Role Reversal, part two

Monday’s article focused on United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky Judge David Bunning’s truly ignorant statement that using the Natural Law in the case of Rowan County, Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis would set a “dangerous precedent.” Thus it is that he set a precedent of sorts by sending Mrs. Davis to jail, although he issued an order for her release on Tuesday, September 8, 2018, the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as long as she promised not to interfere with the issuance of “marriage certificates” to practitioners of the sin of Sodom.

Sadly, Judge David Bunning, the son of Hall of Fame pitcher and former United States Senator Jim Bunning (R-Kentucky), legions are the number of Catholics in both of the two major organized crime families of naturalism who have achieved great success politically by putting aside their “personal beliefs” to curry favor with the multitudes. There is really no need to list all of these nefarious figures as their names are very well known and have been cited repeatedly on this site.

After all, does anyone need to be reminded about the likes of Vice President Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., United States Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Illinois), United States Senators Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Christopher Muprhy (D-Connecticut), Kirsten Gillebrand (D-New York), Patricia Murray (D-California), Patrick Toomey (D-Pennsylvania, who “only” supports baby-killing in the first trimester, you understand), Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts), Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island), Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri), and Tim Kaines (D-Virginia; numerous members of the United States House of Representatives, including the nefarious House Minority Leader, Nancy Patricia D’Alesandro Pelosi (D-California); and Governors Andrew Mark Cuomo (D-New York), Daniel Malloy (D-Connecticut), Edmund Gerald Brown (D-California), Larry Hogan (R-Maryland, who says he is opposed to abortion but has vowed not to change existing laws in Maryland), and Gina Marie Raimondo (R-Rhode Island, a baptized Catholic who lists no official religious affiliation)?

Who needs to be reminded of the fact that President Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro’s Cabinet includes pro-abortion Catholics such as Secretary of State John F. Kerry (D-Massachusetts), Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack (D-Iowa), Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro (D-Texas, who is likely to be Madame Clinton’s vice presidential running mate if she gets the Democratic Party presidential nomination in eleven months), Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan, and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez?

Who needs to be reminded of the fact that former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (D-Kansas, who took blood money from George Tiller, the notorious late-term baby butcher in Wichita, Kansas, who was gunned down at a Lutheran Church on Sunday, May 3, 2009) certainly left her numerous regulations that she issued to enforce the anti-family, anti-truth, anti-life Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaDeathCare) to oppress us for decades to come?

Who needs to be reminded of the fact that White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, whose older brother was the vicar general in the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis in its conciliar captivity, has sought to find “common ground” with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his crew of Jacobin/Bolshevik rebels who are opposed, at least in “practice,” you understand, to almost the entirety of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law?

We are, as noted many times before on this site in recent years, facing a convergence of the forces of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

The lords of Modernity have no regard for the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law as they believe in the supremacy of man over all. The lords of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism also believe in the supremacy of “the human person” over all, which impels them to adapt “inflexible” doctrines to the “needs” of those who are said to live on the “existential peripheries.” Rather than opposing the Reign of Man, which is nothing other than a slogan for the Tyranny of the State, in favor of the Rights of God and His Holy Church, the lords of Modernism have enabled their counterparts in the world of Modernity as more and more unjust laws, executive decrees, court decisions and regulatory policies have decriminalized objectively evil moral actions and criminalized those who seek to call wrongdoing by its proper name.

The lords of Modernity desire one world governance.

So do the lords of Modernism.

The lords of Modernity want to have policies of “open borders.”

So do the lords of Modernism.

The lords of Modernity want to provide every accommodation to those who are committed to living lives of utter degradation while castigating those who seek to defend the primacy of God’s law over efforts by civil potentates to contravene it.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a past master at such degradation and demonization.

The lords of Modernity want to “protect” the environment and to forcibly redistribute income in the name of “income equality” by increasing the size, the scope, and the power of governmental control over private lives and property.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is coming to the United States of America to endorse these statist programs in the name of “social justice” and concern for the poor as his pantheistic comrades in the counterfeit church of conciliarism hold “liturgies” to worship “Gaia,” the earth “goddess,” in the Diocese of St. Etienne in France, which is now realizing the ultimate rotten fruit of the French Revolution that started on July 14, 1789 (see Gaia Instead of the Cross.)

The lords of Modernity scoff at the notion of the existence of the Natural Law, no less its binding force upon all men in all places in all circumstances and at all times.

So do the lords of Modernism.

To wit, a so-called “theologian” in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, “Father” Eberhard Schokenhoff, said at Commissar Reinhard Marx’s secret conference of Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries, which was held on May 26, 2015,at the Pontifical University of Saint Gregory, the Gregorianum, which is run by the Society of Jesus, that moral theology has to be “liberated” from the Natural Law:

Among the specialists present was Father Eberhard Schockenhoff, a moral theologian. Faithful German Catholics are particularly disturbed about the rise to prominence of Father Schockenhoff, who is understood to be the “mastermind” behind much of the challenge to settled Church teachings among the German episcopate and, by implication, at the synod on the family itself.

A prominent critic of Humanae Vitae (The Regulation of Birth), as well as a strong supporter of homosexual clergy and those pushing for reform in the area of sexual ethics, Father Schockenhoff is known to be the leading adviser of the German bishops in the run-up to the synod.

In 2010, he gave an interview in which he praised the permanence and solidarity shown in some same-sex relationships as “ethically valuable.” He urged that any assessment of homosexual acts “must take a back seat” on the grounds that the faithful are becoming “increasingly distant from the Church’s sexual morality,” which appears “unrealistic and hostile to them.” The Pope and the bishops should “take this seriously and not dismiss it as laxity,” he said.

Father Schockenhoff has also gone on record saying that moral theology must be “liberated from the natural law” and that conscience should be based on the “life experience of the faithful.” 

He has also insisted that the indissolubility of marriage is “not seriously called into question” by admitting remarried divorcees to holy Communion, writing a book to push his thesis in 2011 entitled “Opportunities for Reconciliation?: The Church and the Divorced and Remarried.”  He has further proposed that the term the “official Church” should be done away with because of a growing gap between the institutional Church and the Church of the faithful. (Confidential Meeting Seeks to Sway Synod to Accept Perverse Unions.)

It is thus hard to beat Judge David Bunning over the head for his ignorant comment about the Natural Law when a supposed theologian who is in “good standing” within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism proposes that moral theology has to be “liberated” from the Natural Law. This is an even more perverse kind of “role reversal” as the Catholic Church is the authoritative teacher of the Natural Law, which is knowable, albeit imperfectly, by human reason alone unaided by Divine Revelation, not its scoffing enemy. The likes of “Father” Eberhard Schockenhoff, aping the lay Jesuit named Jorge Mario Bergoglio, believe that enabling hardened sinners in their lives of debauchery is an act of “mercy” that requires “pastoral innovations."

Jorge Mario Bergoglio's counterfeit church of conciliarism is but a mere social agency, not an instrument of eternal salvation that has any kind of mission to form souls according to the integrity of the Catholic doctrine. As a matter of fact, Bergoglio himself says his false church's "new evangelization" must not be about "doctrinal instruction" although it is impossible to know, love and serve God unless one knows Who He is and what He has taught through Holy Mother Church, the one and only teacher and sanctifier of mankind.

Although so many people are agog over everything that pours out of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s pestilential mouth, he is saying nothing other than what he has always believed. Indeed, he told us of his belief in a dichotomy between “doctrinal purity” and “pastoral mercy” in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

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.)

The Catholic Church is the infallible guardian and teacher of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

What most people erroneously believe is the Catholic Church today is the polluter of all that is contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith and of the very Natural Law that God Himself.

Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote in De Veritate that we are informed by the Natural Law to use our practical reason in a manner should the good will be chosen and evil avoided. The enemies of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in the counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that what is considered objectively evil can be called “good” because it is “unavoidable” to act otherwise. This nothing other than the heresy of Martin Luther himself when he wrote:

“[The commandments] only purpose is to show man his impotence to do good and to teach him to despair of himself” (ref: Denifle’s Luther et Lutheranisme, Etude Faite d’apres les sources. Translation by J. Paquier (Paris, A. Picard, 1912-13), Volume III, p. 364).

“We must remove the Decalogue out of sight and heart” (ref. De Wette 4, 188)

“If we allow them – the Commandments – any influence in our conscience, they become the cloak of all evil, heresies and blasphemies” (ref. Comm. ad Galat, p.310).

“It is more important to guard against good works than against sin.” (ref. Trischreden, Wittenberg Edition, Vol. VI., p. 160). (As found at 500 Years of Protestantism: The 33 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote.)

Don’t worry. I will have more about Luther in the next commentary on this site.

To seek to “liberate” theology from the Natural Law is to seek to “liberate” man from that which, as Saint Paul reminded us in his Epistle to the Romans, is written on the very flesh of his heart. It is to deify man and his lusts. It is to make a demigod out of individual conscience, severed from any reference to the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, in such a manner as to make situationally subjective everything pertaining to supernatural and natural truth.

To ignore the Natural Law, no less the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law, is to assert that there is no foundation to civil law other than the arbitrariness of human desires and biases. This vitiates all basis of civil law, making it impossible for there to be any standards to determine legal culpability according accepted standards of criminal insanity, which is based upon the claim that an accused criminal was incapable of discerning right from wrong, which, of course, presupposes that there is a right and wrong that one can discern with the use of human reason:

Here is a summary of how the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of Texas define criminal insanity:

Texas: A person is legally insane if criminal conduct was a result of severe mental disease or defect, so that the person did not know that his conduct was wrong. The term “mental disease or defect” does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

Pennsylvania: People are legally insane if at the time of the commission of an offense they are laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act they were doing or, if they did know the quality of the act, they did not know that what they were doing was wrong. A defendant relying on the insanity defense has the burden of proving by a preponderance of evidence that they were legally insane at the time of the commission of the offense. (Pleading Insanity in a Criminal Defense Case.)

The Natural Law teaches us that certain actions are wrong of their very nature and can never be justified. The Natural Law cannot be “nullified” by a popular plebiscite or by the enactment of legislation or by the issuance of a court decree. It is. It exists. To assert that there is no absolute measure upon which all human behavior is to be based is to make an absolute statement that nothing is absolutely morally true. Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionaries, modern Sophists to a man (and to a fairy, it should be noted), are working as feverishly as possible to soothe the guilty consciences of those who are desperate for “official” approval” as though such “approval” could “nullify” the objectively true moral order.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio, of course, is of one mind with the likes of “Father” Eberhard Shockenhoff and his mentor, Commissar Reinhard Marx. His disdain for the purity of doctrine and for the necessity of moral probity on matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments has been on display throughout the course of the past nearly thirty months, including in a video message that he sent to the Second International Congress of Theology, which was held from September 1, 2015, to September 3, 2015, in his home city of Buenos Aires, Argentina, where he first honed his skills as a theological destroyer and “pastoral innovator.”

Here is the first excerpt from Jorge’s video message. Each excerpt will be followed by a translation from the conciliarspeak into plain English:

“The anniversary of the Faculty of Theology celebrates the coming to maturity of a particular Church. It celebrates life, history, the faith of the People of God journeying on earth and in search of 'understanding' and 'truth' from their own positions. … It seems to me of great importance to link this event with the 50th anniversary of the Closing of Vatican Council II. There exists no isolated particular Church that can be said to be the owner and sole interpreter of the reality and the work of the Spirit. No community has a monopoly over interpretation or inculturation just as, on the other hand, there is no universal Church that turns away from, ignores or neglects the local situation”.  (Doctrine must never be apart from pastoral context.)

Translation:

The “reality and the work of the Spirit” signifies Jorge’s belief in the condemned Modernist precept of dogmatic evolutionism, which is also known as “process theology,” “living tradition” and as “the hermeneutic of continuity.” Each phrase signifies the same false principle, namely, that dogmatic truth is historically conditioned by the circumstances in which it was formulated in a language that can never capture the varieties of its meaning, which is why “adjustments” must be made by succeeding generations of men according to the “needs” of their own time.

This, of course, has been condemned specifically by the authority of the Catholic Church:

Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.

God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.

The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .

3. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from that which the church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of the light of the pure faith.

But since it is not enough to avoid the contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions, though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III, Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870.)

Let Jorge Mario Begoglio be anthema as he and his false beliefs were anthematized over sixty-six and one-half years prior to his birth on December 19, 1976.

Pope Saint Pius X reiterated this anthematization of Bergoglio's belief in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:

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

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

Jorge is also saying that “no universal Church can turn away from, ignore or neglect the “local situation,” which means that the Supreme Pastor on earth must be willing to “adjust” doctrine according to the “on-the-ground” situation in the actual lives of Catholics while maintaining the fiction that the doctrine has not been changed at all. The Vicar of Christ, however, is the sole and infallible teacher of the Catholic Faith:

To the second excerpt from Jorge’s video message to the apostates in Buenos Aires, Argentina, a week ago today, that is, on September 3, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Pius X:

“And this leads us to assume that it is not the same to be a Christian … in India, in Canada, or in Rome. Therefore, one of the main tasks of the theologian is to discern and to reflect on what it means to be a Christian today, in the 'here and now'. How does that original source manage to irrigate these lands today, and to make itself visible and liveable? … To meet this challenge, we must overcome two possible temptations: first, condemning everything: … assuming 'everything was better in the past', seeking refuge in conservatism or fundamentalism, or conversely, consecrating everything, disavowing everything that does not have a 'new flavour', relativising all the wisdom accumulated in our rich ecclesial heritage. The path to overcoming these temptations lies in reflection, discernment, and taking both the ecclesiastical tradition and current reality very seriously, placing them in dialogue with one another”. (Doctrine must never be apart from pastoral context.)

Translation:

Jorge believes it is necessary to go to the “original source” without the “filters” provided by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, especially Saint Thomas Aquinas and his scholasticism, that have “corrupted” the ability of the “message” to “irrigate the land today, and to make itself visible and invisible.” He believes in a nonexistent “dialogue” between “ecclesiastical tradition and the current reality” while at the same time condemning (with tongue-in-cheek, of course) those who relativize “our rich ecclesial heritage.” Modernists always seek to position themselves as “moderates” who are simply attempting to “discern” where the “spirit” wants to lead the Church while paying lip-service to a “respect” for tradition that is contradicted by the very “pastoral innovations” that he himself has authorized, including his latest “Motu Proprio” (see Motu Inapproprio.).

Pope Pius XII condemned these falsehoods in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950:

In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.

Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.

It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.

Unfortunately these advocates of novelty easily pass from despising scholastic theology to the neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself, which gives such authoritative approval to scholastic theology. This Teaching Authority is represented by them as a hindrance to progress and an obstacle in the way of science. Some non Catholics consider it as an unjust restraint preventing some more qualified theologians from reforming their subject. And although this sacred Office of Teacher in matters of faith and morals must be the proximate and universal criterion of truth for all theologians, since to it has been entrusted by Christ Our Lord the whole deposit of faith -- Sacred Scripture and divine Tradition -- to be preserved, guarded and interpreted, still the duty that is incumbent on the faithful to flee also those errors which more or less approach heresy, and accordingly "to keep also the constitutions and decrees by which such evil opinions are proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See," is sometimes as little known as if it did not exist. What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

To the next excerpt from Bergoglio’s September 3, 2015, video address:

“Not infrequently an opposition between theology and pastoral ministry emerges, as if they were two opposite, separate realities that had nothing to do with each other. We not infrequently identify doctrine with conservatism and antiquity; and on the contrary, we tend to think of pastoral ministry in terms of adaptation, reduction, accommodation. As if they had nothing to do with each other. A false opposition is generated between theology and pastoral ministry, between Christian reflection and Christian life. … The attempt to overcome this divorce between theology and pastoral ministry, between faith and life, was indeed one of the main contributions of Vatican Council II”.

“I cannot overlook the words of John XXIII in the Council's opening discourse, when he said 'The substance of the ancient doctrine of the depositum fidei is one thing; and the way in which it is presented is another'. We must turn again ... to the arduous task of distinguishing the living message from the form of its transmission, from the cultural elements in which it is codified at a given time”.

“Do not allow the exercise of discernment to lead to a betrayal of the content of the message. The lack of this theological exercise detrimental to the mission we are invited to perform. Doctrine is not a closed, private system deprived of dynamics able to raise questions and doubts. On the contrary, Christian doctrine has a face, a body, flesh; He is called Jesus Christ and it is His Life that is offered from generation to generation to all men and in all places”. (Doctrine must never be apart from pastoral context.)

Translation:

Well, there you have it.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio cited “Saint John XXIII’s” own Modernist belief in a “living message” that be “distinguish from the form of its transmission, from the cultural elements in which it is codified at a given time.

Anyone who asserts that Angelo Roncalli, The Great Usurper, was not a Modernist who believed in dogmatic evolutionism is intellectually dishonest. He knew exactly what he was starting when he issued his call for the “Second” Vatican Council on January 25, 1959, the Feast of the Conversion of Saint Paul the Apostle, just three days shy of the third month anniversary of his fraudulent “election” as “Pope John XXIII,” who sought to have his body preserved with toxic formulae that caused the death of several of those who formulated it.

Doctrine is not a closed, private system of dynamics able to raise questions and doubts?

Rank heresy.

To pose that a knowledge of Our Blessed Lord Saviour Jesus Christ, Who revealed the doctrines of the Catholic Church, which have been explicated by her under the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, is dependent on “each generation” is assert that nothing is fixed or stable in Divine Revelation that cannot undone at a later time.

Philosophically absurd.

Dogmatically condemned.

See the quotes from the [First] Vatican Council and Pope Saint Pius X again.

See the quotation below from The Oath Against Modernism:

Catholic doctrine never admit of any doubts. It must be held firmly and securely. Jorge is, of course, saying “errors” have been made in the past, although he attributes those errors to the “limitations” of human language even though the formulation of what is contained in the Sacred Deposit Faith has been guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost, who “changed His mind,” we must believe, after directing Holy Mother Church with a single voice without any deviations, contradictions or doubts.

This what the Catholic Church, guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost, has taught about "innovations" and "doubts" concerning the meaning of the articles contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There can be no doubt in anything pertaining to the Catholic Faith as Pope Pius XI has assured us that the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church 'was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

As has been noted so many times on this site in the past nearly thirty months, the Argentine Apostate is a textbook Modernism, believing that religious faith arises from the "people" and their alleged "needs," which the imposter at the Casa Santa Marta kept reiterating over and over again in his brief video message that mocked Pope Saint Pius X on the very day that his feast is celebrated in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church:

The questions our people pose, their anguish, their quarrels, their dreams, their struggles, their concerns all have hermeneutical value we cannot ignore if we are to take seriously the principal of incarnation. … Our formulations of faith were born of dialogue, encounter, comparison and contact with different cultures, communities and nations in situations calling for greater reflection on matters not previously clarified. For Christians, something becomes suspicious when we no longer admit the need for it to be criticised by others. People and their specific conflicts, their peripheries, are not optional, but rather necessary for a better understanding of faith. Therefore it is important to ask whom we are thinking of when we engage in theology. Let us not forget that the Holy Spirit in a praying people is the subject of theology. A theology that is not born of this would offer something beautiful but not real”. (Doctrine must never be apart from pastoral context.)

Translation:

This would be laughable if it not for the fact that this is completely heretic, offensive to God and harmful to souls.

God and His Sacred Deposit of Faith is the object of theology, not “the Holy Spirit in a praying people,” which is to make the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity a direct inspirer of the “praying people. Blasphemous. Heretic. The “people’s” “anquishes,” “dreams, “struggles,” and “concerns” have no  “hermeneutic value” to “apply the Gospel” to the “reality” of where the “people” live on the peripheries as the “people” must conform their own minds and hearts to the fixed standard of Divine Revelation as It has been taught to us unchanged by Holy Mother Church from time immemorial.

It is no wonder that Oprah Winfrey, a close friend of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro has become something of an adviser to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, echoing the late Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin’s reliance on “Ann Landers. Although she was not present at the Vatican press conference held to announce his “Motu Proprio” on the “no cost, anything goes” nullification of ratified and consummated marriages (a decree of nullity is a finding that a sacramental marriage did not exist from the first moment that the vows had been exchanged as a result of one or more impediments that prevented an actual sacramental bond from being transmitted, not an excuse to permit, in effect, divorce and civil remarriage for the sake of sentimentality and alleged “personal need”), she was certainly there in spirit. Jorge’s attitude about theology is the same as Oprah!’s” attitude about life: touchy-feely emotionalism.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s beliefs have nothing to do with Catholicism. Nothing. They are from Hell. He is a figure of Antichrist.

Too harsh?

Too bad. It happens to be the truth.

To the final excerpt:

1. The theologian is primarily a son of his people. He cannot and does not wish to ignore them. He knows his people, their language, their roots, their histories, their tradition. He is a man who learns to appreciate what he has received as a sign of God's presence because he knows that faith does not belong to him. This leads him to recognise that the Christian people among whom he was born have a theological sense that he cannot ignore.

2. The theologian is a believer. The theologian is someone who has experience of Jesus Christ and has discovered he cannot live without Him. ... The theologian knows that he cannot live without the object / subject of his love, and devotes his life to sharing this with his brothers.

3. The theologian is a prophet. One of the greatest challenges in today's world is not merely the ease with which it is possible to dispense with God; socially it has taken a step further. The current crisis pivots on the inability of people to believe in anything beyond themselves. ... This creates a rift in personal and social identities. This new situation gives rise to a process of alienation, owing to a lack of past and therefore of future. The theologian is thus a prophet, as he keeps alive an awareness of the past and the invitation that comes from the future. He is a able to denounce any alienating form as he intuits, reflecting on the river of Tradition he has received from the Church, the hope to which we are called”.

“Therefore, there is only one way of practising theology: on one's knees. It is not merely the pious act of prayer before then thinking of theology. It is a dynamic reality of thought and prayer. Practising theology on one's knees means encouraging thought when praying and prayer when thinking”. (Doctrine must never be apart from pastoral context.)

Translation:

The theologian must hear the people “sing” and thus a have a “theological sense that he cannot ignore”?

A Catholic theologian must hear the voice of God Himself as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church by means of the Sacred Deposit of Faith, not by “learning” about people and their language and their traditions. A Catholic theologian must be a faithful son of Holy Mother Church, not of the “people” who seek to be reaffirmed in their lives of unrepentant sin.

A prayerful theologian prays with the mind of Holy Mother Church, not of inventing new and varied ways to “adapt” doctrine to the “real lives” of the people.

Pope Saint Pius X used Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, to condemn Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s misrepresentation of theology and his belief, stated in an excerpt above, that there is a “dialogue” between “tradition” and current realities based on an understanding of the “people”:

Having laid down this law of evolution, the Modernists themselves teach us how it operates. And first, with regard to faith. The primitive form of faith, they tell us, was rudimentary and common to all men alike, for it had its origin in human nature and human life. Vital evolution brought with it progress, not by the accretion of new and purely adventitious forms from without, but by an increasing perfusion of the religious sense into the conscience. The progress was of two kinds: negative, by the elimination of all extraneous elements, such, for example, as those derived from the family or nationality; and positive, by that intellectual and moral refining of man, by means of which the idea of the divine became fuller and clearer, while the religious sense became more acute. For the progress of faith the same causes are to be assigned as those which are adduced above to explain its origin. But to them must be added those extraordinary men whom we call prophets -- of whom Christ was the greatest -- both because in their lives and their words there was something mysterious which faith attributed to the divinity, and because it fell to their lot to have new and original experiences fully in harmony with the religious needs of their time. The progress of dogma is due chiefly to the fact that obstacles to the faith have to be surmounted, enemies have to be vanquished, and objections have to be refuted. Add to this a perpetual striving to penetrate ever more profoundly into those things which are contained in the mysteries of faith. Thus, putting aside other examples, it is found to have happened in the case of Christ: in Him that divine something which faith recognized in Him was slowly and gradually expanded in such a way that He was at last held to be God. The chief stimulus of the evolution of worship consists in the need of accommodation to the manners and customs of peoples, as well as the need of availing itself of the value which certain acts have acquired by usage. Finally, evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to historical conditions and of harmonizing itself with existing forms of society. Such is their view with regard to each. And here, before proceeding further, We wish to draw attention to this whole theory of necessities or needs, for beyond all that we have seen, it is, as it were, the base and foundation of that famous method which they describe as historical.

27. Although evolution is urged on by needs or necessities, yet, if controlled by these alone, it would easily overstep the boundaries of tradition, and thus, separated from its primitive vital principle, would make for ruin instead of progress. Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them -- especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them. . . .

28. It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: "These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts." (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Those who do not see that this is a direct condemnation of all that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has ever believed is, to be put very mildly, very deceived.

Brace yourself as Bergoglio will be proselytizing in behalf of his heresies, each of which has been anathematized, when he arrived here in the United States of America just thirteen days from now, Wednesday, September 23, 2015, the Feast of Pope Saint Linus I and the Commemoration of Saint Thecla, after having reaffirmed the Castro brothers in their work of “social reconstruction and renewal” in Cuba for six interminably long days of yakking.

The Prophet Isaias, who was truly and directed inspired by God the Holy Ghost, condemned the efforts of Bergoglio and company to redefine objective evil as “good” and necessary of being “approved” in order to “respond” to the “sense of the people,” especially those who are said to live on the “existential peripheries”:

[20] Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

[21] Woe to you that are wise in your own eyes, and prudent in your own conceits. [22] Woe to you that are mighty to drink wine, and stout men at drunkenness. [23] That justify the wicked for gifts, and take away the justice of the just from him. [24] Therefore as the tongue of the fire devoureth the stubble, and the heat of the dame consumeth it: so shall their root be as ashes, and their bud shall go up as dust: for they have cast away the law of the Lord of hosts, and have blasphemed the word of the Holy One of Israel. [25] Therefore is the wrath of the Lord kindled against his people, and he hath stretched out his hand upon them, and struck them: and the mountains were troubled, and their carcasses became as dung in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still. (Isais 5: 20-25.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his gaggle of theological, liturgical, moral and pastoral thugs have reversed the countercultural role that a true pope and his popes must play in behalf of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour and His Sacred Deposit Faith. Right is wrong and wrong can be made “right” if enough people are doing it.

We must continue to trust in Our Lady during this times when right is called wrong, the existence of objective truth, both supernatural and natural, is said to admit of uncertainty, and a putative “pope” can mouth one Modernist cliché after another with complete impunity as the “people” who are stepped in “evil” see him as the one who can “ratify” their lives of wanton sin and thus shut up anyone who would dare to tell them to reform their lives. Every Rosary we offer up as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary plants a few seeds for the restoration of the papacy and thus of the fulfillment of Our Lady’s Fatima Message and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Beloved, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saint Nicholas of Tolentino, pray for us.