constantinople, forestalled her, and by his influence the subdeaconSilverius was chosen. The election of a subdeacon as Bishop of Rome was unusual. Consequently, it is easy to understand that, as the author of the first part of the life of Silverius in the "Liber pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, I, 210) relates, a strong opposition to it appeared among the clergy. This, however, was suppressed by Theodatusso that, finally, after Silverius had been consecrated bishop (probably on 8 June, 536) all the Roman presbyters gave their consent in writing to his elevation. The assertion made by the author just mentioned that Silverius secured the intervention of Theodatus by payment of money is unwarranted, and is to be explained by the writer's hostile opinion of the pope and the Goths. The author of the second part of the life in the "Liber pontificalis" is favourably inclined to Silverius. The pontificate of this pope belongs to an unsettled, disorderly period and he himself fell a victim to the intrigues of the Byzantine Court.

After Silverius had become pope the Empress Theodora sought to win him for the Monophysites. She desired especially to have him enter into communion with the Monophysite Patriarch of Constantinople, Anthimus, who had been excommunicated and deposed by Agapetus, and with Severus of Antioch. However, the pope committed himself to nothing and Theodora now resolved to overthrow him and to gain the papal see for Vigilius. Troublous times befell Rome during the struggle that broke out in Italy between the Ostrogoths and the Byzantines after the death of Amalasuntha, daughter of Theodoric the Great. The Ostrogothic king, Vitiges, who ascended the throne in August, 536, besieged the city. The churches over the catacombs outside of the city were devastated, the graves of the martyrs in the catacombs themselves were broken open and desecrated. In December, 536, the Byzantine general Belisarius garrisoned Rome and was received by the pope in a friendly and courteous manner. Theodora sought to use Belisarius for the carrying out of her plan to depose Silverius and to put in his place theRoman deacon Vigilius, formerly apocrisary at Constantinople, who had now gone to Italy. Antonina, wife of Belisarius, influenced her husband to act as Theodora desired. By means of a forged letter the pope was accused of a treasonable agreement with the Gothic king who was besieging Rome. It was asserted that Silverius had offered the king to leave one of the city gates secretly open so as to permit the Goths to enter. Silverius was consequently arrested in March, 537, roughly stripped of his episcopal dress, given the clothing of a monk and carried off to exile in the East. Vigilius was consecrated Bishop of Rome in his stead.

Silverius was taken to Lycia where he was went to reside at Patara. The Bishop of Patara very soon discovered that the exiled pope was innocent. He journeyed to Constantinople and was able to lay before the Emperor Justinian such proofs of the innocence of the exile that the emperor wrote to Belisarius commanding a new investigation of the matter. Should it turn out that the letter concerning the alleged plot in favour of the Gothswas forged, Silverius should be placed once more in possession of the papal see. At the same time the emperor allowed Silverius to return to Italy, and the latter soon entered the country, apparently at Naples. However, Vigilius arranged to take charge of his unlawfully deposed predecessor. He evidently acted in agreement with the Empress Theodora and was aided by Antonina, the wife of Belisarius. Silverius was taken to the Island of Palmaria in the Tyrrhenian Sea and kept their in close confinement. Here he died in consequence of the privations and harsh treatment he endured. The year of his death is unknown, but he probably did not live long after reachingPalmaria. He was buried on the island, according to the testimony of the "Liber pontificalis" on 20 June; his remains were never taken from Palmaria. According to the same witness he was invoked after death by thebelievers who visited his grave. In later times he was venerated as a saint. The earliest proof of this is given by a list of saints of the eleventh century (Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire, 1893, 169). The "Martyrologium" of Peter de Natalibus of the fourteenth century also contains his feast, which is recorded in the present Roman Martyrology on 20 June. (As found at Pope Saint Silverius.) 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the antithesis of Pope Saint Silverius as he is a figure of Antichrist, a veritable man of sin who celebrates sin, something that contrasts greatly also with the angelic purity that was maintained by the saint whose feast we celebrate tomorrow, Tuesday, June 21, 2016, Saint Aloysius Gonzaga, the very patron saint of the church and school in Great Neck. New York, where I learned the truths of the Catholic Faith with clarity and surety.

Entrusting ourselves as ever to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, remembering to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, may we remain steadfast in our refusal to have anything to do with even the whiff of heresy that emanates from the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Heaven cannot be obtained by making compromises with error or by being silent about it. We must call error by its proper name, not seeking to "tolerate" it in ordert to "understand" it better. 

Vivat Christus Rex!

Viva Cristo Rey!

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.

Pope Saint Silverius, pray for us.