Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Ten Years as Antichrist's Viceroy and Spokesman

Ten years.

Ten insufferably long years.

Ten years have passed since Jorge Mario “Cardinal” Bergoglio was elected by his brother apostates to serve as the universal public face of apostasy while sitting in the conciliar seat of infidelity of a religious sect that is the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church.

Although some in the resist while recognize attempted to portray “Pope Francis” as a man who had a “Marian devotion of the most traditional kind” in the first week after he walked out on the balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday evening, March 13, 2013, others of us informed ourselves of the following facts within days of this pestilential demon’s becoming Antichrist’s viceroy and spokesman.

Take, for example, a few excerpts from “Francis the Talking Apostate,” which was published on March 14, 2013, and is linked (along with hundreds of others of commentaries about Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his stewardship of Antichrist’s church of lies) below, showing that everything one needed to know was in the public record ten years ago today. One can see from the lengthy excerpt below that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was fully formed at the time he was “elected,” meaning that the past decade has been about his placing an antipapal imprimatur on the apostate beliefs that have been nurtured since his seminary days during the reign of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI:

Born on December 17, 1936, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is only nine years, eight months younger than His Apostateness, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus. Appearing very frail, if not unsure of himself, and known to hate being away from Buenos Aires, Bergoglio is likely to resign in the model of Ratzinger/Benedict's new and improved "democratic" concept of what the conciliarists term "the Petrine Ministry" (see Whittling Away At The Last Catholic Bastion).
The runner-up in the voting that took place on April 18, 2005, that resulted in the election of then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, Bergoglio had the support of the likes of the notorious, nefarious protector of predator clergymen and propagandists of the lavender agenda named Roger Mahony (see Corrupt Chickens Come Home To Roost In Roger's Nest Of Apostates). Isn't that all you need to know?
As will be demonstrated below, Bergoglio is a supporter of the late Father Luis Guissani's Communion and Liberation movement that was inspired by the work of such "new theologians" as the late Fathers Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac, carrying with it, of course, the full backing of Joseph Ratzinger (see Proud Of His Blasphemy And Of His Blaspheming Mentor).
Bergoglio is unsympathetic to the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition within the conciliar structures, about which even some of those in the "recognize but resist" movement are already gnashing their teeth and rending their garments as they continue to lament the retirement of their champion, the "restorer of tradition," Ratzinger/Benedict.

To amplify this last point, an observation made by a "recognize but resist" Catholic journalist in Argentina noted the following as found on the Rorate Caeli blogspot:

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and moral seem to have been irrelevant to him.

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum.

Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is.

His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior.

He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was "blessed" by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the "powers" of the TV-pastors.

This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual "marriage" [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power.

It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work.

May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion... and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us. (RORATE CAELI: The Horror!A Buenos Aires journalist describes Bergoglio.)

That is a pretty good summary of the man, I believe.

Do not believe the mainstream media's reports about Bergoglio as being a "conservative" on doctrine. He is not. His opposition, for example, to "marriage" for those engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments is coupled with a "respect" for individual homosexuals, meaning that it is permissible to identify oneself by virtue of being inclined to the commission of sins against nature. This is absurd as no one is to identify himself by his tendency to commit a particular sin. What defines us as human beings is that we bear the Divine impress on our immortal souls, and what defines us as Catholics is that we have been incorporated in the Mystical Body of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that is the Catholic Church at the moment of our Baptism.

Then again, absurdity and contradiction are part and parcel of who Jorge Mario Bergoglio is, a total creature of conciliarism, ordained as a member of the Society of Jesus on December 13, 1969, although it is unclear to me at this point whether the invalid conciliar rite of presbyteral installation was used. Paradox and absurdity are part and parcel of who is man is. How can you expect otherwise? He is trained according to the Hegelian methodology advanced by the likes of Von Balthasar and De Lubac that Ratzinger just spent the past eight years advancing under the banner of the "hermeneutic of continuity."

What is my evidence for this?

Well, how about Bergoglio's own words, contained in an interview published by Communion and Liberation's 30 Days magazine?

I will provide Francis, The Talking Apostate's own words and then provide a few very brief words of commentary:

Excerpt One:

BERGOGLIO: Staying, remaining faithful implies an outgoing. Precisely if one remains in the Lord one goes out of oneself. Paradoxically precisely because one remains, precisely if one is faithful one changes. One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or the fundamentalists, to the letter. Fidelity is always a change, a blossoming, a growth. The Lord brings about a change in those who are faithful to Him. That is Catholic doctrine. Saint Vincent of Lerins makes the comparison between the biologic development of the person, between the person who grows, and the Tradition which, in handing on the depositum fidei from one age to another, grows and consolidates with the passage of time: «Ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate». (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca)

Brief Comment:

Paradox and contradiction worthy of His Apostateness, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus. "One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or the fundamentalists, to the letter"?

Boy, have they got an apostate on their hands, a man who is as free with the teaching of saints such as Saint Vincent Lerins as the man who defeated him at the 2005 conciliar conclave. This is what Saint Vincent Lerins actually taught about Catholic Tradition:

"Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic." (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)

"But he appears so humble and simple," some might say.

I say, so what? Humility and simplicity without the Catholic Faith mean nothing. And Francis, The Talking Apostate hath not the Catholic Faith.

Excerpt Two:

Q. Is this what you would have said at the Consistory?

BERGOGLIO: Yes. I would have spoken about these three key points.

Q. Nothing else?

BERGOGLIO: Nothing else… No, perhaps I would have mentioned two things of which there is need in this moment, there is more need: mercy, mercy and apostolic courage.

Q. What do they mean to you?

BERGOGLIO: To me apostolic courage is disseminating. Disseminating the Word. Giving it to that man and to that woman for whom it was bestowed. Giving them the beauty of the Gospel, the amazement of the encounter with Jesus… and leaving it to the Holy Spirit to do the rest. It is the Lord, says the Gospel, who makes the seed spring and bear fruit.

Q. In short, it is the Holy Spirit who performs the mission.

BERGOGLIO: The early theologians said: the soul is a kind of sailing boat, the Holy Spirit is the wind that blows in the sail, to send it on its way, the impulses and the force of the wind are the gifts of the Spirit. Without His drive, without His grace, we don’t go ahead. The Holy Spirit lets us enter the mystery of God and saves us from the danger of a gnostic Church and from the danger of a self-referential Church, leading us to the mission.

That means also overthrowing all your functionalist solutions, your consolidated plans and pastoral systems …

BERGOGLIO: I didn’t say that pastoral systems are useless. On the contrary. In itself everything that leads by the paths of God is good. I have told my priests: «Do everything you should, you know your duties as ministers, take your responsibilities and then leave the door open». Our sociologists of religion tell us that the influence of a parish has a radius of six hundred meters. In Buenos Aires there are about two thousand meters between one parish and the next. So I then told the priests: «If you can, rent a garage and, if you find some willing layman, let him go there! Let him be with those people a bit, do a little catechesis and even give communion if they ask him». A parish priest said to me: «But Father, if we do this the people then won’t come to church». «But why?» I asked him: «Do they come to mass now?» «No», he answered. And so! Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God.

This is valid also for lay people… (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca)

Brief Comment:

The danger of a self-referential Church?

Overthrowing all your functionalist solutions, your consolidated pastoral systems?

Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one's own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God?

How is this not identical to what Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger, evoking the spirit of Hans Urs von Balthasar, wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982?

Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the "demolition of the bastions" is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.)

Pope Pius VIII, writing in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditi Humilitate Nostrae, May 24, 1829, during his very brief pontificate warned us about those such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, men who have sought to "raze" the foundations of the Church:

Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner. All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. With tears We say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations." (Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humilitate Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)

Francis the Talking Apostate is busted. Unfortunately for him, though, he does not realize this.

Excerpt Three:

Q, What should one do?

BERGOGLIO: Look at our people not for what it should be but for what it is and see what is necessary. Without preconceptions and recipes but with generous openness. For the wounds and the frailty God spoke. Allowing the Lord to speak… In a world that we can’t manage to interest with the words we say, only His presence that loves us, saves us, can be of interest. The apostolic fervor renews itself in order to testify to Him who has loved us from the beginning.

Q. For you, then, what is the worst thing that can happen in the Church?

BERGOGLIO: It is what De Lubac calls «spiritual worldliness». It is the greatest danger for the Church, for us, who are in the Church. «It is worse», says De Lubac, «more disastrous than the infamous leprosy that disfigured the dearly beloved Bride at the time of the libertine popes». Spiritual worldliness is putting oneself at the center. It is what Jesus saw going on among the Pharisees: «… You who glorify yourselves. Who give glory to yourselves, the ones to the others». (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca).)

Brief Comment:

Generous openness to what? The devil, that's what.

Quoting De Lubac on spiritual worldliness, which means ridding the Catholic Church of the belief that she alone possesses truth and has the sole right from God to teach, govern and sanctify men?

Apostasy.

Simple apostasy.

You want another example?

Sure, below you will find an an excerpt from an speech Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave upon the release of Father Luis Guissani's The Attraction of Jesus that was republished in yet another Communion and Liberation magazine, Traces, which is based in Argentina:

The book presented today, El atractivo de Jesucristo, is not a theological treatise, it is a dialogue of friendship; these are table conversations between Father Guissani and his disciples. It is not a book for intellectuals, but for people who are men and women. It is the description of that initial experience, which I shall refer to later on, of wonder which arises in dialogue about daily experience that is provoked and fascinated by the exceptionally human and divine presence and gaze of Jesus Christ. It is the story of a personal relationship–intense, mysterious, and concrete at the same time–of an impassioned and intelligent affection for the person of Jesus, and this enables Fr. Giussani to come to the threshold, as it were, of Mystery, to speak familiarly and intimately with Mystery.

Everything in our life, today just as in Jesus’ time, begins with an encounter. An encounter with this Man, the carpenter of Nazareth, a man like all men and yet different. The first ones, John, Andrew, and Simon, felt themselves to be looked at into their very depths, read in their innermost being, and in them sprang forth a surprise, a wonder that instantly made them feel bound to Him, made them feel different.

When Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love Me?”, “his ‘Yes’ was not the result of an effort of will, it was not the fruit of a ‘decision’ made by the young man Simon: it was the emergence, the coming to the surface of an entire vein of tenderness and adherence that made sense because of the esteem he had for Him–therefore an act of reason;” it was a reasonable act, “which is why he couldn’t not say ‘Yes.’”

We cannot understand this dynamic of encounter which brings forth wonder and adherence if it has not been triggered–forgive me the use of this word–by mercy. Only someone who has encountered mercy, who has been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, is happy and comfortable with the Lord. I beg the theologians who are present not to turn me in to the Sant’Uffizio or to the Inquisition; however, forcing things a bit, I dare to say that the privileged locus of the encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ on my sin.

In front of this merciful embrace–and I continue along the lines of Giussani’s thought–we feel a real desire to respond, to change, to correspond; a new morality arises. We posit the ethical problem, an ethics which is born of the encounter, of this encounter which we have described up to now. Christian morality is not a titanic effort of the will, the effort of someone who decides to be consistent and succeeds, a solitary challenge in the face of the world. No. Christian morality is simply a response. It is the heartfelt response to a surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy (I shall return to this adjective). The surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy, using purely human criteria, of one who knows me, knows my betrayals and loves me just the same, appreciates me, embraces me, calls me again, hopes in me, and expects from me. This is why the Christian conception of morality is a revolution; it is not a never falling down but an always getting up again. (The Attraction of the Cardinal.)

This is quintessentially Modernist as the Modernists taught that man's belief in God and His Divine Son spring forth from an inner impulse and not by virtue of having had the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity infused into his soul in the Sacrament of Baptism. Pope Saint Pius X dissected this heresy very well in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. Thus they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when natural theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside of man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. In this way is formulated the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every vital phenomenon -- and religion, as noted above, belongs to this category -- is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances. cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.

It may perhaps be asked how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself resolves itself into religion? To this question the Modernist reply would be as follows: Science and history are confined within two boundaries, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these limits has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a soul which is prone to religion excites -- according to the principles of Fideism, without any previous advertence of the mind -- a certain special sense, and this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion.

8. But we have not yet reached the end of their philosophizing, or, to speak more accurately, of their folly. Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute a revelation? Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This is not a minor point at all. It is quite essential to the entire belief system of concilairism. Luis Mario Bergoglio was only repeating what he had been taught by the late Father Luigi Guissani, a belief about man's "inner sense" and "relation to God" that has been propagated throughout the Joseph Ratzinger's entire priesthood.

The only substantive difference between Bergoglio and Ratzinger is that the latter attempted, at least sometimes, to put a sober face on his staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Bergoglio is a full-fledged child of the "papal" extravaganza "Masses" staged by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Just take a little look see at this: Conga Liturgy in Argentina. For the inspiration of this so-called liturgy, please see Origins of the Conga Liturgy. (I know. I know. You're not supposed to have this much fun in Lent. I know.

One can see in this particular sacrilege, committed in 2011 at an outdoor venue, that Bergoglio violated the Novus Ordo's rubrics by "offering" the bread and wine at the same time even though the General Instruction to the Roman Missal specifies that they are to be offered separately. And the crucifix in the background appears to feature a resurrected corpus of Our Lord rather than a crucified one. The little snippet that I watched, though, indicates that this is simply garden-variety "inculturation of the Gospel" as prescribed in Paragraph 395 of the General Instruction to the Roman Missal:

395. Finally, if the participation of the faithful and their spiritual welfare requires variations and more thoroughgoing adaptations in order that the sacred celebration respond to the culture and traditions of the different peoples, then Bishops' Conferences may propose such to the Apostolic See in accordance with article 40 of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy for introduction with the latter's consent, especially in the case of peoples to whom the Gospel has been more recently proclaimed. The special norms given in the Instruction On the Roman Liturgy and Inculturation should be carefully observed.

Regarding procedures to be followed in this matter, the following should be followed:

In the first place, a detailed preliminary proposal should be set before the Apostolic See, so that, after the necessary faculty has been granted, the detailed working out of the individual points of adaptation may proceed.

Once these proposals have been duly approved by the Apostolic See, experiments should be carried out for specified periods and at specified places. If need be, once the period of experimentation is concluded, the Bishops' Conference shall decide upon pursuing the adaptations and shall propose a mature formulation of the matter to the Apostolic See for its decision. (Paragraph 395, General Instruction to the Roman Missal.)

Attorney James Bendell, who is a champion of the Catholic Faith, echoed my belief, expressed above, that Ratzinger had an aesthetic sense about him, stating that "With this guy we're likely to get trained seals with bicycle horns." Mr. Bendell, who is from New Jersey originally and shares my northeast humor and cultural references as were both born in that marvelous year of 1951, then sent a photograph of what a "Pope Francis" liturgy may look like in the near future:

See also: Turkish seal show. (The photograph and link were provided by Mr. Bendell, who was also the inspiration of the "Origins of the Conga Liturgy" link.)

Francis, the Talking Apostate is also an complete ecumaniac, something that can be shown below as the new conciliar "pontiff" was "blessed" in 2006 by Argentine Protestant televangelists:

Yes, that's the master apostate of the Capuchin Fathers, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, who specializes in the preaching of heresy to the heretics who have pretended to sit on the Throne of Saint Peter, standing as then "Cardinal" Bergoglio knelt to receive his "blessing" from the Protestant televangelists. What kind of "blessings" can Protestants give? Oh, well, those that come from the devil.

Speaking of the adversary, he has a great friend in "Pope" Francis, who has gone out of the way to pay his obeisance ancient enemies of the Catholic Faith in their Talmudic garb: Bergoglio Celebrates Hanukkah at Buenos Aires Synagogue, December of 2012. One will notice that the then false "cardinal" who is now the false "pontiff" was wearing a yarmulke. In other words, he is a South American version of Timothy Michael Dolan, and he has the credentials to prove that this is so.

Indeed, the new "pope" comes with a freshly Talmudic Seal of Approval from the pro-abortion, pro-perversity, Christophobic organization known as the Anti-Defamation League:

We congratulate the new Pope and wish him well in his important new responsibility. We believe that the election of Francis I is a significant moment in the history of the Church. We look forward to working with him to continue to foster Catholic-Jewish relations as we have with his predecessors. There is much in his record that reassures us about the future.

Under his leadership in Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio made important strides in maintaining positive Catholic-Jewish relations following the transformational papacies of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI - pontiffs who launched historic reconciliation between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people.

Cardinal Bergoglio maintained a close relationship with the Jewish community in Argentina. He has celebrated various Jewish holidays with the Argentinian Jewish community, including Chanukah where he lit a candle on the menorah, attended a Buenos Aires synagogue for Slichot, a pre-Rosh Hashana service, the Jewish New Year, as well as a commemoration of Kristallnacht, the wave of violent Nazi attacks against Jews before World War II.

In 2010, during a commemoration of the 1994 bombing, Cardinal Bergoglio called it “a house of solidarity” and added “God bless them and help them accomplish their work,” which showed his dedication and support in standing up against extremism.

In 2010, he together with Argentinian Rabbi Abraham Skorka, published the book “On Heaven and Earth” addressing issues of interfaith dialogue. The new Pope’s sensitivity to the Jews emerges from this work in his comments on the Church’s approach to the Jewish people since Vatican II, the Holocaust and the Arab-Israeli conflict. (ADL Congratulates New Apostate Francis.)

Yes, you just can't get more Kosher than that, can you?

All that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been doing for the past ten years of fleshing out the antipapal details of his long held false beliefs that contradict and make a mockery of God, of the Catholic Faith, of Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution, the necessity of adhering to the totality of Catholic teaching on Faith and morals, especially by using “unofficial” meetings held at the Gregorianum during “extraordinary” and “ordinary” synods of “bishops” that led up to the issuance of Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, and of the very nature of what purports to be the Sacred Liturgy.

“Pope Francis” has made war upon and has constantly belittled believing Catholics as rigid Pharisees, “fundamentalists” and “self-referential Pelagians.”

He has reaffirmed hardened sinners in their lives of perdition, being especially sensitive towards those steeped unrepentantly in perverse sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has long reaffirmed homosexuals and other sodomites in their perverse lifestyles without once ever calling upon any one of them to go to confession and to reform their lives. Not once. He also made it clear to the Argentine “bishops” in 2010 that he supported civil union status for those steeped in unrepentant sins of perversity, something that I demonstrated on April 13, 2013, which was precisely one month to the day after Bergoglio’s election to become the sixth in the current line of antipopes on Wednesday, March 13, 2013:

Senor Jorge Bergoglio, who is now engaged in a masquerade part as "Pope Francis" after forty-three years of his masquerade as a "priest" and twenty years engaging in a masquerade party as a "bishop," has shown himself very "flexible" on matters of Faith, Worship, Morals and pastoral praxis. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has even been "flexible" enough to endorse "civil unions" (see Francis And OtherJudases Abound In Holy Week). Although some have tried to assert that "Archbishop" Bergoglio did not truly support "civil unions," the truth is otherwise, something noted by National Catholic Reporter columnist and reporter John Allen, Jr., who had to journeyed to Argentina to question sources personally:

In March 19, The New York Times reported that when Argentina was gearing up for a bitter national debate on gay marriage in 2009 and 2010, Bergoglio quietly favored a compromise solution that would have included civil unions for same-sex couples.

One source for that story was an Argentine journalist named Sergio Rubin, co-author with Francesca Ambrogetti of an interview book with Bergoglio titled El Jesuita. (I met Ambrogetti while I was in Buenos Aires. She told me the full version of how it took years for the notoriously media-averse Bergoglio to agree to the interview.)

Rubin's version of events was swiftly denied by Miguel Woites, director of the Argentinian Catholic Information Agency, a news outlet linked to the Buenos Aires archdiocese. Woites insisted Bergoglio would "never" have favored any legal recognition of same-sex unions and said the Times report was a "complete error."

On this score, I was told by three sources in Argentina that the Times basically got it right: Bergoglio did, in fact, favor civil unions.

That was confirmed on background by two senior officials of the bishops' conference in Argentina, both of whom worked with Bergoglio and took part in the behind-the-scenes discussions as the conference tried to shape its position.

"Bergoglio supported civil unions," one of those officials told me.

Mariano de Vedia, a veteran journalist for La Nación, has covered church/state issues in Argentina for years and said he could confirm Bergoglio's position had been correctly described in the Times account.

Guillermo Villarreal, a Catholic journalist in Argentina, said it was well known at the time that Bergoglio's moderate position was opposed by Archbishop Héctor Rubén Aguer of La Plata, the leader of the hawks. The difference was not over whether to oppose gay marriage, but how ferociously to do so and whether there was room for a compromise on civil unions.

Villareal described the standoff over gay marriage as the only vote Bergoglio ever lost during his six years as president of the conference.

Behind the scenes, sources say Bergoglio tried to avoid fireworks on the gay marriage issue. One young Catholic told me, for instance, he had wanted to organize a public recitation of the rosary on the eve of the vote outside the legislature, knowing that supporters of gay marriage would also be there and the prayer would be a provocation. He wrote to Bergoglio seeking advice, he said, and Bergoglio called him directly, suggesting they pray at home instead.

Oesterheld suggested Bergoglio went along with the harder line espoused by the majority of the bishops' conference even if it wasn't his own instinct.

"At that time, there were different views within the bishops' conference on how open the church should be [to compromise solutions]," Oesterheld said. "The cardinal went along with what the majority wanted. He didn't impose his own views. He never publicly expressed his own feelings on the matter, because he didn't want to seem to be undercutting the common position of the bishops." (Hard questions about Francis in Argentina and a lesson from Chile.)

Support for "civil unions" is becoming very mainslime stuff in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Very mainslime:

A leading cardinal has said that same-sex relationships should be respected and recognised in law amid signs of a change in church thinking on the subject.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, made the remarks in a lecture at the National Gallery evening titled "Christianity: Alien Presence or Foundation of the West?" on Monday. "There can be same-sex partnerships and they need respect, and even civil law protection. Yes, but please keep it away from the notion of marriage. Because the definition of marriage is the stable union between a man and a woman open to life," Cardinal Schönborn said. "We should be clear about terms and respect the needs of people living in a partnership together. They deserve respect," he added. Two other cardinals, Colombian Ruben Salazar and Theodore McCarrick have recently suggested the Church should not oppose same-sex civil unions. (Three Cardinals open to civil partnerships.)

Christoph Schonborn's support for perversity is very well-known.

That's right, "Pope" Benedict XVI has been completely silent in the wake of comments over the years made by the likes of the late Carlo "Cardinal" Martini, who died on August 31, 2012, Christoph "Cardinal" Schonborn, the conciliar "archbishop" of Vienna, Austria, and Geoffrey Robinson, a retired auxiliary "bishop" in Sydney, Australia, concerning the necessity of overlooking sinful acts in favor of the "quality of relationships." What's the good about using conciliarspeak to oppose in the weakest terms imaginable "gay marriage" when the conciliar "bishops" favor "ministries" to sinners to reaffirm them in basing their own self-identification on an "orientation" toward the commission of the sin of Sodom? (See Nothing Stable, Nothing Secure Update.)

This is getting pretty old hat in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, whose apostate "bishops" have long recruited, protected, enabled and promoted men who were either inclined to or had as a matter fact engaged in perverse sins against the Sixth and the Ninth Commandments.

Everything is "up for grabs" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and the group of eight conciliar revolutionaries Jorge Mario Bergoglio has chosen to "advise" him on the governance of this false church indicates that his "Petrine Ministry" is very much akin to the office of prime minister or premier in a parliamentary system of government. And it should be noted the revolutionaries" named by Bergoglio/Francis are very "soft" have a track record of being very "respectful" of those who commit sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Very respectful. Very tolerant. (Francis and the Commissars )

Mind you, that was seven and one-half years ago. The agenda was very clear, and has become so clear that not even “put your head in the sand” “conservative” Catholics who think that they have a “devout” and “reverent” staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination have to do all kinds of intellectual gymnastics to avoid admitting that their “pope” has the mind of a heathen and the heart of a demon.

It must be stated clearly that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostle of false mercy, one that that makes it a sin to call a sinner to repentance, that it is enough just to "love" a sinner and to make him feel "welcomed" by offer him a warm embrace of compassion and understanding. This, too, is clearly the work of Antichrist.

Bergoglio uttered five little words on July 29, 2013, that have characterized his false “pontificate’s
embrace of false mercy for hardened sinners who have no intention of reforming their lives of rank perversity:

Speaking of other problems within the administration of the Holy See, including rumours of a ‘gay lobby’ within the Vatican, Pope Francis said there are many saintly people working in the Curia but also those who are not so saintly and cause scandals which harm the Church. Quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, he said that people with homosexual tendencies must not be excluded but should be integrated into society. “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?” he asked. (Francis the Revolutionary holds press conference on flight back from Brazil. See also Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three.)

Those five little words, "Who am I to judge?", helped the Homosexual Collective within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and in the world-at-large to advance their agenda of perversity in the name of "toleration" and "compassion" and "diversity" with more and more boldness.

The facts in Battista Ricca's case were entirely correct. Jorge, however, just merely shrugged his shoulders and said "Who am I to judge?", the slogan that warmed the hearts of practitioners of perversity worldwide, just two weeks after his spokesflack, "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., had called the accuations against Ricca to have been "not trustworthy," something that prompted Vaticanologist Sandro Magister to shoot back with a point-by-by-point refutation of Lombardi (see (On "Gay Lobby", Sandro Magister challenges the Vatican: "We have the evidence"). Alas, no one "seeks God" can have a "good will" while persisting in that which offends God, is hideous in His sight, and is eternally fatal to one's own immortal soul.

The lesson read at Holy Mass on the Sixth Sunday after Pentecost, which was celebrated on Sunday, July 12, 2020, which was also the Commemoration of Saint John Gualbert and of Saints Nabor and Felix, explained that we must be dead to our sins, not celebrate them:

Brethren: All we who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death. For we were buried with Him by means of Baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ has arisen from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with Him in the likeness of His death, we shall be so in the likeness of His resurrection also. For we know that our old self has been crucified with Him, in order that the body of sin may be destroyed, that we may no longer be slaves to sin; for he who is dead is acquitted of sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live together with Christ; for we know that Christ, having risen from the dead, dies now no more, death shall no longer have dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all, but the life that He lives, He lives unto God. Thus do you consider yourselves also as dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6: 3-11.)

Yes, Saint Paul knew that God does not "accompany us" in our sins. He wants us to quit them by cooperating with the graces that His Co-Equal and Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ won for us by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross that flow into our souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

Indeed, Holy Mother Church has long taught that we must perform the Spiritual Works of Mercy by admonishing and that there are nine ways by which we can become accessories to the sins of others. Here is a little review for you:

The Spiritual Works of Mercy

To instruct the ignorant.
To counsel the doubtful.
To admonish sinners.
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

Catholics also believe that there are nine ways that they can be accessories to the sins of others:

1. By counsel.
2. By command.
3. By consent.
4. By provocation.
5. By praise or flattery of the evil done.
6. By silence.
7. By connivance.
8. By partaking.
9. By defense of the ill done.

Conciliarism is by its very false nature uncharitable as it makes a mockery of the authentic, immutable teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by making it appear that it is somehow opposed to tenderness and mercy to follow these words that Saint Paul wrote in his Second Epistle to Saint Timothy:

[1] I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: [2] Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. [3] For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: [4] And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. [5] But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (2 Tim. 4: 1-15.)

A physician does not "judge" anyone if he warns him what might happen if he does not stop engaging in a certain course of behavior that is deleterious to his bodily health.

Similarly, one who warns another about the state of his soul as he persists in a life of unrepentant sin is simply performing a fundamental Spiritual Work of Mercy, and those who are inclined to and/or steeped in perverse sins against nature are not to be left without being remonstrated as this is a duty of a Catholic before God and to the eternal and temporal good of the sinner.

It is one thing to sin and to be sorry and then to seek out the mercy of the Divine Redeemer in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance. It is quite another to persist in sin, no less perverse sins against nature, unrepentantly and to expect others to reaffirm him in those sins, whether explicitly by words of approval or implicitly by silence, which betokens consent. Catholics must judge the states of their own souls every night in their Examen of Conscience, and they have a duty to help others to recognize the serious states of sin into which they have plunged themselves, praying beforehand to God the Holy Ghost to fill them with wisdom and prudence so as to provide a warning in such a way that could plant a seed to get an unrepentant sinner to a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not only refuse to this, he has said very plainly on a number of occasions now that “homosexuality” does not matter, and he has made absolutely no distinction between one’s being inclined to commit perverse sins against nature and those who do so and persist in doing so.

One of Jorge’s first such ventures occurred in the summer of 2013 when he telephoned Christopher Trutino, a Frenchman who based his self-identification upon his inclination to commit sins of unnatural vice in defiance of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments:

Then on Friday, Mr. Lombardi denied newspaper reports in France that the pope had called a young Catholic gay man in Toulouse to reassure him. The man, Christopher Trutino, a 25-year-old salesclerk, had told a local paper, La Dépêche du Midi, that after he wrote a letter to the pope explaining his struggles to reconcile his sexuality and faith, Francis phoned him to counsel him. “Your homosexuality, it doesn’t matter,” he recalled the pope saying. “One way or another, we are all children of God.”

Some on Twitter and elsewhere on the Internet greeted reports of the call as a welcome change in the doctrinal rigidity of the church on the issue of homosexuality. But the Vatican’s denial of the reports fanned speculation that the call had been a hoax, while also prompting some to question whether the Vatican was dissembling to distance itself from a delicate topic.

Mr. Trutino is avoiding the media, and could not be reached for comment on Monday. But Cyril Doumergue, the journalist from La Dépêche du Midi who interviewed him, said he had sounded authentic and genuinely moved. But he said he believed Mr. Trutino may have been deceived. He said the young man told the newspaper that during the call — which he said began at 2 p.m. — the pope explained that he would later be receiving King Abdullah II of Jordan. But Ansa, the Italian news agency, said the king arrived at 11 a.m. and the meeting was over by 12:06 p.m.

“Christopher did not record the conversation, so it is impossible to know 100 percent what happened,” Mr. Doumergue said. (Francis is on the line and everyone's talking.)

Contrary to what "Father" Federico Lombardi, S.J., tried to claim, it was within a few short days that Jorge himself admitted the phone call and its contents in his now infamous interview with "Father" Antonio Spadoro, S.J.:

“Another example from recent days that I saw got the attention of newspapers: the phone call I made to a young man who wrote me a letter. I called him because that letter was so beautiful, so simple. For me this was an act of generativity. I realized that he was a young man who is growing, that he saw in me a father, and that the letter tells something of his life to that father. The father cannot say, ‘I do not care.’ This type of fruitfulness is so good for me.” (A Big Heart Open to God, America Magazine.)

Bergoglio thus admitted to “Father” Antonio Spadoro, S.J., in Interview Number Two in September of 2013 what Vatican spokesflack and spinmeister “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., had denied when news of the infamous phone call had first become public two weeks beforehand, and he made news two years later when he met two sodomite friends of his who had gotten civilly “married” in Argentina:

Here is a report on the meeting with that so-called “gay couple”:

VATICAN CITY — Ever since it became public that Pope Francis met in Washington with Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses for same-sex couples, the questions have been swirling: Why did he meet with her, and was it meant as a political statement?

As it turns out, the Vatican said on Friday, the pope did not mean to endorse Ms. Davis’s views. It also said he gave her no more than a typical brief greeting, despite what her lawyer described.

Instead, the Vatican said that Francis gave only one “real audience”: to someone later identified as one of his former students, Yayo Grassi, a gay man in Washington who says he brought his partner of 19 years to the Vatican’s embassy in Washington for a reunion. They even shot video.

The disclosure, after the Vatican’s unusual attempt to correct the impressions left by Francis’ meeting with Ms. Davis, added to days of speculation about whether Francis intended to send a message on the place of gays in the church, or conscientious objection, and whether his advisers had fully briefed him on Ms. Davis, or had their own agenda.

The Vatican spokesman emphasized that the meeting with Ms. Davis was arranged by the office of the Vatican’s ambassador in Washington, not by anyone in Rome — including the pope.

“The pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs. Davis, and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement released Friday morning.

On the other hand, Mr. Grassi, a 67-year-old caterer, told The New York Times that he and the pontiff have known each other since the 1960s, when Jorge Mario Bergoglio, as the future pope was then called, taught him literature and psychology at the Colegio de la Inmaculada Concepción, a Jesuit high school in Santa Fe, Argentina.

Mr. Grassi said that he had resumed contact with the future pope years later, when he was the archbishop of Buenos Aires. He also visited the pope at the Vatican in September 2013, and later contacted his office to ask for an audience in Washington.

“Once I saw how busy and exhausting his schedule was in D.C., I wrote back to him saying perhaps it would be better to meet some other time,” Mr. Grassi said. “Then he called me on the phone and he told me that he would love to give me a hug in Washington.”

Mr. Grassi said that he had been accompanied by his partner of 19 years, Iwan Bagus, as well as four friends, and that the meeting took place at the Vatican Embassy on Sept. 23 — a day before Ms. Davis met the pope.

Mr. Grassi said that Francis had told him to arrange the visit through the office of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio, or envoy, in Washington.

It was a private meeting, for about 15 to 20 minutes, in which I brought my boyfriend of 19 years,” Mr. Grassi said. His boyfriend, Mr. Bagus, worked on a video that was posted online that showed Francis hugging Mr. Grassi and the others.

Mr. Grassi said the meeting was purely personal. “I don’t think he was trying to say anything in particular,” Mr. Grassi said. “He was just meeting with his ex-student and a very close friend of his.”

Late on Friday, the Vatican confirmed the meeting. “Mr. Yayo Grassi, a former Argentine student of Pope Francis, who had already met other times in the past with the pope, asked to present his mother and several friends to the Pope during the Pope’s stay in Washington, D.C.,” Father Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said in a statement.

“As noted in the past, the pope, as pastor, has maintained many personal relationships with people in a spirit of kindness, welcome and dialogue,” the statement added.

Earlier on Friday, the Vatican said that Archbishop Viganò had arranged the pope’s meetings in Washington, including the one with Ms. Davis.

The news of the meeting with Ms. Davis was disclosed late Tuesday night by Ms. Davis’s lawyer, Mathew D. Staver, at the same time it was reported on the website of Inside the Vatican, a conservative publication edited by an American who has covered the Vatican for years.

For nearly eight hours, Vatican officials refused to confirm or deny that the meeting had occurred, before finally confirming it on Wednesday afternoon.

For Francis, the timing of the Davis controversy is not ideal. Beginning Sunday the Vatican is staging a critical three-week meeting of bishops and laypeople to discuss whether to recommend changing their approach to contemporary issues related to the family, like gay couples, single parents or whether divorced and remarried Catholics who have not obtained annulments should be allowed to receive communion.

That meeting, known as a synod, could become a showdown between liberals and conservatives. Francis has spent nearly two years trying to gradually build consensus and has repeatedly stated his desire for a more welcoming, merciful outreach — even as he has not signaled any willingness to change church doctrine.

News of his meeting with Ms. Davis buoyed Christian conservatives, who had been dismayed that the pope, in his emphasis on the poor, barely mentioned issues like abortion and homosexuality during his visit to Washington, New York and Philadelphia. It also puzzled and angered more liberal observers.

It also led observers of the Vatican to speculate about whether the encounter with Ms. Davis was a signal of support for her cause. Francis has emphasized that he strongly believes in conscientious objection as a human right, a position he reaffirmed on his plane ride home.

On Friday, the Vatican appeared to be distancing itself from Ms. Davis’s camp. Father Lombardi’s statement said that the brief meeting “has continued to provoke comments and discussion,” and that he was providing clarification “in order to contribute to an objective understanding of what transpired.”

The Vatican’s statement prompted reactions on both sides of the Atlantic.

In a phone interview on Friday, Mr. Staver said the meeting had been called by the Vatican.

“This was a private meeting initiated by the Vatican,” Mr. Staver said. “My contacts were Vatican officials in the United States. And I was informed the request came directly from the pontiff.”

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

Mr. Staver said the request had come on Sept. 14, the day Ms. Davis returned to work after her release from jail. Ms. Davis and her husband were picked up at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in a tan van by private security guards who spoke Italian, he said. She had been instructed to change her hairstyle so she would not be identified.

Mr. Staver said Ms. Davis was not among a large group of people meeting the pope. She saw no one else waiting to see the pope and no one else saw her. “Just think about it. If she was in a line, there is no way this could have been kept secret for five days,” he said.

But at the Vatican on Friday, a spokesman, the Rev. Thomas Rosica, said the invitation had been extended by the nuncio’s office — not from Rome.

“Who brought her in? The nuncio,” said Father Rosica, who is working with the Vatican’s media office in advance of a major meeting of bishops that begins this weekend. “The Nunciature was able to bring in donors, benefactors.”

Father Rosica said of the controversy: “I would simply say: Her case is a very complex case. It’s got all kinds of intricacies. Was there an opportunity to brief the pope on this beforehand? I don’t think so. A list is given — these are the people you are going to meet.”

Mr. Staver, for his part, said he had been briefly introduced to Archbishop Viganò in April, when he spoke at a large rally in Washington againstsame-sex marriage, before the Supreme Court ruled on the issue.

The Rev. James Martin, editor at large of the Jesuit magazine America, had cautioned in an article this week that the pope meets many well-wishers on his trips, and that news of the meeting with Ms. Davis had been manipulated.

“I was very disappointed to see the pope having been used that way, and that his willingness to be friendly to someone was turned against him,” Father Martin said in an interview on Friday. “What may originally have prevented them from issuing a statement was the desire not to give this story too much air. But what they eventually came to realize was that they needed to correct.

Asked on Friday if the Vatican press office had been unaware that Ms. Davis had met the pope, Father Rosica said: “No, but I think we may not have been aware of the full impact of the meeting. It is very difficult sometimes when you are looking at things in America from here.”

A receptionist who answered the phone at the Vatican Embassy in Washington on Friday said, “The nuncio does not deny that the meeting took place, but would not make any further comment.”

She said the embassy did not have its own spokesman, and that no other officials there would comment.

Archbishop Viganò is turning 75 in January, the age at which bishops must submit a formal request to the Vatican asking for permission to resign. These requests are not automatically accepted, and bishops often stay in their appointments well past age 75. But if Archbishop Viganò is held responsible for what is seen as a grave misstep on an important papal trip, he is likely to be removed at the first respectable opportunity, according to several church analysts.

“Nobody in the Catholic Church wants another Regensburg,” said Massimo Faggioli, an associate professor of theology and director of the Institute for Catholicism and Citizenship at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul. He was referring to the backlash after Pope Benedict XVI, Francis’ predecessor, gave a speech in Regensburg, Germany, that appeared to denigrate Islam.

“This was not as serious as Regensburg, when Benedict read his own speech,” Dr. Faggioli said about the meeting attended by Ms. Davis. “But the pope has to be able to rely on his own system, and in this case the system failed him. The question is, was it a mistake, or was it done with full knowledge of how toxic she was?”

The meeting with Ms. Davis was clearly a misstep, Dr. Faggioli said, “because the whole trip to the United States he very carefully didn’t want to give the impression that he was being politicized by any side.”

He added, “And this thing is the most politicized thing that you can imagine.” (Before Clerk, an Antipapal Hug for a Gay Friend.)

I quoted this entire story to give readers a full appreciation of how far from the sensus Catholicus Bergoglio and his fellow travelers in the false religious sect of conciliarism are in the practical course of daily events. These apostates are so bereft of the Catholic Faith that their very first instinct is to indemnify wanton sinners and leftist ideologues while vilifying those who dare to criticize or make life “uncomfortable” for such people.

Furthermore, the contention made by Dr. Massimo Faggioli that Jorge’s meeting with Kim Davis was not as bad as “Regensburg” was a remarkable concession that it was as “unacceptable” and “incendiary” for Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to state even an attenuated version of the truth of Mohammedanism as being an irrational religion prone to violence in an address he gave Regensburg, Germany, on September 12, 2006, the Feast of the Holy Name of Mary, as it was for “Pope Francis” to have been put in the “untenable” position of meeting with the “toxic” Kim Davis. Any kind of opposition to the gaystapo agenda is considered to be an act of “violence” against a supposedly “legitimate” classification of human beings even though human identity is not based on one’s proclivity to commit any particular sin, less yet those that are unnatural and cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

The conciliar Vatican went to extraordinary lengths to throw Carlo Maria Vignano, who has since gone on to carve out a niche for himself as a "defender" of the Gallicanist "resist while ecognize" movement, Kim Davis and Matthew Staver under the bus while celebrating the fact that Bergoglio (a) invited his former student, Yayo Grassi, and his “partner” in unnatural vice, Iwan Bagus, and (b) the video shows the false “pontiff” hugging both men and kissing them on their cheeks!

Thus, there is really nothing terribly “new” about Bergoglio’s endorsing "civil unions," especially if one recalls what Senor Jorge did eight months prior to his meeting his Argentine pals who were engaged in an "union" of perversity. The following is from a commentary I wrote in 2015:

As has been well-reported in the past two days now, Bergoglio’s latest venture into the world of the freakish and bizarre took place on Saturday, January 24, 2015, the Feast of Saint Timothy, as he met with a Spanish woman, who had undergone gender mutilation surgery, and her “fiancée,” after the mutilated woman had written to him to explain that she had been described as the “devil’s daughter” by her local presbyter:

Vatican City, January 26 - Pope Francis on Saturday received in a private audience a Spanish transsexual and his girlfriend after the man wrote to him saying he had been cast out of the church in his native city, Spanish daily Hoy reported Monday.

The transgender male, Diego Neria Lejarraga, a 48-year-old former woman, wrote to the pope some time ago saying he had been "marginalised" by Church officials in the city of Plasencia, in the southwestern region of Estremadura, Hoy said.

Neria, a believer and a practising Catholic, said he had been rebuffed by elements of the local clergy and claimed the parish priest had called him "the Devil's daughter", Hoy reported.

Francis phoned him twice in December, setting up Saturday''s meeting in St Martha's House, the Vatican guesthouse the pontiff lives in, Hoy said.

The pope has said the Catholic Church should be more accepting of gays but recently failed to muster a big enough majority of cardinals to change doctrine on the issue.

Asked about the reported meeting, official Vatican sources declined to comment. (Jorge receives Spanish Transsexual”)

Well, I suppose that Federico Lombardi has finally learned—or has been told—to keep his mouth shut after one of Jorge’s “private” meetings or phone calls become a matter of public news once it is blabbed by the “private parties” being used by the false “pontiff” to “push the envelope” on his conciliar revolution to the uttermost limits of the LGBT agenda imaginable.

Some might protest that Bergoglio was only giving “comfort” to an aggrieved soul.

Really?

What’s the grievance?

The gender-mutilated woman is the devil’s daughter as to mutilate one’s body to change his gender is to play God with the very nature He has given to him and is a direct violation of the binding precepts that flow from the Fifth Commandment. Just as he really does not believe that there is anything inherently unnatural in “same-sex attraction,” so is it apparent that Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe that there is anything inherent wrong in undergoing gender-mutilation surgery. He is as perverted in his mind and in his soul as the woman who met with him in the company of the woman she intends to “marry” even though she is a “woman.” So much for Jorge’s supposed opposition to “same-sex marriage,” huh? What the mutilated woman, who believes herself to be a man, intends in reality to do is to “marry” another woman.

By giving a show of support and affirmation to the gender-mutilated woman, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is, in effect, communicating his belief that such a mutilation must be accepted as a fait accompli without any word of criticism or rebuke. Such a belief, though, is contrary even to the official teaching of his own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which issued a “doctrinal note” on January 31, 2003, declaring that one who undergoes a “sex-change” operation does not change the gender that God gave to him:

VATICAN, Jan 31, 03 (CWNews.com) -- The Catholic Church cannot recognize the validity of a sex-change operation, the Vatican has declared.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has released a secret directive to bishops and religious superiors, indicating that an individual who has undergone a sex-change operation cannot be a candidate for the priesthood or religious life, and cannot enter into a valid marriage. The document also instructs pastors that they should not alter an individual's sacramental record to change the person's gender.

The Vatican document was released in 2000, but its existence and contents were tightly guarded until earlier this month. The directives were reportedly sent at first to papal delegates in each country, and later to the heads of episcopal conferences. Vatican officials confirmed the existence of the document after the Catholic News Service reported on it, but the full text is not available to the public.

The Note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith explains that an individual's physical characteristics-- which can be altered surgically-- constitute only a part of his gender identity. While the body can be changed, the sexual identity cannot, the Congregation says.

The Vatican document indicates that if a bishop or religious superior learns that an individual has undergone a sex-change operation, "that person cannot validly be admitted into a religious institute or society of consecrated life." The document adds that if a transsexual is now living in a religious order, "he must, for the good of souls, be expelled from the religious house."

The Vatican document was reportedly given greater circulation after a query from an American bishop, prompted by a dispute within a religious order in his diocese. (SEX- CHANGE OPERATIONS RULED INVALID BY THE CONCILIAR VATICAN.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio may or may not know about this “doctrinal note,” which would not matter to him even if he did know about it. The Argentine Apostate lives by pure viscera.

What Jorge Mario Bergoglio does know, however, is that one of his chief nemeses in the conciliar structures, Raymond Leo “Cardinal” Burke, whom he deposed as the head of the Apostolic Signatura in conciliar captivity, had himself given credence to the supposed “validity” of gender-mutilation surgery (the singular case is being used to refer to what are a series of grotesque surgeries performed by real-life sons of Dr. Frankenstein by way of Dr. Moreau’s Island of Lost Souls) by accepting a gender-mutilated man, who had started to call himself “Julie Green,” to found a religious community of women in the Diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin, which is why Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had been asked to issue the doctrinal note quoted just above.

Here is a review of the pertinent facts once again:

At times his theological allegiance with these orders placed Bishop Burke in some compromising positions. Most striking, perhaps, was the case of Sister Julie Green, a member of the Franciscan Servants of Jesus:

"Julie Green is living a lie!" writes Mary Therese Helmueller in an October 25, 2002, letter to Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, Papal Nuncio to the United States. "[She] is a transsexual, a biological male. He is really Joel Green, who had a sex operation to make him physically appear as a woman.... I fear that The Church in America will suffer another 'sex scandal' if Julie Green continues to be recognized as a Catholic Religious Sister, and if Bishop Raymond L. Burke receives his final vows, as a religious sister, on November 23rd, 2002."

Montalvo forwarded the letter to Burke, who on November 20, 2002, replied to Helmueller. "With regard to Sister Julie Green, F.S.J., the recognition of the association of the faithful which she and Sister Anne LeBlanc founded was granted only after consultation with the Holy See," he writes. "These are matters which are confidential and do not admit of any further comment.... I can assure you that Sister Julie Green in no way espouses a sex change operation as right or good. In fact, she holds it to be seriously disordered. Therefore, I caution you very much about the rash judgments which you made in your letter to the Apostolic Nuncio."

Adds Burke: "I express my surprise that, when you had questions about Sister Julie Green, you did not, in accord with the teaching of our Lord, address the matter to me directly." (Bishop Takes Queen.)

While it is nice that Joel Green believed the surgery that he had to become “Julie Green” is “seriously disordered,” such a disavowal does not annul the fact that he had underwent such surgery himself and was presenting himself as a woman, no less a woman desirous of starting a religious community with the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism within the Diocese of La Crosse with the approval of a man, Raymond Leo Burke, whom Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict transferred to the Archdiocese of Saint Louis, Missouri, and later brought him to Rome and elevated him the conciliar "college of cardinals."

This having been noted, it could very well be that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is crazy like a fox in this instance. That is, he appears to be daring Raymond Leo Burke to criticize him publicly for meeting with the “transgendered” Spanish woman who believes herself to be a man. At the same time, though, Jorge is showing his disregard for the work of the congregation many believe that he wants to dismantle while forcing Burke to say that he disagrees with Ratzinger for approving the “doctrinal note” that stopped him from proceeding with his plans for “Sister Julie Green."

What can be stated with certainty is that the Argentine Apostate has shown that he accepts the “reality” of the supposed effects of gender-mutilation and desires to blunt all efforts on the part of conciliar "bishops" and priests/presbyers to "exclude" them from the life of the conciliar sect.

Cheer up.

Things are only to get worse under Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is taking the conciliar revolution where no revolutionary at the "papal" level had gone before.

Gone are the days of official posturing by conciliar officials within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River concerning various diocesan programs and “ministries” that curried favor with unrepentant practitioners of perversity. “Official” reprimands of such groups as “Dignity USA” and “New Ways Ministry” are things of the past. “Francis the Merciful” has tickled the itching ears of many pestilential vermin within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that the conciliar Vatican had “tolerated” on a de facto basis even while reproving on a de jurebasis. Almost the entirety of the sodomite agenda has received de facto endorsement from Bergolio and his lieutenants, up to and including “Archbishop” Georg Ganswein, who is on day duty for Jorge and does night duty for the man who groomed him for his current position of influence, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. (From Mutilating All Truth, Janauary 28, 2015. By the way, Georg Ganswein no longer performs his duties as the "prefect of the 'papal' household" even though he still retains the title.)

Well, guess what?

Things got worse. What a surprise.

Only the willfully blind can deny that Jorge Mario Bergoglio continues to advance the agenda of the Homosexual Collective because he believes that there is nothing inherently wrong with perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. What is wrong, the Argentine Apostate believes, is the condemnation of those who are expressing their “love” in ways that require “acceptance” and “accompaniment.”

Obviously, this is to say nothing of how he has enabled and empowered the likes of “Fathers” James Martin, S.J., and Timothy Radcliffe, O.P., while praising the work of “New Ways Ministry” (see Wrong Ways Jorge: Infallibly Wrong About Almost Everything, part one, and Wrong Ways Jorge: Infallibly Wrong About Almost Everything, part two), and he has condemned those nations that criminalize sodomy (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio's Support for the Unsupportable

Moreover, “Pope Francis” could not wait for the death of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (see It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part one, It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part two, and It Is Never Advisable to Die as the Former Head of a False Religion, part three) to abrogate Summorum Pontificum (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio Bares His Teeth to Do the Work of Baal and The Fight is for the Holy Faith, Which Jorge and His Band of Heretics Do Not Possess), although it was early in his antipapal presidency that he sent “apostolic visitors” to the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Immaculate.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has constantly mocked mortification and penance:

As explained in the introduction to this article on the home page of this website, this brief commentary is a very brief follow-up to today's revised reflection. This very brief follow-up is based on prayers found in The Raccolta in honor of Saint John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament Prophets. Readers will see that these beautiful prayers explain the holy mission of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour’s Precursor and Cousin and explain everything that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, an Anti-Saint John the Baptist, if you will, is not.

The prayers, which are found in the 1957 English translation of the May 30, 1951, editio typica of the Latin original of The Raccolta truly speak for themselves, showing Jorge Mario Bergoglio to have none of the holy zeal for penance and thus for the salvation of souls as did Saint John the Baptist:

I. O glorious Saint John the Baptist, greatest prophet among those born of woman (Luke 7, 28), although thou wast sanctified in thy mother's womb and didst lead a most innocent life, nevertheless it was thy will to retire into the wilderness, there to devote thyself to the practice of austerity and penance; obtain for us of thy Lord the grace to be wholly detached, at least in our hearts, from earthly goods, and to practice Christian mortification with interior recollection and with the spirit of holy prayer.

Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, etc.

II. O most zealous Apostle, who, without working any miracle on others, but solely by the example of thy life of penance and the power of thy word, didst draw after thee the multitudes, in order to dispose them to receive the Messias worthily and to listen to His heavenly doctrine; grant that it may be given unto us, by means of the example of a holy life and the exercise of every good work, to bring many souls to God, but above all those souls that are enveloped in the darkness of error and ignorance and are led astray by vice. (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, pp. 345-347)

Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, etc.

III. O Martyr invincible, who, for the honor of God and the salvation of souls, didst with firmness and constancy withstand the impiety of Herod even at the cost of thine own life, and didst rebuke him openly for his wicked and dissolute life; by thy prayers obtain for us a heart, brave and generous, in order that we may overcome all human respect and openly profess our faith in loyal obedience to the teachings of Jesus Christ, our Divine Master.

Our Father, Hail Mary, Glory Be, etc.

V. Pray for us, Saint John the Baptist,
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.

Let us pray.
O God, Who hast made this day to be honorable in our eyes by the Nativity (or commemoration) of blessed John, grant unto Thy people the grace of spiritual joy, and direct the minds of all Thy faithful into the way of everlasting salvation. Through Christ our Lord. Amen. (The Raccolta: A Manual of Indulgences, Prayers and Devotions Enriched with Indulgences, approved by Pope Pius XII, May 30, 1951, and published in English by Benziger Brothers, New York, 1957, pp. 345-347)

By the way, the prayers above were composed a pope, a true pope, a pope whose very person stands as such a rebuke to the likes of the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" that they could not even mention the one hudredth anniversary of his death two years ago (August 20, 2014). Yes, the prayers above were composed by Pope Saint Pius X in his own very hand. No one who is the least bit rational can claim that Jorge Mario Bergoglio stands and his false "mercy," which is the foundation of Amoris Laetitia, does not stand condemned by these prayers. He is the antithesis of the spirit of Pope Saint Pius X because he is the very personifiation of the spirit of Antichrist.

Indeed, as has been pointed out so many times on this site in the past fifty-one months, eleven days, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has mocked mortification on numerous occasions.

Here is one such example:

"In the history of the Church there have been some mistakes made on the path towards God. Some have believed that the Living God, the God of Christians can be found on the path of meditation, indeed that we can reach higher through meditation. That's dangerous! How many are lost on that path, never to return. Yes perhaps they arrive at knowledge of God, but not of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity. They do not arrive at that. It is the path of the Gnostics, no? They are good, they work, but it is not the right path. It’s very complicated and does not lead to a safe harbor. "

"Others - the Pope said - thought that to arrive at God we must mortify ourselves, we have to be austere and have chosen the path of penance: only penance and fasting. Not even these arrive at the Living God, Jesus Christ. They are the pelagians, who believe that they can arrive by their own efforts.” (We encounter the Living God through His wounds.)

In other words, Saint John the Baptist did not arrive “at the Living God, Jesus Christ,” because he was a “pelagian” who believed that he could “arrive by” his own “efforts.”

Never mind the truth of the matter, namely, that Saint John the Baptist’s life of austere penance and mortification drew the multitudes to him, his preaching and his symbolic baptism of penance in order to prepare them for the Public Ministry of the One Whose sandals he was not worthy to loosen, Christ the King.

Saint John the Baptist is Holy Mother Church’s model of penance and mortification, which is one of the reasons that he is invoked in the Confiteor at Holy Mass. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has preached against penance and mortification and even meditation. How can anyone believe that this wretched little demon in human form is anything other than a perverse precursor of Antichrist himself?

Indeed, prayer, penance, fasting and mortification are essential to growth in the interior life. Time simply does not permit a full recitation of the examples of truly heroic sanctity practiced by canonized saints as they sought to die to self on a daily basis and to be completely mortified to the world, to human respect and to sense pleasures.

Suffice it for present purposes to draw upon the following reflection, written by Father John Croiset, S.J., on Mortification:

Mortification is a necessary disposition for the true love of Jesus Christ; this was the first lesson that Jesus Christ Himself gave those who wished to be His disciples; without mortification no one can expect to be a true follower of Him. “If any man, ” says He, “will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me” (Luke 9:23). And again He says: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, his mother, and wife and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26). Accordingly, all the saints had this distinguishing mark of perfect mortification. When people praised the virtue of anyone in the presence of St. Ignatius, he would ask: “Is that person truly mortified?” By that he wished to intimate that true mortification is inseparable from true piety, not only because virtue cannot exist long without general and constant mortification, but also because without mortification there can be no true virtue.

There are two kinds of mortification: the one, exterior, which consists in bodily austerities; the other, interior, which consists in repressing all inordinate affections of the mind and heart. Both kinds are necessary to attain perfection, and one cannot continue to exist long without the other. Fasting, vigils, the use of the hairshirt and other such macerations of the body are powerful means to become truly spiritual and really perfect; when used with discretion, they help wonderfully to strengthen our human nature, which is cowardly when there is question of doing good, but very eager to do evil; they are of great assistance also to repel the attacks and avoid the snares of our common enemy, and to obtain from the Father of Mercies the helps necessary for the just, especially for beginners.

Sanctity, it is true, does not consist in exterior penances, and they are not incompatible with hypocrisy; it is not so with interior mortification. It is always a certain mark of true piety, and so is more necessary than exterior mortification, and no one can reasonably be dispensed from it. This is the violence which we must do to ourselves in order to possess the kingdom of Heaven. Not everyone can fast or wear a hairshirt, but there is no one who cannot be silent when passion prompts him to reply or vanity to speak; there is no one who cannot mortify his human nature, his desires, and his passions. That is what is understood by this interior mortification by which a person weakens and conquers his self-love, and by which he gets rid of his imperfections. It is idle to flatter ourselves that we love Jesus Christ if we are not mortified; all the fine sentiments of piety and the practices of devotion are suspect without perfect mortification. We are astonished to see ourselves so imperfect and to find, after so many exercises of piety and so many Holy Communions, that all our passions are still alive and continue to excite our hearts. Can we not see that want of mortification is the source of all these revolts? We must, then, if we wish to conquer this self-love by which all the passions are nourished, resolve to exercise generous and constant mortification.

It is not enough to mortify ourselves in some things, for some time; we must, as far as possible, mortify ourselves in everything and at all times, with prudence and discretion. A single unlawful gratification allowed to human nature will do more to make it proud and rebellious than a hundred victories gained over it. Truce with this sort of enemy is victory for him; “Brethren,” said Sr. Bernard, “what is cut will grow again, and what appears extinguished will light again, and what is asleep will awake again.”

To preserve the interior spirit of devotion, the soul must not be dissipated with exterior distractions, and as the prophet says, must be surrounded on all sides by a hedge of thorns. Now, if we omit to do that, it will be for us the cause of tepidity, back sliding, and want of devotion. When we mortify our disordered inclinations in one thing, we generally make up for it by some other satisfaction which we allow ourselves. During the time of retreat, we are recollected, but as soon as it is over, we open the gates of the senses to all kinds of distractions.

The exercise of this interior mortification, so common in the lives of the saints, is known by all who have a real desire to be perfect. In this matter we have only to listen to the Spirit of God. The love of Jesus Christ makes people so ingenious, that the courage and energy which they display and the means of mortifying themselves with which the Holy Spirit inspires even the most uncultured people, surpass the genius of the learned, and can be regarded as little miracles.

There is nothing which they do not make an occasion to contradict their natural inclinations; there is no time or place which does not appear proper to mortify themselves without ever going beyond the rules of good sense. It is enough that they have a great desire to see or to speak, to make them lower their eyes or keep silent; the desire to learn news, or to know what is going on, or what is being said, is for them a subject of continual mortification which is as meritorious as it is ordinary, and of which God alone is the Witness. The appropriate word, a witticism in conversation, can bring them honor, but they make it the matter of a sacrifice.

There is hardly a time of the day but gives opportunities for mortification; whether one is sitting or standing, one can find a place or an attitude that is uncomfortable without being remarked. If they are interrupted a hundred times in a serious employment, they will reply a hundred times with as much sweetness and civility as if they had not been occupied. The ill-humor of a person with whom we have to live, the imperfections of a servant, the ingratitude of a person under obligations to us, can give much exercise for the patience of a person solidly virtuous. Finally, the inconveniences of place, season or persons suffered in a manner to make people believe that we do not feel them are small occasions of mortification, it is true, but the mortification on these occasions is not small; it is of great merit.

It may be said that great graces and even sublime sanctity usually depend on the generosity with which we mortify ourselves constantly on these little occasions. Exact fulfillment of the duties of one’s state and conformity in all things to community life without regard to one’s inclinations, employment, or age involve that continual mortification which is not subject to vanity but which is in conformity with the spirit of Jesus Christ.

If occasions for exterior mortifications are wanting, those for interior mortification are ever at hand. Modesty, recollections, reserve require mortification; honesty, sweetness and civility may the the effects of education, but are more usually the result of constant mortification. Without this virtue it is difficult for a person to be always at peace, to be self-possessed, to do his actions perfectly, and be always content with what God wills. (Mortification.)

Father John Croiset was a Jesuit priest who was a faithful son of the Catholic Church.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is not very indulgent when it comes to such old-fashioned, outdated and Pharisaical penitential practices that Paragraph Fifteen in the General Instruction to the Roman Missal tells us "belong to another age of human history" even though the lives of so many saints, including the relatively few whose lives have been the subject of various articles, could be cited to bring forth evidence to refute the falsity of his propagandizing.

Consider just one such example, that of the patron saint of parish priests himself, Saint John Mary Vianney:

The explanation of this mysterious transformation of the village of Ars can only be grasped in the remarkable manner that this simple priest realized that a man must always begin with himself, and that even the rebirth of a community can only be achieved by its renewing itself. We must expect nothing of men which is not already embodied within them. On the basis of this perception St. John Vianney set to work, in the first place, upon himself, so that he could attain the ideal which he demanded of his parishioners in his own person. He took his own religious obligations with the greatest seriousness, and did not care whether the people noticed this or not. And finally the inhabitants of Ars said to each other: "Our priest always does what he says himself; he practices what he preaches. Never have we seen him allow himself any form of relaxation."

The priest of Ars subjected himself to a strict fast. In this way he sought to reduce the requirements of his life to minimum. One meal sufficed him for the whole day. He abstained from alcohol except wine at holy Mass and normally ate only a little black bread and one or two potatoes cooked in water: he would prepare sufficient of these to last him the whole week, keeping them in an earthenware pan, and often they were covered with a coating of mold. Frequently he fasted for a whole day until, overcome, he would collapse from physical weakness. In view of this mode of life he had no need, of course, of a housekeeper – apart from the fact that his house stood almost empty anyway. Since he considered that his self-mortification was all too inadequate, he had a special penitential garment made, which he wore next to his skin, and which, by reason of the constant friction against his body, was soon stained a reddish brown. For the most part he slept on a bare mattress when he was not sleeping on a bundle of wood down in the cellar.

St. John Vianney’s assiduity in the confessional and the hardships entailed thereby would, of themselves, have sufficed to raise him to high sanctity. However, he thirsted for mortifications as others thirst for pleasure, and he never had his fill of penance. He laid on himself the sacrifice never to enjoy the fragrance of a flower, never to taste fruit nor to drink, were it only a few drops of water, during the height of the summer heat. He would not brush away a fly that importuned him. When on his knees he would not rest his elbows on the kneeling bench. He had made a law unto himself never to show any dislike, and to hide all natural repugnances. He mortified the most legitimate curiosity: thus he never expressed so much as a wish to see the railway which passed by Ars at a distance of a few kilometers, and which daily brought him so many visitors. During the whole of his priestly life he never indulged in any light reading, not even that of a newspaper. The Annals of the Propagation of the Faith are the only periodical that he ever perused.

Regarding mortification, he once said, “My friend, the devil is not greatly afraid of the discipline and other instruments of penance. That which beats him is the curtailment of one’s food, drink and sleep. There is nothing the devil fears more, consequently, nothing is more pleasing to God. Oh! How often have I experienced it! Whilst I was alone – and I was alone during eight or nine years, and therefore quite free to yield to my attraction – it happened at times that I refrained from food for entire days. On those occasions I obtained, both for myself and for others, whatsoever I asked of Almighty God.”

St. John Vianney read much and often the lives of the saints, and became so impressed by their holy lives that he wanted for himself and others to follow their wonderful examples. The ideal of holiness enchanted him. This was the theme which underlay his sermons. “We must practice mortification. For this is the path which all the Saints have followed,” he said from the pulpit. He placed himself in that great tradition which leads the way to holiness through personal sacrifice. “If we are not now saints, it is a great misfortune for us: therefore we must be so. As long as we have no love in our hearts, we shall never be Saints.” The Saint, to him, was not an exceptional man before whom we should marvel, but a possibility which was open to all Catholics. Unmistakably did he declare in his sermons that “to be a Christian and to live in sin is a monstrous contradiction. A Christian must be holy.” With his Christian simplicity he had clearly thought much on these things and understood them by divine inspiration, while they are usually denied to the understanding of educated men. (The Story of Saint John Vianney.)

According to Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, Saint John Mary Vianney did not "know the living God," and neither did the likes of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, Saint John of God, Saint Mary Magdalene, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Rose of Lima, Padre Pio and even Saint Francis of Assisi himself, who lived a life of austere penance and mortification.

Secondly, Saint John the Baptist defended Heavenly doctrine. Jorge Mario Bergoglio rebels against it.

Moreover, Saint John the Baptist sought to bring back to God those poor souls who had been were enveloped by the “darkness of error and ignorance” and had been “led astray by vice.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio reaffirms the Orthodox, Jews, Mohammedans, Buddhists, Hindus, Protestants, and an endless array of those steeped in the darkness of error and ignorance. “Pope Francis” has also comforted those who had been “led astray by vice” while many of his “bishops” insist that what they think, erroneously, of course, is the Catholic Church, must find “elements of true love” in sinful relationships, up to and unspeakable acts of perversion in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and of the very Natural Law itself.

Thirdly, Saint John the Baptist “withstood the impiety of Herod.” Jorge Mario Bergoglio has laugh-fests with those who are today’s Herods, that is, the vast number of pro-abortion, pro-perversity officials in public life, while back slapping them, kissing the women among them, or smiling broadly without any trace of rebuke for their support of vile evils under the cover of the civil law. Bergoglio plays to the crowd, thus losing favor with Christ the King.

The Argentine Apostate loves the applause of the world, and he goes to great lengths to caricature, belittle and denounce those within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism who wants to insist on a return to the “no church” of yesteryear. Bergoglio’s black heart is a darkened one that is all about being “loved” by unrepentant sinners who have absolutely no intention of reforming their lives by quitting their sins and then living a life of prayer and penance in the spirit of that practiced by Saint Mary Magdalene after her she quit her own sins at the behest of the Divine Master Himself.’

As has been noted on this site repeatedly, the Argentine Apostate has blasphemed Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, praised blasphemous works of art mocking His Crucifixion, and has spared no efforts to blasphemed the August Queen of Heaven, Our Blessed Mother, she who is our Immaculate Queen, doing so as follows twice within three months of each other in 2013:

September 11, 2013:

1. Above all a mother bears life, she carries her child in her womb for 9 months and then delivers him to life, giving birth to him. The Church is like this: she bears us in the faith, through the work of the Holy Spirit who makes her fertile, like the Virgin Mary. The Church and the Virgin Mary are mothers, both of them; what is said of the Church can be said also of Our Lady and what is said of Our Lady can also be said of the Church! Certainly faith is a personal act: “I believe”, I personally respond to God who makes himself known and wants to enter into friendship with me (cf. Lumen Fidei, n. 39). But the faith I receive from others, within a family, within a community that teaches me to say “I believe”, “we believe”. A Christian is not an island! We do not become Christians in a laboratory, we do not become Christians alone and by our own effort, since the faith is a gift, it is a gift from God who is given to us in the Church and through the Church. And the Church gives us the life of faith in Baptism: that is the moment in which she bears us as children of God, the moment she gives us the life of God, she engenders us as a mother would. If you go to the Baptistery of St John Lateran, beside the Pope's Cathedral, inside it there is an inscription in Latin which reads more or less: “Here is born a people of divine lineage, generated by the Holy Spirit who makes these waters life-giving; Mother Church gives birth to her children within these waves”. This makes us understand something important: our taking part in the Church is not an exterior or formal fact, it is not filling out a form they give us; it is an interior and vital act; one does not belong to the Church as one belongs to a society, to a party or to any other organization. The bond is vital, like the bond you have with your mother, because, as St Augustine says, “The Church is truly the mother of Christians” (De moribus Ecclesiae, I, 30, 62-63: PL 32, 1336). Let us ask ourselves: how do I see the Church? As I am grateful to my parents for giving me life, am I grateful to the Church for generating me in the faith through Baptism? How many Christians remember the date of their Baptism? I would like to ask you here, but each of you respond in you heart: how many of you remember the date of your Baptism? A few people raise their hands, but many others do not remember! But the date of your Baptism is the day of our birth in the Church, the date on which our mother Church gave us life! And now I leave you with some homework. When you go home today, go and find out what the date of your Baptism is, and then celebrate it, thank the Lord for this gift. Are you going to do it? Do we love the Church as we love our mothers, also taking into account her defects? All mothers have defects, we all have defects, but when we speak of our mother's defects we gloss over them, we love her as she is. And the Church also has her defects: but we love her just as a mother. Do we help her to be more beautiful, more authentic, more in harmony with the Lord? I leave you with these questions, but don't forget your homework: go find the date of your Baptism, carry it in your heart and celebrate it. (The Church Is A Mother.)

For those of you keeping score at home, here is the syllogism:

If (a) what is said of the Church be said also of Our Lady and (b) all mothers have defects, including Holy Mother Church, then (c) Our Lady must have defects.

No, this is not a "stretch." This does not do the false "pontiff" any kind of injustice. Words have meaning, including the words spoken by a false "pontiff."

December 20, 2013:

The Mother of Jesus was the perfect icon of silence. From the proclamation of her exceptional maternity at Calvary. The Pope said he thinks about “how many times she remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son,” up until the most raw silence “at the foot of the cross”.

“The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.” (Ever Talkative Apostate: Silence guards one's relationship with God.)

This heretical blasphemy was refuted in Blessed Among Women: Defending the Sublime Privileges of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

July 11, 2015:

In the Gospel, we have just heard the greeting of the angel to Mary: Rejoice, full of grace. The Lord is with you. Rejoice, Mary, rejoice. Upon hearing this greeting, Mary was confused and asked herself what it could mean. She did not fully understand what was happening. But she knew that the angel came from God and so she said yes. Mary is the Mother of Yes. Yes to God’s dream, yes to God’s care, yes to God’s will.

It was a yes that, as we know, was not easy to live. A yes that bestowed no privileges or distinctions. Simeon told her in his prophecy: “a sword will pierce your heart” (Lk 2:35), and indeed it did. That is why we love her so much. We find in her a true Mother, one who helps us to keep faith and hope alive in the midst of complicated situations. Pondering Simeon’s prophecy, we would do well to reflect briefly on three difficult moments in Mary’s life.

1. The first moment: the birth of Jesus. There was no room for them. They had no house, no dwelling to receive her Son. There was no place where she could give birth. They had no family close by; they were alone. The only place available was a stall of animals. Surely she remembered the words of the angel: “Rejoice, Mary, the Lord is with you”. She might well have asked herself: “Where is he now?”.

2. The second moment: the flight to Egypt. They had to leave, to go into exile. Not only was there no room for them, no family nearby, but their lives were also in danger. They had to depart to a foreign land. They were persecuted migrants, on account of the envy and greed of the King. There too she might well have asked: “What happened to all those things promised by the angel?”

3. The third moment: Jesus’ death on the cross. There can be no more difficult experience for a mother than to witness the death of her child. It is heartrending. We see Mary there, at the foot of the cross, like every mother, strong, faithful, staying with her child even to his death, death on the cross.There too she might well have asked: “What happened to all those things promised to me by the angel? Then we see her encouraging and supporting the disciples. (Jorge Blasphemes Our Lady once again.)

The English translation of Bergoglio’s “homily” in 2015 rendered Saint Gabriel’s words to Our Lady at the Annunciation as “Rejoice, full of grace. The Lord is with you” not “Hail, full of grace,” which he used in the Spanish text that he used in Caacupe, Paraguay, (“Alégrate, llena de gracia. El Señor está contigo”). Omitted in both versions, however, are the words that follow Saint Gabriel’s angelic salutation to Our Lady, “blessed are thou amongst women. Here is the text as found in the Latin Vulgate that was translated by Saint Jerome himself: “et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus.” (Luke 2: 26.)

I do not believe that this omission was accidental as Bergoglio heretically blasphemed Our Lady when he said that the Fiat to the holy will of God (not the “dream” of God as He is omniscient, knowing all things to the end of time) “bestowed no privileges or distinctions” upon her.

Although the work of this little-viewed site (a statement of fact, not a complaint) carries no worldly influence whatsoever, I did consider it my duty as a Catholic who, despite his many sins and failings, to defend the sublime privileges of the Our Lady, she who is the Co-Redemptrix, the Mediatrix of All Graces and our Advocate. There are so many sweet titles of Our Lady, many although far from all contained in The Litany of Loreto, that one must be inured to all that is holy about the New Eve to speak as Jorge Mario Bergoglio has about her.

These blasphemies against the Blessed Virgin Mary are among many that the heretic from Buenos Aires has uttered as “Pope Francis” in the past sixty-three months. He has blasphemed Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Holy Cross on multiple occasions and he has blasphemed the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by claiming that He is directing unprecedented changes that some “restorationists” want to stop by “caging” Him, thus making out Our Consoler to be a mutable being Who responds to the changes of attitudes and lifestyles among “modern” men. Bergoglio has, of course, blasphemed Holy Mother Church, claiming, as he did on December 16, 2013, that the spotless, virgin, mystical bride of Our Lord has “defects.”

Above all, however, what has been uppermost in my thoughts since I completed Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card last month has been how any Catholic who claims to love the Mother of God, whose perfect fiat at the Annunciation made possible our salvation, and who is aware of the false “pope’s” blasphemies against her can remain completely silent. How is it possible that supposed priests who claim the “high ground” against “schismatics” in this time of apostasy and betrayal not shout out from the rooftops in defense of Our Lady before fleeing as fast as possible from the contagion of such blasphemy by recognizing that such has never before issued from the mouth of any true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter?

As I wrote in late-2010 and then again in early-2011 (The Cost of "Recognition" Keeps Getting Higher and Higher and Obeying The Commands of a False Church), the entire ethos of conciliarism requires traditionally-minded Catholic priests and presbyters who believe that heretics can serve as legitimate and valid Successors of Saint Peter to be quiet in the midst of heresies, blasphemies and sacrileges. This silence was deafening during the presidency of the Antipope Emeritus Josph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who did things that many millions of martyrs preferred to give up their lives rather than even give the appearance of apostasy by means of esteeming the symbols of false religions and uttering words of praise for the “values” and “beliefs” of false religion. Indeed, the man who issued Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, admitted on several occasions that he was his goal to “pacify the spirits” of those who had a “nostalgic” attachment to the past:

Leading men and women to God, to the God Who speaks in the Bible: this is the supreme and fundamental priority of the Church and of the Successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God. Hence the effort to promote a common witness by Christians to their faith - ecumenism - is part of the supreme priority. Added to this is the need for all those who believe in God to join in seeking peace, to attempt to draw closer to one another, and to journey together, even with their differing images of God, towards the source of Light - this is inter-religious dialogue. Whoever proclaims that God is Love 'to the end' has to bear witness to love: in loving devotion to the suffering, in the rejection of hatred and enmity - this is the social dimension of the Christian faith, of which I spoke in the Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'.

"So if the arduous task of working for faith, hope and love in the world is presently (and, in various ways, always) the Church's real priority, then part of this is also made up of acts of reconciliation, small and not so small. That the quiet gesture of extending a hand gave rise to a huge uproar, and thus became exactly the opposite of a gesture of reconciliation, is a fact which we must accept. But I ask now: Was it, and is it, truly wrong in this case to meet half-way the brother who 'has something against you' and to seek reconciliation? Should not civil society also try to forestall forms of extremism and to incorporate their eventual adherents - to the extent possible - in the great currents shaping social life, and thus avoid their being segregated, with all its consequences? Can it be completely mistaken to work to break down obstinacy and narrowness, and to make space for what is positive and retrievable for the whole? I myself saw, in the years after 1988, how the return of communities which had been separated from Rome changed their interior attitudes; I saw how returning to the bigger and broader Church enabled them to move beyond one-sided positions and broke down rigidity so that positive energies could emerge for the whole. Can we be totally indifferent about a community which has 491 priests, 215 seminarians, 6 seminaries, 88 schools, 2 university-level institutes, 117 religious brothers, 164 religious sisters and thousands of lay faithful? Should we casually let them drift farther from the Church? I think for example of the 491 priests. We cannot know how mixed their motives may be. All the same, I do not think that they would have chosen the priesthood if, alongside various distorted and unhealthy elements, they did not have a love for Christ and a desire to proclaim Him and, with Him, the living God. Can we simply exclude them, as representatives of a radical fringe, from our pursuit of reconciliation and unity? What would then become of them?

"Certainly, for some time now, and once again on this specific occasion, we have heard from some representatives of that community many unpleasant things - arrogance and presumptuousness, an obsession with one-sided positions, etc. Yet to tell the truth, I must add that I have also received a number of touching testimonials of gratitude which clearly showed an openness of heart. But should not the great Church also allow herself to be generous in the knowledge of her great breadth, in the knowledge of the promise made to her? Should not we, as good educators, also be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas? And should we not admit that some unpleasant things have also emerged in Church circles? At times one gets the impression that our society needs to have at least one group to which no tolerance may be shown; which one can easily attack and hate. And should someone dare to approach them - in this case the Pope - he too loses any right to tolerance; he too can be treated hatefully, without misgiving or restraint. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the remission of the excommunication of the four Bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, March 10, 2009.)

Fr Federico Lombardi, S.J., Director of the Holy See Press Office: What do you say to those who, in France, fear that the "Motu proprio' Summorum Pontificum signals a step backwards from the great insights of the Second Vatican Council? How can you reassure them?

Benedict XVI: Their fear is unfounded, for this "Motu Proprio' is merely an act of tolerance, with a pastoral aim, for those people who were brought up with this liturgy, who love it, are familiar with it and want to live with this liturgy. They form a small group, because this presupposes a schooling in Latin, a training in a certain culture. Yet for these people, to have the love and tolerance to let them live with this liturgy seems to me a normal requirement of the faith and pastoral concern of any Bishop of our Church. There is no opposition between the liturgy renewed by the Second Vatican Council and this liturgy.

On each day [of the Council], the Council Fathers celebrated Mass in accordance with the ancient rite and, at the same time, they conceived of a natural development for the liturgy within the whole of this century, for the liturgy is a living reality that develops but, in its development, retains its identity. Thus, there are certainly different accents, but nevertheless [there remains] a fundamental identity that excludes a contradiction, an opposition between the renewed liturgy and the previous liturgy. In any case, I believe that there is an opportunity for the enrichment of both parties. On the one hand the friends of the old liturgy can and must know the new saints, the new prefaces of the liturgy, etc.... On the other, the new liturgy places greater emphasis on common participation, but it is not merely an assembly of a certain community, but rather always an act of the universal Church in communion with all believers of all times, and an act of worship. In this sense, it seems to me that there is a mutual enrichment, and it is clear that the renewed liturgy is the ordinary liturgy of our time. (Interview of the Holy Father during the flight to France, September 12, 2008.)

Liturgical worship is the supreme expression of priestly and episcopal life, just as it is of catechetical teaching. Your duty to sanctify the faithful people, dear Brothers, is indispensable for the growth of the Church. In the Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum”, I was led to set out the conditions in which this duty is to be exercised, with regard to the possibility of using the missal of Blessed John XXIII (1962) in addition to that of Pope Paul VI (1970). Some fruits of these new arrangements have already been seen, and I hope that, thanks be to God, the necessary pacification of spirits is already taking place. I am aware of your difficulties, but I do not doubt that, within a reasonable time, you can find solutions satisfactory for all, lest the seamless tunic of Christ be further torn. Everyone has a place in the Church. Every person, without exception, should be able to feel at home, and never rejected. God, who loves all men and women and wishes none to be lost, entrusts us with this mission by appointing us shepherds of his sheep. We can only thank him for the honour and the trust that he has placed in us. Let us therefore strive always to be servants of unity! (Meeting with the French Bishops in the Hemicycle Sainte-Bernadette, Lourdes, 14 September 2008.)

Yet it is that no one, especially one who believes himself to be an alter Christus, can be silent about blasphemies uttered against Our Lord, Our Lady and the saints without finding himself and his silence condemned by the following words of Pope Saint Leo the Great:

But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )

The silence of the "conservative" "cardinals," "bishops" and traditionally-minded priests/presbyters is deafeaning, many of whom choose not to defend the honor of the Mother of God in order to retain their status in false religious sect that has been headed by heretics from its very inception, and is thus culpable unto them at their Particular Judgment.

Scandalously, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has lied about protecting clerical sodomites and abusers until being forced to do so (see, for example, Uncle Teddy" McCarrick and the Conciliar Cesspool of Corruption, Make That 224 Red Hats--and Two White Cassocks--To Go, Please, , Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part two, Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part three, Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part four, and Another Front in the Conciliar Civil War, part five), and has notoriously undercut those conciliar “bishops” who have sought to criticize and/or punish those in public life who support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn and the entirety of the sodomite agenda of perversity and mutilation (see Not Exactly from the Excommunication Scene in Becket, Jorge "Claps Back" at Salvatore Cordileone and Stands Up for Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi and Her Pro-Abort Ilk, and Georgie "The Chin" Bergoglio Strikes Again on Behalf of the Pro-Aborts,)

Carrying on the “tradition” established by the likes of the Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonia Maria Montini/Paul VI, Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul, and Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has reaffirmed non-Catholic Christians (Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, the Orthodox), Waldensians, Hussites, Jews, Mohammedans, Buddhists, Hindus, and ever abject atheists in their false beliefs, telling the latter that all they had to do was “to good” and “we will meet them there” (see Francis Do-Right.)

Aping his immediate predecessor in the conciliar seat of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has rejected the “ecumenism of the return” and has specifically said that Catholics must not seek to convert anyone, including Protestants, to the Catholic Faith:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this regard, therefore, it should be remembered that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has hidden his pectoral cross when speaking jointly with the two grand rabbis of Jerusalem in 2014 (see On the Road to Gehenna With Jorge, Abe and Omar, part one, Inspired by the Same Scriptwriter, On the Road to Gehenna with Jorge, Abe and Omar, part two, On the Road to Gehenna with Jorge, Abe and Omar, part three, On the Road to Gehenna with Jorge, Abe and Omar, part four (the end, at last) and when appearing at a Buddhist temple in Sri Lanka in 2015, and he used his first “apostolic exhortation,” Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013 (see Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part six, Jorge and Oscar's False Gospel of False Joy, part seven), to proclaim that the Mosaic Covenant was still in force, that it has never been superseded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was also in Evangelii Gaudium that the apostle of false mercy from Argentina posed his false dichotomy between mercy and doctrine while also paving the way for Amoris Laetitia’s opening the door for those in objective states of Mortal Sin to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical abomination:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The meaning of this is quite clear.

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

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

Father George Haydock commented similarly:

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

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

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

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

Time and time again, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has done the bidding of leftist public officials across the globe ( Vanquished by Our Lady: Comrade Bergoglio), including meeting with and then later grieving for the monstrous murderer named Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, rehabilatng Miguel d'Escoto Brockman (Jorge and Miguel: As Red As They Get) while allying himself with such forces of Antichrist in the world as George Soros, Bill Gates, Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Ehrlich, and Anthony Fauci. He has even gone so far as to appoint out-and-out pro-aborts to the “Pontifical” Academy for Life and to the Pontifical Academy for Science (see Jorge's Band of Theological Racketeers Legitimize Paul Ehrlich, A Mutual Alliance in Behalf of Spiritual and Physical Death: Jorge Mario Bergoglio and George Soros, Antipapal Appointees Always Advance Antichrist’s Anti-Catholic Agenda and Attack Dogmatic Truth, Open the Doors Wide for George Soros), and he is on the same path of “discernment” to pave the way for granting permission to the use of contraception as was used to produce Amoris Laetitia’s approach to the “welcoming” divorced and civilly “remarried” Catholics who lack a conciliar decree of nullity and practitioners of perversity and deviancy to receive what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty. This process of “discernment” is a blasphemous offense against God the Holy Ghost, Who does not conform to Christ the King’s teaching to the times but, quite instead, provides us with the inspirations to conform ourselves every precept of the Divine and Natural Laws.

Then again, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the living embodiment of the very desire to conform Catholic teaching to what is done rather being to proclaim what ought to be done about which Pope Pius XII rather specifically in his address to the Society of Jesus’s Thirtieth General Congregation on September 14, 1957:

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

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

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was trained by the very sort of revolutionaries whose false moral theology was condemned by Pope Pius XII in 1957, and it is this false moral theology, which is nothing other than Judeo-Masonic moral relativism, which itself is the product of the Protestant Revolution’s theological relativism. Modernism is, of course, the synthesis of all heresies.

Significantly, Senor Jorge was outspoken in his promotion of the statist lockdowns three years ago and remains equally outspoken in hid promotion of the immorally based and deadly poisons called “vaccines” to “fight” the Wuhan virus (see Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Front Man for the Lockdown State's New Red Dawn, part one, Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Front Man for the Lockdown State's New Red Dawn, part two, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Front Man for the Lockdown State's New Red Dawn, part three)

Not to be forgotten, of course, is how the sixth in the current line of antipopes has sold out the long-suffering Catholics of the underground church in Red China to their Communist captors, persecutors, torturers, and executioners while condemning criticism of his sellout by the retired conciliar “bishop” of Hong Kong, Joseph Zen, and only urging “dialogue” when one of his “bishops” in Nicaragua,Bishop Rolando Álvarez Lagos of Matagalpa, was sentenced to twenty six years, four months prison for criticizing the persecution of Catholics by the communist dictator of that country, Daniel Ortega (see Bergoglio the Red Surrenders Faithful Catholics to Their Persecutors, Neville Bergoglio's Appeasement of the Chicom Monsters, Doubly Betrayed by Jorge and His False Church, Red China’s Burgeoning Hegemony Over the West and the Conciliar Vatican, Jorge Mario Bergoglio Would Have Urged Catholics to "Dialogue" with Diocletian, part one, Jorge Mario Bergoglio Would Have Urged Catholics to "Dialogue" with Diocletian, part two, Jorge Mario Bergoglio Would Have Urged Catholics to "Dialogue" With Diocletian, part three, Jorge Mario Bergoglio Would Have Urged Catholics to "Dialogue" with Diocletian, part four, and Believing Catholics Pose No Threat to a Just Social Order).

Blabbermouth Jorge has incessantly denounced the death penalty, which is part of the Natural Law, called for open borders while blaspheming and distorting the Prophet Jonas in the process (Jorge Mispresents the Prophet Jonas as a Champion of Illegal Immigration, part one, and Jorge Misrepesents the Prophet Jonas as a Champion of Illegal Immigration, part two), and has declared all wars to be immoral, thereby dealing a death blow to the Just War Theory that applies the principle of an individual’s right to self-defense to that of nations, and has done everything imaginable to support every anti-Theistic, anti-Catholic, anti-life, anti-family globalist organization throughout the world. His obsession with “saving the planet” contrasts with his unconcern about the salvation of souls, and it is this obsession that has caused him and many of his appointees, especially Rene Cupich, the conciliar “archbishop” of Chicago, Illinois, to equate the inviolability of innocent life with the protection of the “planet.” Jorge even worries about the rain forests and the anti-population “sustainable development goals” of the great global reset in the image and likeness of Antichrist himself (see As Jorge Worries About the Rainforest and "SDGs", Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge part one, and Dance, Dance, Eco Jorge, part two.)

The man of ceaseless blasphemy has distorted and misrepresented Our Lady’s Fatima Messages (Bergoglio the Blaspheming Heretic Lives Down to Expectations at Fatima, part one, and Bergoglio the Blaspheming Heretic Lives Down to Expectations at Fatima, part two) and has dared to mispresent the teaching of the Patron Saint of Moral Theologians, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori:

Jorge Mario Bergoglio heads a false church that wants to be wrong in order to assuage the consciences of sinful, worldly men that there is no such thing as objective right as to contend such a thing is to lack “mercy” and thus make people feel bad.

The cardinal “sin” of conciliarism is thus the same as that found in the world of Judeo-Masonic naturalism: to make people feel “uncomfortable” or “guilty” about their sins. The corollary perverse commandment of conciliarism: Thou shalt make everyone feel happy and welcomed—other than those who believe in Catholic truth, including that of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio repeated his hatred of hard and fast moral truths when he gave an address at the Alphonsianum Academy in Rome, Italy, on Tuesday in Passion Week, March 23, 2021:

One hundred and fifty years ago, on 23 March 1871, Pius IX proclaimed Saint Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori Doctor of the Church.

The Bull of proclamation of Saint Alphonsus as Doctor illustrates the specific nature of his moral and spiritual offering, known how to show “the sure way in the tangle of contrasting opinions of rigourism and laxity” [1].

One hundred and fifty years after this joyous event, the message of Saint Alphonsus Maria de’ Liguori, patron of confessors and moralists, and model for the whole of the outbound missionary Church, still vigorously indicates the high road for bringing consciences to the welcoming face of the Father, since “the salvation which God offers us is the work of his mercy” (EG 112).

Listening to reality

The Alphonsian theological approach was born from listening to and accepting the weaknesses of the men and women who were most abandoned spiritually. The Holy Doctor, formed according to a rigourist moral mentality, converted to “benignity” through listening to reality. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Propaganda Adddress to Redemptorists in Conciliar Captivity, March 23, 2021.)

Interjection Number One:

This is all just blasphemous nonsense.

Saint Alphonsus de Liguori preached with clarity about the existence of objective truths from the pulpit while treating with compassion truly repentant sinners in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance whose consciences had been singed by his sermons and who had been edified by our Saint’s austere live and zeal for souls. There is no conflict for a bishop or a priest to be firm in his preaching while extending the healing balm in the confessional with gratitude that Our Lady’s graces had brought souls made by Mortal Sin to a rebirth of life by means of the absolution provided to those who confess their sins sincerely and demonstrate an ardent desire to amend their lives.

Furthermore, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s statement that Saint Alphonsus de Liguori had a “conversion” from “rigorism” to “benignity” is disproved by Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B. in his panegyric on our Saint’s feast day, August 2. Saint Alphonsus de Liguori was a firm opponent of Jansenism, a movement that was based upon a nonexistent “laxity” and meant to restrict the channels of salvation open to sinners. Nevertheless, however, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori preached moral truths clearly as explained the realities of hell and the simple fact that sinners must resolve to reform their lives sooner rather than later, asking “Who has promised you tomorrow.”

Herewith is part of Dom Prosper Gueranger’s panegyric as contained in his The Liturgical Year:

To this great Saint, great both in works and in doctrine, are directly applied these words of the Holy Ghost: they that instruct many to justice shall shine as stars for all eternity. At the time he appeared, an odious sect was denying the mercy and the sweetness of our heavenly Father; it triumphed in the practical conduct of even those who were shocked by its Calvinistic theories. Under pretext of a reaction against an imaginary school of laxity, and denouncing with much ado some erroneous propositions made by obscure persons, the new Pharisees had set themselves up as zealous for the law. Stretching the commandments, and exaggerating the sanction, they loaded the conscience with the same unbearable burdens which the Man-God reproached the ancient Pharisees with laying on the shoulders of men; but the cry of alarm they had raised in the name of endangered morals had nonetheless deceived the simple, and ended by misleading even the best. Thanks to the show of austerity displayed by its adherents, Jansenism, so clever in veiling its teachings, had too well succeeded in its designs of forcing itself upon the Church in spite of the Church. Unsuspecting allies within the holy city gave up to its mercy the sources of salvation. Soon in too many places, the sacred Keys were used but to open hell; the Holy Table, spread fthe preservation and increase of life in all, became accessible only to the perfect; and these latter were esteemed such, according as, by a strange reversion of the Apostle’s words, they subjected the spirit of adoption of sons to the spirit of servitude and fear. As to the faithful who did not rise to the height of this new asceticism, “finding in the tribunal of penance, instead of fathers and physicians, only exactors and executioners,” they had but to choose between despair and indifference. Everywhere legislatures and parliaments lent a hand to the so-called reformers, without heeding the flood of odious unbelief that was rising around them, without seeing the gathering storm clouds.

Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter … Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves. Not of your conventicles was it said that the sons of Wisdom are the Church of the just, for it was added: Their generation is obedience and love. Not of the fear which you preached did the Psalmist sing: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom; for even under the law of Sinai the Holy Spirit said: Ye that fear the Lord, believe him: and your reward shall not be made void. Ye that fear the Lord, hope in him: and mercy shall come to you for your delight. Ye that fear the Lord, love him: and your hearts shall be enlightened. Every deviation, whether towards rigor or weakness, offends the rectitude of justice; but, especially since Bethlehem and Calvary, no sin so wounds the divine Heart as distrust; no fault is unpardonable except in the despair of a Judas, saying like Cain: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon.

Who then, in the somber quietism into which the teachers then in vogue had led even the strongest minds, could find once more the key of knowledge? But Wisdom, says the Holy Ghost, kept in her treasures the signification of discipline. Just as in other times she had raised up new avengers for every dogma that had been attacked: so now, against a heresy which, in spite of the speculative pretensions of its beginning, had only in its moral bearing any sort of duration, she brought forth Alphonsus Liguori as the avenger of the violated law and the Doctor by excellence of Christian morality. A stranger alike to fatal rigorism and baneful indulgence, he knew how to restore to the justices of their Lord their rectitude, and at the same time their power of rejoicing hearts, to his commandments their luminous brightness, whereby they are justified in themselves, to his testimonies the purity which attracts souls and faithfully guides the simple and the little ones from the beginnings of Wisdom to its summits. It was not only in the sphere of casuistry that Alphonsus succeeded, in his Moral Theology, in counteracting the poison which threatened to infect the whole Christian life. While on the one hand he never left unanswered any attack made at the time against revealed truth, his ascetic and mystical works brought back piety to its traditional sources, the frequentation of the Sacraments, and the love of our Lord and his Blessed Mother. The Sacred Congregation of Rites, after examining in the name of the Holy See the works of our Saint, and declaring nothing deserving of censure was to be found therein, arranged his innumerable writings under forty separate titles. Alphonsus, however, resolved only late in life to give to the public, through the press, the lights which flooded his soul; his first work, the golden book of Visits to the Most Holy Sacrament and to the Blessed Virgin, did not appear till the author was nearly fifty years of age. Though God prolonged his life beyond the usual limits, he spared him neither the double burden of the episcopate and the government of the Congregation he had founded, nor the most painful infirmities, nor still more grievous moral sufferings.

“I have not hid thy justice within my heart: I have declared thy truth and thy salvation.” Thus sings the Church in thy name today, in gratitude for the great service thou didst render her in the days of sinners, when godliness seemed to be lost. Exposed to the attacks of an extravagant pharisaism, and watched by a skeptical and mocking philosophy, even the good wavered as to which was the way of the Lord. When the moralists of the day could be forge letters for consciences, the enemy had a good chance of crying: Let us break their bonds asunder: and let us cast away their yoke from us. The ancient wisdom revered by their fathers, now that it was compromised by these foolish teachers, seemed but a ruined edifice to people eager for emancipation. In this unprecedented extremity, thou, O Alphonsus, wast the prudent man whom the Church needed, whose mouth uttered words to strengthen men’s hearts. (Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, August 2, Feast of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori.)

As is always the case, of course, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s blasphemous misrepresentation of the life and work of Saint Alphonsus de Liguori was an effort to claim that Holy Mother Church’s Doctor of Moral Theology was a veritable prophet preparing the way for Bergoglio’s own “smell of the sheep” moral relativism that has served as the foundation of entire career as a lay Jesuit revolutionary, most notably in Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016.

Although it is sickening to have to do so, I will return to Bergoglio’s transparent effort to portray himself as the “pope” who has “fulfilled” the “missionary vision” to which he claimed that Saint Alphonsus de Liguori was “converted” over the case of his life as a priest, founder, and bishop:

The missionary experience in the existential peripheries of his time, the search for those far away and listening to confessions, the founding and guidance of the nascent Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer, and in addition the responsibilities as bishop of a particular Church, led him to become a father and maser of mercy, certain that “God’s paradise is the heart of man” [2].

The gradual conversion towards a decidedly missionary pastoral ministry, capable of closeness to the people, of being able to accompany their steps, to share in their real life even in the midst of great limits and challenges, drove Alphonsus to review, not without effort, even the theological and juridical grounding he had received in the years of his formation; initially marked by a certain rigour, it then turned into a merciful, dynamic approach, an evangelising dynamism able to act by attraction.

In theological disputes, preferring reason to authority, he did not stop at the theoretical formulation of principles, but rather allowed himself to be interrogated by life itself. Advocate of the least, the frail and those discarded by the society of his time, he defended the rights of all, especially the most abandoned and the poor. This approach led him to the final decision to place himself at the service of consciences that sought, even amid a thousand difficulties, the right thing to do, faithful to God’s call to holiness.

Saint Alphonsus, then, was neither lax nor strict. He was a realist in the true Christian sense, because he understood clearly that “at the very heart of the Gospel is life in community and engagement with others” (EG 177). (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Propaganda Adddress to Redemptorists in Conciliar Captivity, March 23, 2021.)

Interjection Number Two:

This is all a complete lie. This is as delusional as anything that comes out of the mouths of Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., Jennifer Psaki, Charles Schumer, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi, or Robert Manfred. (I omitted any reference to Kamala Harris as she is so busy running the government, it would appear, as to have any time to speak publicly). Indeed, Bergoglio’s effort to claim that Saint Alphonsus de Liguori as a forerunner of his own moral relativism is nothing other than the delusion of a man who enables sin, a man who is steeped in the sins of heresy, apostasy, sacrilege, and ceaseless blasphemies against Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Saints, and it is very interesting that he quotes not one word from Saint Alphonsus de Liguori and, instead, draws upon his own Evangelii Gaudium, November 25, 2013

This is what Saint Alphonsus de Ligouri had to say about the delusions of sinners:

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

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

3. You rejoin:” I am young; God compassionates my youth; I will hereafter give myself to God." Behold another delusion! You are young; but do you not know that God counts, not the years, but the sins of each individual? You are young; but how many sins have you committed? Perhaps there are many persons of a very advanced age, who have not been guilty of the fourth part of the sins which you have committed. And do you not know that God has fixed for each of us the number of sins which he will pardon?” The Lord patiently expecteth, that, when the day of judgment shall come, he may punish them in the fulness of their sins." (2 Mach. vi. 14.) God has patience, and waits for a while; but, when the measure of the sins which he has determined to pardon is tilled up, he pardons no more, but chastises the sinner, by suddenly depriving him of life in the miserable state of sin, or by abandoning him in his sin, and executing that threat which he made by the prophet Isaias “I shall take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be wasted.” (Isa. v. 5.) If a person has cultivated land for many years, has encompassed it with a hedge for its protection, and expended a large sum of money on it, but finds that, after all, it produces no fruit, what will he do with it? He will pluck up the hedge, and abandon it to all men and beasts that may wish to enter. Tremble, then, lest God should treat you in a similar manner. If you do not give up sin, your remorse of conscience and your fear of divine chastisement shall daily increase. Behold the hedge taken away, and your soul abandoned by God a punishment worse than death itself.

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.

5. But you will not pray; and you say that at present you will commit this sin, and will afterwards confess it. But, I ask, how do you know that God will give you time to confess it? You say: “I will go to confession before the lapse of a week." And who has promised you this week? Well, then you say:” I will go to confession tomorrow." And who promises you tomorrow? “Crastinum Deus non promisit," says St. Augustine, “fortasse dabit, et fortasse non dabit." God has not promised you tomorrow. Perhaps he will give it, and perhaps he will refuse it to you, as he has to so many others. How many have gone to bed in good health, and have been found dead in the morning! How many, in the very act of sin, has the Lord struck dead and sent to hell! Should this happen to you, how will you repair your eternal ruin?” Commit this sin, and confess it after wards." Behold the deceitful artifice by which the devil has brought so many thousands of Christians to hell. We scarcely ever find a Christian so sunk in despair as to intend to damn himself. All the wicked sin with the hope of afterwards going to confession. But, by this illusion, how many have brought themselves to perdition! For them there is now no time for confession, no remedy for their damnation.

6. “But God is merciful.” Behold another common delusion by which the devil encourages sinners to persevere in a life of sin! A certain author has said, that more souls have been sent to hell by the mercy of God than by his justice. This is indeed the case; for men are induced by the deceits of the devil to persevere in sin, through confidence in God’s mercy; and thus they are lost. "God is merciful." Who denies it? But, great as his mercy, how many does he every day send to hell? God is merciful, but he is also just, and is, there fore, obliged to punish those who offend him. “And his mercy,” says the divine mother,” to them that fear him." (Luke i. 50.) But with regard to those who abuse his mercy and despise him, he exercises justice. The Lord pardons sins, but he cannot pardon the determination to commit sin. St. Augustine says, that he who sins with the intention of repenting after his sins, is not a penitent but a scoffer.” Irrisor est non pœnitens." But the Apostle tells us that God will not be mocked.” Be not deceived; God is not mocked." (Gal. vi. 7.) It would be a mockery of God to insult him as often and as much as you pleased, and afterwards to expect eternal glory.

7. “But”; you say, “as God has shown me so many mercies hitherto, I hope he will continue to do so for the future.” Behold another delusion! Then, because God has not as yet chastised your sins, he will never punish them! On the contrary, the greater have been his mercies, the more you should tremble, lest, if you offend him again, he should pardon you no more, and should take vengeance on your sins. Behold the advice of the Holy Ghost:” Say not: I have sinned, and what harm hath befallen me? for the Most High is a patient rewarder." (Eccles. v. 4.) Do not say: “I have sinned, and no chastisement has fallen upon me.” God bears for a time, but not for ever. He waits for a certain time; but when that arrives, he then chastises the sinner for all his past iniquities: and the longer he has waited for repentance, the more severe the chastisement. “Quos diutius expectat,” says St. Gregory.” “durius damnat.” Then, my brother, since you know that you have frequently offended God, and that he has not sent you to hell, you should exclaim:” The mercies of the Lord, that we are not consumed." (Thren. iii. 22.) Lord, I thank you for not having sent me to hell, which I have so often deserved. And therefore you ought to give yourself entirely to God, at least through gratitude, and should consider that, for less sins than you have committed, many are now in that pit of fire, without the smallest hope of being ever released from it. The patience of God in bearing with you, should teach you not to despise him still more, but to love and serve him with greater fervour, and to atone, by penitential austerities and by other holy works, for the insults you have offered to him. You know that he has shown mercies to you, which he has not shown to others.” He hath not done in like manner to every nation." (Ps. cxlvii. 20.) Hence you should tremble, lest, if you commit a single additional mortal sin, God should abandon you, and cast you into hell.

8. Let us come to the next illusion. “It is true that, by this sin, I lose the grace of God; but, even after committing this sin, I may be saved.” You may, indeed, be saved: but it cannot be denied that if, after having committed so many sins, and after having received so many graces from God, you again offend him, there is great reason to fear that you shall be lost. Attend to the words of the sacred Scripture: “A hard heart shall fare evil at the last." (Eccles. iii. 27.) The obstinate sinner shall die an unhappy death. Evil doers shall be cut off." (Ps. xxxvi . 9.) The wicked shall be cut off by the divine justice. “For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap." (Gal. vi. 8.) He that sows in sin, shall reap eternal torments. “Because I called and you refused, I also will laugh in your destruction and will mock when that shall come to you which you feared." (Prov. i. 24, 26.) I called, says the Lord, and you mocked me; but I will mock you at the hour of death. “Revenge is mine, and I will repay them in due time." (Deut. xxxii. 35.) The chastisement of sins belongs to me, and I will execute vengeance on them when the time of vengeance shall arrive. “The man that with a stiff neck despiseth him that reproveth him, shall suddenly be destroyed, and health shall not follow him." (Prov. xxix. 1.) The man who obstinately despises those who correct him, shall be punished with a sudden death, and for him there shall be no hope of salvation.

9. Now, brethren, what think you of these divine threats against sinners? Is it easy, or is it not very difficult, to save your souls, if, after so many divine calls, and after so many mercies, you continue to offend God? You say: “But after all, it may happen that I will save my soul.” I answer: "What folly is it to trust your salvation to a perhaps? How many with this “perhaps I may be saved," are now in hell? Do you wish to be one of their unhappy companions? Dearly beloved Christians, enter into yourselves, and tremble; for this sermon may be the last of God’s mercies to you. ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 118-119.)

This is not exactly the way that “Father” Jorge Mario Bergoglio or "Bishop" Jorge Mario Bergoglio or “Archbishop” Jorge Mario Bergoglio or “Cardinal” Jorge Mario Bergoglio” or “Pope Francis” has ever spoken or written.

Although this could go on interminably, I think that one of the most telling moments of the past ten years is when he signed the ( Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together in Dubai, United Arab Emirates on February 4, 2019, the Feast of Saint Andrew Corsini, O. Carm.:

Here is an excerpt from the Introduction to the “Declaration of Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together," which was signed by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Ahmed el-Tayeb, Grand Imam of al-Azhar five days ago:

Faith leads a believer to see in the other a brother or sister to be supported and loved. Through faith in God, who has created the universe, creatures and all human beings (equal on account of his mercy), believers are called to express this human fraternity by safeguarding creation and the entire universe and supporting all persons, especially the poorest and those most in need.

This transcendental value served as the starting point for several meetings characterized by a friendly and fraternal atmosphere where we shared the joys, sorrows and problems of our contemporary world. We did this by considering scientific and technical progress, therapeutic achievements, the digital era, the mass media and communications. We reflected also on the level of poverty, conflict and suffering of so many brothers and sisters in different parts of the world as a consequence of the arms race, social injustice, corruption, inequality, moral decline, terrorism, discrimination, extremism and many other causes.

From our fraternal and open discussions, and from the meeting that expressed profound hope in a bright future for all human beings, the idea of this Document on Human Fraternity was conceived. It is a text that has been given honest and serious thought so as to be a joint declaration of good and heartfelt aspirations. It is a document that invites all persons who have faith in God and faith in human fraternity to unite and work together so that it may serve as a guide for future generations to advance a culture of mutual respect in the awareness of the great divine grace that makes all human beings brothers and sisters. (Jorge and the Imam's Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.)

This is nothing other than a manifesto of Judeo-Masonic naturalism that is meant as a preparation for the One World Ecumenical Religion of Antichrist himself. It is remarkable to see this unfolding in one’s own lifetime.

A man, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is considered by most Catholics and non-Catholics alike to be the Successor of Saint Peter is able to travel to a Mohammedan country to preside over the issuance of a document that makes not one reference in the slightest to the Holy Name of Jesus, the very One Whose vicar on earth this man supposes himself to be. Although the Argentine Apostate mentioned Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in his homily during an outdoor staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on Tuesday, February 5, 2019, the Feast of Saint Agatha, he did not so when he met with the Crown Prince of the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed bin Zayed, nor, of course, with Imam Ahmed el-Tayeb.

Indeed, Bergoglio never mentions the Holy Name of Our Lord Jesus Christ when He is in “mixed” company, and the “Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” is an entirely secular document that puts “world religions” at the service of “humanity,” thereby accomplishing two insidious goals: (1) to make it appear that one religion is as good as another; and (2) that “religion” is meant to serve “humanity” and not teach the doctrine of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity, and certainly not to serve as the means of glorifying God liturgically and of providing men with the supernatural helps necessary to sanctify and save their immortal souls.

Thus, you see, we have come from the inter-denominational milieu of Assisi I thirty-two years, three months, thirteen days ago to the completely secular, non-denominational milieu of Abu Dhabi and the “Docment on Human Fraternity” that is nothing other than the French Revolution’s Declarations of the Rights of Man” by a different title:

DOCUMENT

In the name of God who has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity, and who has called them to live together as brothers and sisters, to fill the earth and make known the values of goodness, love and peace; (Jorge and the Imam's Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.)

Comment Number One:

God is not an egalitarian nor is He the generic deity of Judeo-Masonic naturalism.

Consider these words of Pope Leo XIII in Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884, and of Pope Pius XI in Mitt Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937:

But the naturalists go much further; for, having, in the highest things, entered upon a wholly erroneous course, they are carried headlong to extremes, either by reason of the weakness of human nature, or because God inflicts upon them the just punishment of their pride. Hence it happens that they no longer consider as certain and permanent those things which are fully understood by the natural light of reason, such as certainly are -- the existence of God, the immaterial nature of the human soul, and its immortality. The sect of the Freemasons, by a similar course of error, is exposed to these same dangers; for, although in a general way they may profess the existence of God, they themselves are witnesses that they do not all maintain this truth with the full assent of the mind or with a firm conviction. Neither do they conceal that this question about God is the greatest source and cause of discords among them; in fact, it is certain that a considerable contention about this same subject has existed among them very lately. But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature.

When this greatest fundamental truth has been overturned or weakened, it follows that those truths, also, which are known by the teaching of nature must begin to fall -- namely, that all things were made by the free will of God the Creator; that the world is governed by Providence; that souls do not die; that to this life of men upon the earth there will succeed another and an everlasting life.

When these truths are done away with, which are as the principles of nature and important for knowledge and for practical use, it is easy to see what will become of both public and private morality. We say nothing of those more heavenly virtues, which no one can exercise or even acquire without a special gift and grace of God; of which necessarily no trace can be found in those who reject as unknown the redemption of mankind, the grace of God, the sacraments, and the happiness to be obtained in heaven. We speak now of the duties which have their origin in natural probity. That God is the Creator of the world and its provident Ruler; that the eternal law commands the natural order to be maintained, and forbids that it be disturbed; that the last end of men is a destiny far above human things and beyond this sojourning upon the earth: these are the sources and these the principles of all justice and morality.

If these be taken away, as the naturalists and Freemasons desire, there will immediately be no knowledge as to what constitutes justice and injustice, or upon what principle morality is founded. And, in truth, the teaching of morality which alone finds favor with the sect of Freemasons, and in which they contend that youth should be instructed, is that which they call "civil," and "independent," and "free," namely, that which does not contain any religious belief. But, how insufficient such teaching is, how wanting in soundness, and how easily moved by every impulse of passion, is sufficiently proved by its sad fruits, which have already begun to appear. For, wherever, by removing Christian education, this teaching has begun more completely to rule, there goodness and integrity of morals have begun quickly to perish, monstrous and shameful opinions have grown up, and the audacity of evil deeds has risen to a high degree. All this is commonly complained of and deplored; and not a few of those who by no means wish to do so are compelled by abundant evidence to give not infrequently the same testimony.

Moreover, human nature was stained by original sin, and is therefore more disposed to vice than to virtue. For a virtuous life it is absolutely necessary to restrain the disorderly movements of the soul, and to make the passions obedient to reason. In this conflict human things must very often be despised, and the greatest labors and hardships must be undergone, in order that reason may always hold its sway. But the naturalists and Freemasons, having no faith in those things which we have learned by the revelation of God, deny that our first parents sinned, and consequently think that free will is not at all weakened and inclined to evil. On the contrary, exaggerating rather the power and the excellence of nature, and placing therein alone the principle and rule of justice, they cannot even imagine that there is any need at all of a constant struggle and a perfect steadfastness to overcome the violence and rule of our passions.

Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring.

What refers to domestic life in the teaching of the naturalists is almost all contained in the following declarations: that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer. To these things the Freemasons fully assent; and not only assent, but have long endeavored to make them into a law and institution. For in many countries, and those nominally Catholic, it is enacted that no marriages shall be considered lawful except those contracted by the civil rite; in other places the law permits divorce; and in others every effort is used to make it lawful as soon as may be. Thus, the time is quickly coming when marriages will be turned into another kind of contract -- that is into changeable and uncertain unions which fancy may join together, and which the same when changed may disunite. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884.)

Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.

No faith in God can for long survive pure and unalloyed without the support of faith in Christ. "No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal Him" (Luke x. 22). "Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent" (John xvii. 3). Nobody, therefore, can say: "I believe in God, and that is enough religion for me," for the Savior's words brook no evasion: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also" (1 John ii. 23) (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

There is no such thing as a generic, one-reference-fits-all-religions God and the true God of Divine Revelation has not created all men equal in rights and duties as He created a hierarchy in the Order of Nature (Creation) and in the Order of Grace (Redemption). A husband and father, for instances, has rights and duties that are different from those of a mother. Parents have rights and duties that differ from those of children. A teacher has different rights and duties than his students. An employer has different rights and duties than his managers and employees. More the point, of course, is that a true pope has paramount rights and duties over all men on the face of this earth in all that pertains to the good of their souls.

The Protestant Revolution overturned all ecclesiastical hierarchy.

The French Revolution—and all subsequent social revolutions—overturned the natural hierarchical structure of kingdoms and nations.

Egalitarianism is the lie of the devil. It is not true that God has created all men equal in rights and duties, and it is an abject falsehood to assert that the purpose of human existence is to “live together as brothers and sisters” in order to “fill the earth and make known the values of goodness, love and peace.”

God has created man to know, to love, and to serve Him as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church, she who is the sole means of human sanctification and salvation and thus the necessary means of assuring a just social order wherein those who govern pursue the common temporal good in light of advancing man’s Last End.

In other words, the first precept of the “Declaration of Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together” is false.

Back to the Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi:

In the name of innocent human life that God has forbidden to kill, affirming that whoever kills a person is like one who kills the whole of humanity, and that whoever saves a person is like one who saves the whole of humanity; (Jorge and the Imam's Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.)

This is insidiously false as the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment and the Natural Law forbid the direct, intentional killing of innocent human beings. It is, however, morally licit to kill a human being in self-defense and it is morally licit for a duly constituted civil authority to undertake the prosecution of a war according to the principles of the Just War Theory that were outlined most recently on this site in Catholicism, Not Machiavellianism, Is the Sole Guide to the Just Social Order.

Similarly, a duly constituted civil state has the authority to put malefactors to death after they have been convicted of a heinous crime during a fair trial conducted according to the right principles of the administration of the due process of law.

This is yet another attempt on the part of the legendary apostate and blasphemer, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and his fellow co-workers who are doing the work of Antichrist to make it appear that there is a moral equivalence between the surgical execution of the innocent preborn and opposition to the death penalty and to all wars. Remember, Bergoglio has made it clear that he believes in neither the Natural Law nor in the Just War Theory. He is just “love, love, love,” Sure, Jorge is “love, love, love,” all right. He is “love, love, love” about everything heretical, impure, indecent, vile, blasphemous, leftist, collectivist, globalist, environmentalist, evolutionist, feminist, egalitarian and anti-Catholic. Such “love, love, love” is not of Christ the King. It is “love, love, love” of all that is opposed to Divine Revelation and thus of the authentic good of souls, both temporally and eternally.

Had enough?

I know that I have.

However, I must return now to the Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi:

In the name of the poor, the destitute, the marginalized and those most in need whom God has commanded us to help as a duty required of all persons, especially the wealthy and of means;

In the name of orphans, widows, refugees and those exiled from their homes and their countries; in the name of all victims of wars, persecution and injustice; in the name of the weak, those who live in fear, prisoners of war and those tortured in any part of the world, without distinction;

In the name of peoples who have lost their security, peace, and the possibility of living together, becoming victims of destruction, calamity and war;

In the name of human fraternity that embraces all human beings, unites them and renders them equal;

In the name of this fraternity torn apart by policies of extremism and division, by systems of unrestrained profit or by hateful ideological tendencies that manipulate the actions and the future of men and women;

In the name of freedom, that God has given to all human beings creating them free and distinguishing them by this gift;

In the name of justice and mercy, the foundations of prosperity and the cornerstone of faith;

In the name of all persons of good will present in every part of the world;

In the name of God and of everything stated thus far; Al-Azhar al-Sharif and the Muslims of the East and West, together with the Catholic Church and the Catholics of the East and West, declare the adoption of a culture of dialogue as the path; mutual cooperation as the code of conduct; reciprocal understanding as the method and standard. (Jorge and the Imam's Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.)

Catholics begin their prayers and good works In name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Jorge and the Imam have signed a document that champions a generic God and that offers its proposals in "the Name of Fraternity."

Maximiliam Robespierre, call your office.

Moreover, o elaborate on a point made in the first comment, albeit in a slightly different context, men are not equal in the gifts that God bestows upon them.

All men are not equally intelligent, athletic, artistic or inclined to be skilled carpenters, electricians, architects, mathematicians, engineers, scientists, physicians, lawyers or teachers. God gives men different graces in the Order of Creation (Nature) and in the Order of Grace (Redemption). Saint Paul makes the distinctions in the Order of Grace as follows:

Now concerning spiritual things, my brethren, I would not have you ignorant. [2] You know that when you were heathens, you went to dumb idols, according as you were led. [3] Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man, speaking by the Spirit of God, saith Anathema to Jesus. And no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost. [4] Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit; [5] And there are diversities of ministries, but the same Lord;

[6] And there are diversities of operations, but the same God, who worketh all in all. [7] And the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit. [8] To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; [9] To another, faith in the same spirit; to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit; [10] To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches.

[11] But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will. [12] For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. [13] For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. [14] For the body also is not one member, but many. [15] If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

[16] And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? [17] If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where would be the smelling? [18] But now God hath set the members every one of them in the body as it hath pleased him. [19] And if they all were one member, where would be the body? [20] But now there are many members indeed, yet one body.

[21] And the eye cannot say to the hand: I need not thy help; nor again the head to the feet: I have no need of you. [22] Yea, much more those that seem to be the more feeble members of the body, are more necessary. [23] And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts, have more abundant comeliness. [24] But our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, giving to that which wanted the more abundant honour, [25] That there might be no schism in the body; but the members might be mutually careful one for another.

[26] And if one member suffer any thing, all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the members rejoice with it. [27] Now you are the body of Christ, and members of member. [28] And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly doctors; after that miracles; then the graces of healing, helps, governments, kinds of tongues, interpretations of speeches. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? [30] Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

[31] But be zealous for the better gifts. And I shew unto you yet a more excellent way. (1 Corinthians 12: 1-31.)

The social ethos of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that made possible what the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger called an “official reconciliation” with the “principles of the new era inaugurated in 1789” is identical to that of The Sillon, which was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. Our last truly canonized Holy Father was unstinting in his condemnation of the falsified character of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that The Sillon propagated, making it clear that Our Lord did not preach a gospel of chimerical equality:

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Pope Saint Pius X’s condemnation of false philosophy of The Sillon is a condemnation of the false “pontificates” of each of the conciliar “popes,” including that of the “restorer of tradition,” Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and his notorious successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, a man who makes as little pretense about his naturalism as Ratzinger/Benedict has made of his Heglianism and rationalism.

The conciliar belief in absolute social equality is the preternatural work of the fallen angel, formerly the light-bearer, who believed he was the equal of the Most Holy Trinity and engaged in a revolution against Him:

[7] And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: [8] And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. [9] And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. [10] And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.

[11] And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death. (Apocalypse: 12: 7-11.)

The three cornerstone slogans of the French Revolution—liberty, equality and fraternity have become the foundation of the One World Ecumenical Religion upon which the Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi is founded.

Writing in The Mystical City of Christ in the Modern World, Father Denis Fahey explained the principles of the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man as follows:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus, in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody. Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic divinization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of the Rights of Man in 1789. The French Revolution ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)

Father Fahey’s analysis of the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man, which would led in due course to the enshrinement of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic principle of the separation of Church and State that has received the endorsement of the conciliar “popes,” echoes the Declaration’s condemnation by Pope Pius VI in Adeo Nota, April 23, 1791, as it enthroned “man” in the place of Christ the King. The Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi is simply a recycling of the French Revolution’s Declarations of the Rights of Man and, as such, is a work of the devil from beginning to end.

Consider the next passage in the Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi:

We, who believe in God and in the final meeting with Him and His judgment, on the basis of our religious and moral responsibility, and through this Document, call upon ourselves, upon the leaders of the world as well as the architects of international policy and world economy, to work strenuously to spread the culture of tolerance and of living together in peace; to intervene at the earliest opportunity to stop the shedding of innocent blood and bring an end to wars, conflicts, environmental decay and the moral and cultural decline that the world is presently experiencing.

We call upon intellectuals, philosophers, religious figures, artists, media professionals and men and women of culture in every part of the world, to rediscover the values of peace, justice, goodness, beauty, human fraternity and coexistence in order to confirm the importance of these values as anchors of salvation for all, and to promote them everywhere.

This Declaration, setting out from a profound consideration of our contemporary reality, valuing its successes and in solidarity with its suffering, disasters and calamities, believes firmly that among the most important causes of the crises of the modern world are a desensitized human conscience, a distancing from religious values and a prevailing individualism accompanied by materialistic philosophies that deify the human person and introduce worldly and material values in place of supreme and transcendental principles. . . .

While recognizing the positive steps taken by our modern civilization in the fields of science,

We affirm also the importance of awakening religious awareness and the need to revive this awareness in the hearts of new generations through sound education and an adherence to moral values and upright religious teachings. In this way we can confront tendencies that are individualistic, selfish, conflicting, and also address radicalism and blind extremism in all its forms and expressions.

The first and most important aim of religions is to believe in God, to honour Him and to invite all men and women to believe that this universe depends on a God who governs it. He is the Creator who has formed us with His divine wisdom and has granted us the gift of life to protect it. It is a gift that no one has the right to take away, threaten or manipulate to suit oneself. Indeed, everyone must safeguard this gift of life from its beginning up to its natural end. We therefore condemn all those practices that are a threat to life such as genocide, acts of terrorism, forced displacement, human trafficking, abortion and euthanasia. We likewise condemn the policies that promote these practices. (Jorge and the Imam's Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.)

Comment Number Four:

We must believe in God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, she who alone has the authority from Him to teach every contained the Sacred Deposit of Faith infallibly and to safeguard it eternally unto the Second Coming of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the Last Day.

The Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi is the path to the triumph of atheism, whose way has been prepared from the time of Renaissance, the Protestant Revolution and the so-called "Enlightenment's" embrace of religious indifferentism to make it possible for deists and other naturalists to take their place at the helm of nations and to push Christ the King and His true Church off to the side as merely "private matters" that are only sources of "division" among men of "good will." Pope Leo XIII explained in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, that atheism is the only possible result from the religiously indifferentist civil state:

To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. Men who really believe in the existence of God must, in order to be consistent with themselves and to avoid absurd conclusions, understand that differing modes of divine worship involving dissimilarity and conflict even on most important points cannot all be equally probable, equally good, and equally acceptable to God. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

The First Commandment means nothing to the conciliar revolutionaries as they endorse every false religion imaginable by placing one strange God after another before them:

I am the LORD thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.

Every strange god has a place at the table of the conciliar revolutionaries.

Moreover, as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, in particular, believes that politicians who call themselves “pro-life” are hypocrites because most of them are opposed to open borders and support the imposition of the death penalty on those convicted of heinous crimes, which is why he must make sure that all references to abortion are coupled with other offenses. Additionally, the declaration’s opposition to euthanasia is misleading as the false “pontiff” and his fellow signatories support “palliative care,” which is de facto euthanasia, under the guise of “compassion” and “death with dignity”

The next section of the Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi condemns, not-so-obliquely, the Battle of Tours, the efforts of Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar, better known as El Cid, and Ferdinand III to oppose the Mohammedans on the Iberian Peninsula, the Crusades, the Battle of Lepanto and the Battle at the Gates of Vienna as having arisen from a “deviation from religious teachings” and thus constituting a “manipulation of religions” in behalf of needless violence and conflict with other “believers”:

Moreover, we resolutely declare that religions must never incite war, hateful attitudes, hostility and extremism, nor must they incite violence or the shedding of blood. These tragic realities are the consequence of a deviation from religious teachings. They result from a political manipulation of religions and from interpretations made by religious groups who, in the course of history, have taken advantage of the power of religious sentiment in the hearts of men and women in order to make them act in a way that has nothing to do with the truth of religion. This is done for the purpose of achieving objectives that are political, economic, worldly and short-sighted. We thus call upon all concerned to stop using religions to incite hatred, violence, extremism and blind fanaticism, and to refrain from using the name of God to justify acts of murder, exile, terrorism and oppression. We ask this on the basis of our common belief in God who did not create men and women to be killed or to fight one another, nor to be tortured or humiliated in their lives and circumstances. God, the Almighty, has no need to be defended by anyone and does not want His name to be used to terrorize people. (Jorge and the Imam's Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.)

Comment Number Five:

All right.

Get ready for a review of some earlier material. However, I write for the long term and want to provide information and resources for those readers who will find this article without having read other commentaries.

I will stipulate that some of the condemnation above is directed at those who are said to have “deviated” from the blasphemous, false teachings of the “Prophet Mohammed,” to engage in violence against others, the truth of the matter is that Mohammedans who kill non-Mohammedans and who destroy Catholic church buildings and statues are being perfectly faithful to the lustful, bloodthirsty, blaspheming tyrant of the Arabian Peninsula who was a practitioner of perverse sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.

Ah, you doubt my word?

Please don’t:

It was in Medina that Muhammad attained power and transformed Islam from a relatively benign form of monotheism into an militant expansionary political ideology that persists to this day. In Medina we see a very different Muhammad and a very different concept of Islam and a very different Allah. Here Muhammad gradually became radicalized in accordance with the commands of God and became a political ruler and military commander. The Allah of Medina guided his prophet to become a warlord, seeking military conquests. In Medina, Muhammad used the threat of the sword to compel people to embrace Islam. Gone was message of verse 2:256: Let There Be In Compulsion In Religion. It was replaced by such teachings as 9:5, 9:29:

(1) Fight the unbelievers until religion is for Allah only:

"And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshiping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshiping others besides Allah) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Sura 8.39).

(2) No more choice in religion

· As for him who opposes the messenger, after the guidance has been pointed out to him, and follows other than the believers' way, we will direct him in the direction he has chosen, and commit him to Hell; what a miserable destiny! [4:115]

· Then should they turn back (meaning: apostized), seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and do not take from them any companion or supporter (Quran, Chapter 4: 89)

(3) No more patience with unbelievers. Now must curse them:

· [22.72] When Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them, thou wilt notice a denial on the faces of the Unbelievers! they nearly attack with violence those who rehearse Our Signs to them. Say, "Shall I tell you of something (far) worse than these Signs? It is the Fire (of Hell)! Allah has promised it to the Unbelievers! and evil is that destination!"

· [33:57] Surely, those who oppose GOD and His messenger, GOD afflicts them with a curse in this life, and in the Hereafter; He has prepared for them a shameful retribution.

(4) Tolerance no more; coerce the kafirs:

· "In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)

· Certainly! Allâh will admit those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, to Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), while those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as cattle eat, and the Fire will be their abode. 47:12

(5) No more pacifism. Time to terrorize, torture, murder:

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom (5:33)

"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)

(6) No tolerance for critics. Just kill them:

9.061 Among them are men who molest the Prophet and say, "He is (all) ear." Say, "He listens to what is best for you: he believes in Allah, has faith in the Believers, and is a Mercy to those of you who believe." But those who molest the Messenger will have a grievous penalty. (In the link 'leaving Islam' you will find many events where Muhammad had numerous critics murdered )

(7) Do not associate even with your parents and siblings if they reject Islam:

9.023 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong

(8) Time to cursed who reject Islam for eternity

· 9:73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

· 22:19 These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads [103, Medina ]

· 22:20 Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; [103, Medina ]

· 22:21 And for them are hooked rods of iron. [103, Medina ]

· 22:22 Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.

Muhammad's 13 years of preaching in Mecca was out and out a failure, mastering only 100-dd followers. Had he continued walking the same path in Medina, Islam would have died a natural death, probably in his life-time itself. But the militant radicalization of Muhammad that changed Islam into a plundering Mafia enterprise, offering its prospective followers a share of the loot and captured women, as well as forcing those who would reject Islam to embrace it on the pain of death, that Islam became a lasting and expanding successful religious enterprise as it continues today.

In Medina Muhammad re-invented Allah and turned Him into a criminal Godfather Whom Muhammad would use to hand over earthly political power to him, and utilize His supposed teachings as religious and legal justification for his evil criminality. That is how Islam turned itself into a successful cult.

Abrogation: The complete and ultimate radicalization of Islam and its followers

Most Muslims are like ordinary people, and the Mecca part of the Quranic revelations could offer them a peace basis of religious life. But Allah did not leave that option open to them. The radical Muhammad of Medina faced a huge problem with the initial non-militant teachings of the Quran. Had his followers appealed to those nonviolent teachings of the Quran, his desire for plunder, power and dominion could not be realized. And Allah, ever ready to satisfy Muhammad's every desire, came to his rescue by abrogating the entire Mecca teachings of the Quran:

· Quran 2:106. “Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

· Quran 16:101 “And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals.”

This abrogation doctrine nullifies the earlier teachings, namely the pacifist Meccan revelations by the radicalized and militant later revelations of Medina, which turns Islam into an absolutely radical and militant religious faith. It gave Muslims no option to appeal to the apparently peaceful verses revealed in Mecca. For a detailed listing of the verses of the Quran that were canceled by the doctrine of abrogation, go to http://www.islamreform.net/new-page-27.htm.

Through the process of aborgation, 71 Suras of the Quran out of 114 in total, i.e. 62.28% of the suras of the Quran, have become null and void (Abu Ja'afar al Nakhass' al Nasikh wal Mansukh'). Therefore, only 43 later Surahs revealed in Medina stand valid. And this valid part of Islam teaches Muslims only deceit, torture, murder, assassination, massacre, genocide, pillage, robbery, enslavement and rape as divinely sanction halal (legal) acts that would earn Muslims a ticket to Islamic paradise, as long as those are perpetrated upon kafirs.

In sum, Muhammad initiated Islam as a relatively benign and nonviolent religious faith, but as he grew in power, he radicalized it into an evil ideology whose sole purpose is to conquer the world for Allah. The Quran became a declaration of war against the kafirs. This war is permanent until ALL kafirs have converted to Islam, or are in dhimmitude (institutionalized discrimination akin to second class slavery status) or have been murdered.

From a humble preacher, Muhammad, after turning into a radical, went on order more than 60 raids and invasion, some involving massacres, and he personally participated in 27 of those. The worst sufferer of Muhammad's militant radicalization was the Jews of the Arab Peninsula, who suffered whole-sale exile, execution and enslavement. Some of the most chilling utterances of Muhammad concerning the Jews are:

...the Apostle of Allah said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, p. 553)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.” (Bukhari 4:52:176)

And the radicalization of Muhammad saw its climax in the Massacre of Banu Quraiza, where he ordered the beheading of 600 to 900 men, and personally initiated the slaughter by beheading 2 Jewish leaders. To read about this very great Banu Quraiza tragedy, go to: http://www.islamreform.net/new-page-209.htm

Therefore, the so-called self-radicalization of Muslims is nothing but their following the teachings and commands of the holy Quran and emulating the examples of Prophet Muhammad, the only perfect man ever to appear on the earth. (Mohammed, the First Radical Muslim.)

Oh, I am not finished with this as the Judeo-Masonic Declaration of Abu Dhabi is also a condemnation of Catholics who opposed Mohammedanism with force. This means that, among others, those who “deviated” from Catholic teachings in the past included Charles Martel, the aforementioned El Cid and Ferdinand III, Blessed Pope Urban II (and all Crusaders, including Saint Louis IX, King of France), Philip II (the only monarch in Western Europe to respond to Pope Saint Pius V’s call for troops to defeat the Turks in the Bay of Lepanto), Don Juan, Andrea Doria, Saint Pius V himself and John Sobieski, and each them stands condemned.

For the sake of brevity, permit me such two examples of that which the Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi condemns retrospectively. Although I will provide other examples I the appendix, it will suffice for present purposes to give the examples of two popes, Blessed Pope Urban II and Pope Saint Pius V:

"If among the churches scattered about over the whole world some, because of persons or location, deserve reverence above others (for persons, I say, since greater privileges are accorded to apostolic sees; for places, indeed, since the same dignity which is accorded to persons is also shown to regal cities, such as Constantinople), we owe most to that church from which we received the grace of redemption and the source of all Christianity. If what the Lord says namely, 'Salvation is from the Jews,' accords with the truth, and it is true that the Lord has left us Sabaoth as seed, that we may not become like Sodom and Gomorrah, and our seed is Christ, in whom is the salvation and benediction of all peoples, then, indeed, the very land and city in which He dwelt and suffered is, by witnesses of the Scriptures, holy. If this land is spoken of in the sacred writings of the prophets as the inheritance and the holy temple of God before ever the Lord walked about in it, or was revealed, what sanctity, what reverence has it not acquired since God in His majesty was there clothed in the flesh, nourished, grew up, and in bodily form there walked about, or was carried about; and, to compress in fitting brevity all that might be told in a long series of words, since there the blood of the Son of God, more holy than heaven and earth, was poured forth, and His body, its quivering members dead, rested in the tomb. What veneration do we think it deserves? If, when the Lord had but just been crucified and the city was still held by the Jews, it was called holy by the evangelist when he says, 'Many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and coming forth out of the tombs after His resurrection, they entered into the holy city and appeared unto many,' and by the prophet Isaiah when be says, 'It shall be His glorious sepulchre,' then, surely, with this sanctity placed upon it by God the Sanctifier Himself, no evil that may befall it can destroy it, and in the same way glory is indivisibly fixed to His Sepulchre. Most beloved brethren, if you reverence the source of that holiness and I . you cherish these shrines which are the marks of His footprints on earth, if you seek (the way), God leading you, God fighting in your behalf, you should strive with your utmost efforts to cleanse the Holy City and the glory of the Sepulchre, now polluted by the concourse of the Gentiles, as much as is in their power.

"If in olden times the Maccabees attained to the highest praise of piety because they fought for the ceremonies and the Temple, it is also justly granted you, Christian soldiers, to defend their liberty of your country by armed endeavor. If you, likewise, consider that the abode of the holy apostles and any other saints should be striven for with such effort, why do you refuse to rescue the Cross, the Blood, the Tomb? Why do you refuse to visit them, to spend the price of your lives in rescuing them? You have thus far waged unjust wars, at one time and another; you have brandished mad weapons to your mutual destruction, for no other reason than covetousness and pride, as a result of which you have deserved eternal death and sure damnation. We now hold out to you wars which contain the glorious reward of martyrdom, which will retain that title of praise now and forever.

"Let us suppose, for the moment, that Christ was not dead and buried, and had never lived any length of time in Jerusalem. Surely, if all this were lacking, this fact alone ought still to arouse you to go to the aid of the land and city -- the fact that 'Out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem!' If all that there is of Christian preaching has flowed from the fountain of Jerusalem, its streams, whithersoever spread out over the whole world, encircle the hearts of the Catholic multitude, that they may consider wisely what they owe such a well-watered fountain. If rivers return to the place whence they have issued only to flow forth again, according to the saying of Solomon, it ought to seem glorious to you to be able to apply a new cleansing to this place, whence it is certain that you received the cleansing of baptism and the witness of your faith.

"And you ought, furthermore, to consider with the utmost deliberation, if by your labors, God working through you, it should occur that the Mother of churches should flourish anew to the worship of Christianity, whether, perchance, He may not wish other regions of the East to be restored to the faith against the approaching time of the Antichrist. For it is clear that Antichrist is to do battle not with the Jews, not with the Gentiles; but, according to the etymology of his name, He will attack Christians. And if Antichrist finds there no Christians (just as at present when scarcely any dwell there), no one will be there to oppose him, or whom he may rightly overcome. According to Daniel and Jerome, the interpreter of Daniel, he is to fix his tents on the Mount of Olives; and it is certain, for the apostle teaches it, that he will sit at Jerusalem in the Temple of the Lord, as though he were God. And according to the same prophet, he will first kill three kings of Egypt, Africa, and Ethiopia, without doubt for their Christian faith: This, indeed, could not at all be done unless Christianity was established where now is paganism. If, therefore, you are zealous in the practice of holy battles, in order that, just as you have received the seed of knowledge of God from Jerusalem, you may in the same way restore the borrowed grace, so that through you the Catholic name may be advanced to oppose the perfidy of the Antichrist and the Antichristians then, who can not conjecture that God, who has exceeded the hope of all, will consume, in the abundance of your courage and through you as the spark, such a thicket of paganism as to include within His law Egypt, Africa, and Ethiopia, which have withdrawn from the communion of our belief? And the man of sin, the son of perdition, will find some to oppose him. Behold, the Gospel cries out, 'Jerusalem shall be trodden down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.' 'Times of the Gentiles' can be understood in two ways: Either that they have ruled over the Christians at their pleasure, and have gladly frequented the sloughs of all baseness for the satisfaction of their lusts, and in all this have had no obstacle (for they who have everything according to their wish are said to have their time; there is that saying: 'My time is not yet come, but your time is always ready,' whence the lustful are wont to say 'you are having your time'). Or, again, 'the times of the Gentiles' are the fulness of time for those Gentiles who shall have entered secretly before Israel shall be saved. These times, most beloved brothers, will now, forsooth, be fulfilled, provided the might of the pagans be repulsed through You, with the cooperation of God. With the end of the world already near, even though the Gentiles fail to be converted to the Lord (since according to the apostle there must be a withdrawal from the faith), it is first necessary, according to their prophecy, that the Christian sway be renewed in those regions either through you, or others, whom it shall please God to send before the coming of Antichrist, so that the head of all evil, who is to occupy there the throne of the kingdom, shall find some support of the faith to fight against him.

"Consider, therefore, that the Almighty has provided you, perhaps, for this purpose, that through you He may restore Jerusalem from such debasement. Ponder, I beg you, how full of joy and delight our hearts will be when we shall see the Holy City restored with your little help, and the prophet's, nay divine, words fulfilled in our times. Let your memory be moved by what the Lord Himself says to the Church: 'I will bring thy seed from the East and gather thee from the West.' God has already brought our, seed from the East, since in a double way that region of the East has given the first beginnings of the Church to us. But from the West He will also gather it, provided He repairs the wrongs of 1 Jerusalem through those who have begun the witness of the final faith, that is the people of the West. With God's assistance, we think this can be done through you.

"If neither the words of the Scriptures arouse you, nor our admonitions penetrate your minds, at least let the great suffering of those who desired to go to the holy places stir you up. Think of those who made the pilgrimage across the sea! Even if they were more wealthy, consider what taxes, what violence they underwent, since they were forced to make payments and tributes almost every mile, to purchase release at every gate of the city, at the entrance of the churches and temples, at every side journey from place to place: also, if any accusation whatsoever were made against them, they were compelled to purchase their release; but if they refused to pay money, the prefects of the Gentiles, according to their custom, urged them fiercely with blows. What shall we say of those who took up the journey without anything more than trust in their barren poverty, since they seemed to have nothing except their bodies to lose? They not only demanded money of them, which is not an unendurable punishment, but also examined the callouses of their heels, cutting them open and folding the skin back, lest, perchance, they had sewed something there. Their unspeakable cruelty was carried on even to the point of giving them scammony to drink until they vomited, or even burst their bowels, because they thought the wretches had swallowed gold or silver; or, horrible to say, they cut their bowels open with a sword and, spreading out the folds of the intestines, with frightful mutilation disclosed whatever nature held there in secret. Remember, I pray, the thousands who have perished vile deaths, and strive for the holy places from which the beginnings of your faith have come. Before you engage in His battles, believe without question that Christ will be your standard-bearer and inseparable forerunner."

The most excellent man concluded his oration and by the power of the blessed Peter. absolved all who vowed to go and confirmed those acts with apostolic blessing. He instituted a sign well suited t so honorable a profession by making the figure of the Cross, the stigma of the Lord's Passion, the emblem of the soldiery, or rather, of what was to be the soldiery of God. This, made of any kind of cloth, he ordered to be sewed upon the shirts, cloaks, and byrra of those who were about to go. He commanded that if anyone, after receiving this emblem, or after taking openly this vow, should shrink from his good intent through base change of heart, or any affection for his parents, he should be regarded an outlaw forever, unless he repented and again undertook whatever of his pledge he had omitted. Furthermore, the Pope condemned with a fearful anathema all those who dared to molest the wives, children, and possessions of these who were going on this journey for God. . . . (Guibert de Nogent: Historia quae dicitur Gesta Dei per Francos.)

Blessed Pope Urban II’s call for the First Crusade a little over nine hundred twenty-seven years ago was premised upon a denunciation of the unjust wars that Christian soldiers had fought in behalf of territorial gain and/or the conquest of raw political power. Blessed Pope Urban II was calling upon these soldiers to put their military skills to use in a just war against the Mohammedans who were treating their coreligionists with barbaric cruelty and holding the shrines of the Holy Faith captive as part of their ill-gotten gains won by the spread of Mohammedanism at the point of the sword throughout northern Africa and the Near East at the beginning of the Seventh Century and thereafter.

Far from being a source of “embarrassment” for which endless “apologies” need to be made, Blessed Pope Urban II’s call for the First Crusade was careful to include a meticulous description of the barbaric cruelty of Mohammedans, a cruelty that is endemic to this false religion. The barbaric savagery of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which may very well be a tool of Zionism, and lone wolf acts of terrorism by individual Mohammedans represent nothing other than complete, absolute fidelity to the teaching of the false “prophet,” Mohammed.

Pope Saint Pius V understood the wicked nature of the false religion called Mohammedanism, which he why he, a member of the Order of Preachers, begged that Catholics everywhere pray Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, which she had given to Saint Dominic in the year 1208, for the defeat of the Turkish fleet in the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571:

We have already met with the names of several Pontiffs on the Paschal Calendar. They form a brilliant constellation around our Risen Jesus, who, during the period between his Resurrection and Ascension, gave to Peter, their predecessor, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Anicetus, Soter, Caius, Cletus and Marcellinus, held in their hands the palm of martyrdom: Leo was the only one who did not shed his blood in the cause of his divine Master. To-day there comes before us a holy Pope who governed the Church in these latter times; he is worthy to stand amidst the Easter group of Pontiffs. Like Leo, Pius V was zealous in combating heresy; like Leo, he saved his people form the barbarian yoke.

The whole life of Pius V was a combat. His pontificate fell during those troubled times when Protestantism was leading whole countries into apostasy. Italy was not a prey that could be taken by violence: artifice was therefore used, in order to undermine the Apostolic See and thus develop the whole Christian world in the darkness of heresy. Pius defend the Peninsula with untiring devotedness from the danger that threatened her. Even before he was raised to the Papal Throne he frequently exposed his life by his zeal in opposing the preaching of false doctrines. Like Peter the Martyr, he braved every danger and was the dread of the emissaries of heresy. When seated on the Chair of Peter, he kept the innovators in check by fear, roused the sovereigns of Italy to energy and by measures of moderate severity drove back beyond the Alps the torrent that would have swept Christianity from Europe had not the Southern States thus opposed it. From that time forward, Protestantism has never made any further progress: it has been wearing itself out by doctrinal anarchy. We repeat it: this heresy would have laid all Europe waste, had it not been for the vigilance of the pastor who animated the defenders of truth to resist it where it already existed, and who set himself as a wall against its invasion in the country where he himself was the master.

Another enemy, taking advantage of the confusion caused in the West by Protestantism, organized an expedition against Europe. Italy was to be its first prey. The Ottoman fleet started from the Bosphorus. This again would have meant the ruin of Christendom but for the energy of the Roman Pontiff, our Saint. he gave the alarm, and called the Christian Princes to arms. Germany and France, torn by domestic factions that had been caused by heresy, turned a deaf ear to the call. Spain alone, together with Venice and the little Papal fleet, answered the summons of the Pontiff. The Cross and the Crescent were soon face to face in the Gulf of Lepanto. The prayers of Pius V decided the victory in favor of the Christians, whose forces were much inferior to those of the Turks. We shall return to this important event when we come to the Feast of the Rosary in October. But we omit to mention to-day the prediction uttered by the holy Pope, on the evening of the great day of October 7, 1571. The battle between the Christian and Turkish fleets lasted from six o'clock in the morning till late in the afternoon. Towards evening, the Pontiff suddenly looked up towards heaven, and gazed upon it in silence for a few seconds. Then turning to his attendants, he exclaimed: 'Let us give thanks to God! The Christians have gained the victory!' The news soon arrived at Rome; and thus, Europe once more owed her salvation to a Pope! The defeat at Lepanto was a blow from which the Ottoman Empire has never recovered: its fall dates from that glorious day. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)

What does this mean to the conciliar revolutionaries?

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

Here is a brief account of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI's act of treachery in 1964 in which he returned the flag of the flagship of the Turkish fleet that had been captured during the Battle of Lepanto:

Indeed, such subtlety [Paul VI's removal of his tiara] seemed designed to bear a very special sort of fruit. So did Paul's visit one year later to the United Nations headquarters in New York, where he told delegates:

"We are conscious that you are the interpreters of all that is paramount in human wisdom. We would almost say: of its sacred character. For your concern is first and foremost with the life of man, and man's life is sacred: no one may dare to interfere with it."

Presumably "no one" does not included God. Paul's performance at the United Nations, an organization long viewed with suspicion by the Church for the obvious reasons, sent many a Catholic reeling. So did papal act just two months later, when Paul gave back to the Muslims the Standard of Lepanto. The history of the flag was venerable. It was taken from a Turkish admiral during a great naval battle in 1571. While Pope St. Pius V fasted and prayed the Rosary, an out-numbered Christian fleet defeated a much larger Moslem navy, thus saving Christendom from the infidel. In honor of the miraculous victory, Pius V instituted the Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary to commemorate Her intercession.

In one dramatic act Paul renounced not only a remarkable Christian victory, but the prayers and sacrifices of a great Pope and saint. Worse, he appeared to be rejecting the intercession of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary—again. "The wars of religion are finished for good." Paul told the Turks by way of explanation. Their immediate response was not recorded, but the rise of militant Islam in the last three decades indicates that yet another of Pope Paul's prophecies has gone awry. (Mark Fellows, Fatima in Twilight, Marmion Publications, 2003, p. 193.)

Individual Catholics may have transgressed against the binding precepts of the moral law while engaged in various battles and wars but this is not imputable to the authority of Holy Mother Church, whose popes have shown remarkable restraint and have called upon Christian princes to employ justified force as a last resort to combat imminent invasions and attacks from Mohammedans, she who is without any stain of any kind. Mohammedanism is a religion of violence and of hatred for all "unbelievers," starting with those who belong to the true Church, the Catholic Church.

The next part of the Judeo-Masonic Manifesto of Abu Dhabi reiterates themes common to the French Revolution’s Declaration of the Rights of Man and to the very foundational precepts of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s relationship with “other religions” and civil authorities:

This Document, in accordance with previous International Documents that have emphasized the importance of the role of religions in the construction of world peace, upholds the following:

- The firm conviction that authentic teachings of religions invite us to remain rooted in the values of peace; to defend the values of mutual understanding, human fraternity and harmonious coexistence; to re-establish wisdom, justice and love; and to reawaken religious awareness among young people so that future generations may be protected from the realm of materialistic thinking and from dangerous policies of unbridled greed and indifference that are based on the law of force and not on the force of law;

- Freedom is a right of every person: each individual enjoys the freedom of belief, thought, expression and action. The pluralism and the diversity of religions, colour, sex, race and language are willed by God in His wisdom, through which He created human beings. This divine wisdom is the source from which the right to freedom of belief and the freedom to be different derives. Therefore, the fact that people are forced to adhere to a certain religion or culture must be rejected, as too the imposition of a cultural way of life that others do not accept;

- Justice based on mercy is the path to follow in order to achieve a dignified life to which every human being has a right; (Jorge and the Imam's Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.)

Comment Number Six:

Stop!

Falsehoods are not willed by God. God hates all falsehoods, whether religious or philosophical. The belief that falsehoods are will positively by God into existence is boilerplate conciliar doctrine. One of its chief propagators was the late Father Walter Burghardt, S.J., who wrote that Protestant sects would not have existed and multiplied if it had been in violation of God’s will for this to occur. Never mind the fact that God has given man a free will to accept or to reject Him and the Sacred Deposit of Faith that He has revealed and entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. No, the likes of Walter Burghardt and those he influenced, such as Bergoglio, believe that the very existence of Protestant sects proves that they have the favor of God.

This very heresy has been preached in front of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Benedict XVI by the Capuchin friar who helped to “bless” “Cardinal” Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 2006 with the “assistance of various charismatic Protestant “ministers,” Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.FM., Cap.:

Yet, at the Vatican’s Good Friday Liturgy, 2002, the Preacher to the Papal Household, Capuchin Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, said the other religions “are not merely tolerated by God …. but positively willed by Him as an expression of the inexhaustible richness of His grace and His will for everyone to be saved.” (4)

4. All quotes from Fr. Cantalamessa’s sermon are from the April 2, 2002 Catholic News Service report. (As found in John Vennari, From Pentecostalism to Apostasy by John Vennari)

“It is more important that men and women become holy,” Cantalamessa said, standing in the center of a magnificent basilica erected to celebrate the earthly might of Catholicism and the papacy, “than that they know the name of the one Savior.” (National Catholic Reporter, reporting on the same 2002 Good Friday “homily”)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has told us that he does not concern himself with doctrinal matters. He has said, both publicly and "privately," that "knowing Jesus" is the only thing that matters, except in the case of Jews and Mohammedans and atheists, who do not necessarily have to "know Jesus" in order to be saved. Just "do good" and "we will meet you there," he has said on more than one occasion.

This is what Bergoglio said to an Anglican friend of his following the release of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Anglicanorum Coetibus, November 9, 2009, wh ih established an ordinariate for Anglicans seeking to switch decks on the One World Ecumenical Church to what presents itself to them as the Catholic Church:

The new Pope has reportedly said the Church universal needs Anglicans and that the Ordinariate is "quite unnecessary".

In a note released after the election of the first ever pontiff from Latin America, the Anglican Bishop of Argentina and former Primate of the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, the Rt Revd Greg Venables said Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio was "an inspired choice".

"Many are asking me what is really like. He is much more of a Christian, Christ centered and Spirit filled, than a mere churchman. He believes the Bible as it is written.

"I have been with him on many occasions and he always makes me sit next to him and invariably makes me take part and often do what he as Cardinal should have done. He is consistently humble and wise, outstandingly gifted yet a common man. He is no fool and speaks out very quietly yet clearly when necessary."

Bp Venables added that in a conversation with Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, the latter made it clear that he values the place of Anglicans in the Church universal.

"He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary and that the Church needs us as Anglicans.

The former Primate of the Anglican Communion's Iglesia Anglicana del Cono Sur de America added, "I consider this to be an inspired appointment not because he is a close and personal friend, but because of who he is In Christ. Pray for him." (Anglican Communion News Service: "The Church universal needs Anglicans"-- Francis the Head Citizen of the One World Ecumenical Church.)

The Catholic Church needs Anglicans to remain as Anglicans?

The English and Irish Martyrs Died for This?

Consider these words of Saint Fidelis of Sigmarignen:

“I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it.”

The conciliar revolutionaries embrace heresy, and they believe that it is necessary to “dialogue” with it. Witness the following bit of madness from Abu Dhabi:

- Dialogue, understanding and the widespread promotion of a culture of tolerance, acceptance of others and of living together peacefully would contribute significantly to reducing many economic, social, political and environmental problems that weigh so heavily on a large part of humanity;

- Dialogue among believers means coming together in the vast space of spiritual, human and shared social values and, from here, transmitting the highest moral virtues that religions aim for. It also means avoiding unproductive discussions

- The protection of places of worship – synagogues, churches and mosques – is a duty guaranteed by religions, human values, laws and international agreements. Every attempt to attack places of worship or threaten them by violent assaults, bombings or destruction, is a deviation from the teachings of religions as well as a clear violation of international law; (Jorge and the Imam's Document on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together.)

What about the sanctification and salvation of souls?

Well, it is evidently the case that Jorge Mario Bergoglio takes the salvation of the souls of all men for granted, which is why he can engage in “dialogue” to find “common ground” to “resolve” temporal problems that are the consequence of Original Sin and, proximately, the Actual Sins of men and can be ameliorated only by the conversion of non-Catholics and of an amendment of the lives of Catholics after they had undergone the only kind of “purification” that matters after Baptism, namely, the absolution of their sins by a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance.

Although I dreaded even the thought of having to write about some of the ways in which the lay Jesuit revolutionary from Argentina has been at work in the destruction of the remnants of Catholicism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, the material above is fairly representative of how Antichrist has used this pestilential demon of a human being to deceive souls, tickle the itching ears of heretics, infidels, and hardened sinners, and to serve as an apologist for international communism under the guise of “globalism” and “human solidarity” in a world that has no place for Christ the King and has as much hatred for Catholic truth as does he, Bergoglio, himself.

It is enough for us to know the truths outlined last week in Pope Saint Pius X: "Whoever is Holy Does Not Dissent from the Pope" and to beg Our Lady to remain steadfast in them, remembering that Holy Mother Church is inerrant and that it is an ontological impossibility for there to be a “heretical” pope.

While it is certainly true that I have written countless commentaries about Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his false religious sect in the past decade, it is also true that I am writing less and less about Bergoglio than in the past as there is really nothing new to contribute given the fact that almost all he has been doing in the last seven years of so is repeating himself ad infinitum, ad nauseam. His is a horror show of dogmatic evolutionism, false theology, bad canon law, invalid and sacrilegious liturgies, a new ecclesiology, a heretical view of eschatology, a blasphemous Mariology, and condemned Scriptural exegeses that came of their apostate age in the 1970s and ossified immediately thereafter. There is truly little more to say than what I have said in the past, but it is Lent and I will continue to do what I can on those occasions when I think a commentary will be in the interest of this website’s “vast” readership.

None of what has been written in this commentary and/or excerpted from past commentaries to provide some hard evidence of the state of degeneracy to which the conciliar sect has fallen is meant to discourage anyone.

We are Catholics.

We are neither optimists nor pessimists.

We simply trust in Our Lady as we offer her our liberty and whatever merits we might earn as a result of prayers, good works and patient endurance of sufferings, crosses, illnesses, calumnies and/or mockeries as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary is our weapon (see The Rosary IS Our Weapon, and We Must Pray It to Fight Evil, Especially That Within Our Own Lives) and her Brown Scapular of Mount Carmel is out shield at all times of our lives now, and at the hour of our deaths. We have nothing at all to fear from the forces of the world, the flesh, and the devil, nor do we have anything to fear from the forces of Modernism within the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Remaining ever reliant upon and confident in, without being in the least presumptuous of, Our Lady’s maternal intercession and protection, we face the difficulties of our own lives and the worlds of Modernity and Modernism with renewed vigor as we pray and plant at least a few seeds for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter and then of the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart.

Appendix A

Dom Prosper Gueranger on the Third Sunday of Lent

Yesterday, Sunday, March 12, 2023, was the Third Sunday of Lent and the Commemoration of the Feast of Pope Saint Gregory the Great.

Dom Prosper Gueranger’s reflection on the Third Sunday of Lent reminds us of the necessity of making a good, integral confession of our sins to a true priest lest seven devils more powerful and menacing inhabit our souls if we conceal any sins in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance or avoid going to Confession altogether because of human pride:

The holy Church gave us, as the subject of our meditation for the First Sunday of Lent, the Temptation which our Lord Jesus Christ deigned to suffer in the Desert. Her object was to enlighten us how to conquer them. Today, she wishes to complete her instruction on the power and stratagems of our invisible enemies; and for this, she reads to us a passage from the Gospel of St. Luke. During Lent, the Christian ought to repair the past, and provide for the future; but he can neither understand how it was he fell, nor defend himself against a relapse, unless he have correct ideas as to the nature of the dangers which have hitherto proved fatal, and are again threatening him. Hence, the ancient Liturgists would have us consider it as a proof of the maternal watchfulness of the Church that she should have again proposed such a subject to us. As we shall find, it is the basis of all today’s instructions.

Assuredly, we should be the blindest and most unhappy of men if—surrounded as we are by enemies who unceasingly seek to destroy us, and are so superior to us both in power and knowledge—we were seldom or never to think of the existence of these wicked spirits. And yet, such is really the case with innumerable Christians nowadays; for truths are diminished from among the children of men. So common, indeed, is this heedlessness and forgetfulness of a truth which the Holy Scriptures put before us in almost every page, that it is no rare thing to meet with persons who ridicule the idea of Devils being permitted to be on this earth of ours! They call it a prejudice, a popular superstition, of the Middle Ages! Of course they deny that it is a dogma of Faith. When they read the History of the Church or the Lives of the Saints, they have their own way of explaining whatever is there related on this subject. To hear them talk, one would suppose that they look on Satan as a mere abstract idea, to be taken as the personification of evil.

When they would account for the origin of their own or others’ sins, they explain all by the evil inclination of man’s heart, and by the bad use we make of our free will. They never think of what we are taught by Christian doctrine; namely, that we are also instigated to sin by a wicked being whose power is as great as is the hatred he bears us. And yet, they know, they believe, with a firm faith, that Satan conversed with our First Parents, and persuaded them to commit sin, and showed himself to them under the form of a serpent. They believe that this same Satan dared to tempt the Incarnate Son of God, and that he carried him through the air and set him first upon a pinnacle of the Temple, and then upon a very high mountain. Again: they read in the Gospel, and they believe, that one of the Possessed, who were delivered by our Savior, was tormented by a whole legion of devils who, upon being driven out of the man, went by Jesus’ permission, into a herd of swine, and the whole herd ran violently into the see of Genesareth, and perished in the waters. These and many other such like facts are believed by the persons of whom we speak, with all the earnestness of faith; yet, notwithstanding, they treat as a figure of speech, or a fiction, all they hear or read about the existence, the actions or the craft of these wicked spirits. Are such people Christians, or have they lost their senses? One would scarcely have expected that this species of incredulity could have found its way into an age like this, when sacrilegious consultations of the devil have been, we might almost say, unfashionable. Means which were used in the days of paganism have been resorted to for such consultations; and they who employed them seemed to forget or ignore that they were committing what God, in the Old Law, punished with death, and which for many centuries was considered by all Christian nations as a capital crime.

But if there be one Season of the Year more than another in which the Faithful ought to reflect upon what is taught us by both Faith and experience, as to the existence and workings of the wicked spirits—it is undoubtedly this of Lent, when it is our duty to consider what have been the causes of our past sins, what are the spiritual dangers we have to fear for the future, and what means we should have recourse to for preventing a relapse. Let us, then, hearken to the holy Gospel. Firstly, we are told that the devil had possessed a man, and that the effect produced by this possession was dumbness. Our Savior cast out the devil, and immediately the dumb man spoke. So that, the being possessed by the devil is not only a fact which testifies to God’s impenetrable justice; it is one which may produce physical effects upon them that are thus tried or punished. The casting out the devil restores the use of speech to him that had been possessed. We say nothing about the obstinate malice of Jesus’ enemies, who would have it that his power over the devils came from his being in league with the prince of devils;—all we would now do is to show that the wicked spirits are sometimes permitted to have power over the body, and to refute, by this passage from the Gospel, the rationalism of certain Christians. Let these learn, then, that the power of our spiritual enemies is an awful reality; and let them take heed not to lay themselves open to their worst attacks by persisting in the disdainful haughtiness of their Reason.

Ever since the promulgation of the Gospel, the power of Satan over the human body has been restricted by the virtue of the Cross, at least in Christian countries: but this power resumes its sway as often as the faith and the practice of Christian piety lose their influence. And here we have the origin of all those diabolical practices which, under certain scientific names, are attempted first in secret, and then are countenanced by being assisted at by well-meaning Christians. Were it not that God and his Church intervene, such practices as these would subvert society. Christians! remember your Baptismal vow; you have renounced Satan: take care, then, that by a culpable ignorance you are not dragged into apostasy. It is not a phantom that you renounced at the Font; he is a real and formidable being who, as our Lord tells us, was a Murderer from the beginning.

But if we ought to dread the power he may be permitted to have over our bodies; if we ought to shun all intercourse with him and take no share in practices over which he presides, and which are the worship he would have men give him—we ought, also, to fear the influence he is ever striving to exercise over our souls. See what God’s grace has to do in order to drive him from your soul! During this holy Season, the Church is putting within your reach those grand means of victory—Fasting, Prayer, and Almsdeeds. The sweets of peace will soon be yours, and once more you will become God’s temple, for both soul and body will have regained their purity. But be not deceived; your enemy is not slain. He is irritated; penance has driven him from you, but he has sworn to return. Therefore, fear a relapse into mortal sin; and in order to nourish within you this wholesome fear, meditate upon the concluding part of our Gospel.

Our Savior tells us that when the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through places without water. There he writhes under his humiliation; it has added to the tortures of the hell he carries everywhere with him, and to which he fain would give some alleviation, by destroying souls that have been redeemed by Christ. We read in the Old Testament that sometimes, when the devils have been conquered, they have been forced to flee into some far-off wilderness: for example, the holy Archangel Raphael took the devil that had killed Sara’s husbands, and bound him in the desert of Upper Egypt. But the enemy of mankind never despairs of regaining his prey. His hatred is as active now as it was at the very beginning of the world, and he says: I will return into my house, whence I came out. Nor will he come alone. He is determined to conquer; and therefore, he will, if he think it needed, take with him seven other spirits, even more wicked than himself. What a terrible assault is this that is being prepared for the pour soul unless she be on the watch, and unless the peace which God has granted her be one that is well armed for war! Alas! with many souls, the very contrary is the case; and our Savior describes the situation in which the devil finds them on his return: they are swept and garnished, and that is all! No precautions, no defense, no arms. One would suppose that they were waiting to give the enemy admission. Then Satan, to make his repossession sure, comes with a seven-fold force. The attack is made;—but there is no resistance, and straightways the wicked spirits entering in, dwell there; so that, the last state becometh worse than the first; for before, there was but one enemy, and now there are many.

In order that we may understand the full force of the warning conveyed to us by the Church in this Gospel, we must keep before us the great reality that this is the acceptable Time. In every part of the world, there are conversions being wrought; millions are being reconciled with God; divine Mercy is lavish of pardon to all that seek it. But will all persevere? They that are now being delivered from the power of Satan—will they all be free from his yoke when next year’s Lent comes around? A sad experience tells the Church that she may not hope so grand a result. Many will return to their sins, and that too before many weeks are over. And if the Justice of God overtake them in that state—what an awful thing it is to say it, yet it is true;—some, perhaps many, of these sinners will be eternally lost! Let us, then, be on our guard against a relapse; and in order that we may ensure our Perseverance, without which it would have been to little purpose to have been for a few days in God’s grace—let us watch, and pray; let us keep ourselves under arms; let us ever remember that our whole life is to be a warfare. Our soldier-like attitude will disconcert the enemy, and he will try to gain victory elsewhere.

The Third Sunday of Lent is called Oculi from the first word of the Introit. In the primitive Church, it was called Scrutiny Sunday, because it was on this day that they began to examine the Catechumens, who were to be admitted to Baptism on Easter night. All the Faithful were invited to assemble in the Church, in order that they might bear testimony to the good life and morals of the candidates. At Rome, these examinations, which were called the Scrutinies, were made on seven different occasions, on account of the great number of aspirants to Baptism; but the principal Scrutiny was that held on the Wednesday of the Fourth Week. We will speak of it later on.

The Roman Sacramentary of St. Galasius gives us the form in which the Faithful were convoked to these assemblies. It is as follows. “Dearly beloved Brethren: you know that the day of Scrutiny, when our elect are to receive the holy instruction, is at hand. We invite you, therefore, to be zealous and to assemble on N., (here, the day was mentioned), at the hour of Sext; that so we may be able, by the divine aid, to achieve, without error, the heavenly mystery, whereby is opened the gate of the kingdom of heaven, and the devil is excluded with all his pomps.” The invitation was repeated, if needed, on each of the following Sundays. The Scrutiny of this Sunday ended in the admission of a certain number of candidates: their names were written down and put on the Diptychs of the Altar, that they might be mentioned in the Canon of the Mass. The same also was done with the names of their Sponsors . . . .

[Dom Prosper discoursed on the meaning of the Gospel read at Holy Mass on the Third Sunday of Lent]

As Son has Jesus had cast out the devil, the man recovered his speech, for the possession had made him dumb. It is an image of what happens to a sinner who will not, or dare not, confess his sin. If he confessed it, and asked pardon, he would be delivered from the tyranny which now oppresses him. Alas! how many there are who are kept back by a dumb devil from making the Confession that would save them! The holy Season of Lent is advancing; these days of grace are passing away; let us profit by them; and if we ourselves be in the state of grace, let us offer up our earnest prayers for sinners, that they may speak, that is, may accuse themselves in Confession, and obtain pardon.

Let us also listen, with holy fear, to what our Savior tells us with regard to our invisible enemies. They are so powerful and crafty that our resistance would be useless, unless we had God on our side, and his holy Angels, who watch over us and join us in the great combat. It was to these unclean and hateful spirits of hell that we delivered ourselves when we sinned: we preferred their tyrannical sway to the sweet and light yoke of our compassionate Redeemer. Now we are set free, or are hoping to be so; let us thank our Divine Liberator; but let us take care not to re-admit our enemies. Our Savior warns us of our danger. They will return to the attack; they will endeavor to force their entrance into our soul, after it has been sanctified by the Lamb of the Passover. If we be watchful and faithful, they will be confounded, and leave us: but if we be tepid and careless, if we lose our appreciation of the grace we have received, and forget our obligations to Him who has saved us, our defeat is inevitable; and as our Lord says, our last state is to be worse than the first.

Would we avoid such a misfortune? Let us meditate upon those other words of our Lord, in today’s Gospel: He that is not with me is against me. What makes us fall back into the power of Satan, and forget our duty to our God, is that we do not frankly declare ourselves for Jesus, when occasions require us to do so. We try to be on both sides, we have recourse to subterfuge, we temporize: this takes away our energy; God no longer gives us the abundant graces we received when we were loyal and and generous; our relapse is all but certain. Therefore, let us be boldly and unmistakeably with Christ. He that is a soldier of Jesus should be proud of his title! (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., Third Sunday of Lent, The Liturgical Year.)

Appendix B

A Comprehensive List of My Commentaries about Jorge Mario Bergoglio and His False Religious Sect in the Past Ten Years

(You have gotten a lot for your money—hint, hint, hint—in just the past ten years alone!)

You are here

Jorge Mario Bergoglio: Ten Years as Antichrist's Viceroy and Spokesman

Support Christ or Chaos