As has been the case unerringly, perhaps even infallibly, since the supposed "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, the then seventy-six year-old Jorge Mario "Cardinal" Bergoglio, walked on the Balcony of the Basilica of Saint Peter on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, La Civilta Cattholica, the semi-official Roman journal of the Society of Jesus in its conciliar captivity of which Bergoglio is now the de facto non-father general, continues to serve as the means by which the Argentine Apostate may float various "trial balloons" that wind up becoming the foundation of future non-papal actions, although sometimes he uses his "ordinary" and "extraordinary" "synod of bishops" to provide himself with a fig leaf of "episcopal collegiality" to mask the fact that whatever Jorge wants, Jorge gets.
Jorge wants women "priests" even though he said three months ago that he wants no such thing. The false "pontiff" would not have permitted La Civilta Cattolica to put into question the binding nature of "Saint John Paul II's" 1994 statement concerning the inadmissabiity of women to what is considered to be the Holy Priesthood wihtin the structures of the Roman Rite of the false conciliar sect.
How can this be?
Well, read Vaticanologist Sandro Magister's Vatican Insider article, which includes a good part of the La Civilta Cattolica article itself:
On August 2, 2016, Pope Francis instituted a commission to study the history of the female diaconate, for the purpose of its possible restoration. And some have seen this as a first step toward priesthood for women, in spite of the fact that Francis himself seems to have ruled it out absolutely, responding as follows to a question on the return flight from his journey to Sweden last November 1 (in the photo, his embrace with Swedish Lutheran archbishop Antje Jackelen):
"For the ordination of women in the Catholic Church, the last clear word was given by Saint John Paul II, and this holds."
But to read the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” the question of women priests appears to be anything but closed. On the contrary, wide open.
“La Civiltà Cattolica” is not just any magazine. By statute, every line of it is printed after inspection by the Holy See. But in addition there is the very close confidential relationship between Jorge Mario Bergoglio and the magazine’s editor, the Jesuit Antonio Spadaro.
Who in turn has his most trusted colleague in deputy editor Giancarlo Pani, he too a Jesuit like all the writers of the magazine.
So then, in the article with his byline that appears in the latest issue of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” Fr. Pani calmly rips to shreds the “last clear word” - meaning the flat no - that John Paul II spoke against women’s priesthood.
To see how, all it takes is to reread this passage of the article, properly speaking dedicated to the question of women priests, but taking the cue from there to express hopes for women priests as well.
ONE CANNOT SIMPLY RESORT TO THE PAST
by Giancarlo Pani, S.J.
[…] On Pentecost of 1994, Pope John Paul II summarized, in the apostolic letter “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis,” the outcome of a series of previous magisterial statements (including “Inter Insigniores”), concluding that Jesus has chosen only men for the priestly ministry. Therefore “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women. This judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”
The statement was a clear word for those who maintained that the refusal of priestly ordination for women could be discussed. Nonetheless, […] some time later, following the problems raised not so much by the doctrine as by the force with which it was presented, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was presented with a question: can “ordinatio sacerdotalis” be “considered as belonging to the deposit of the faith?” The answer was “affirmative,” and the doctrine was described as “infallibiliter proposita,” meaning that “it must be held always, everywhere, and by all the faithful.”
Difficulties with the answer’s reception have created “tensions” in relations between magisterium and theology over the connected problems. These are pertinent to the fundamental theology on infallibility. It is the first time in history that the congregation explicitly appealed to the constitution “Lumen Gentium” no. 25, which proclaims the infallibility of a doctrine that is taught as definitively binding by the bishops dispersed throughout the world but in communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter.
Moreover, the question touches upon the theology of the sacraments, because it concerns the subject of the sacrament of Orders, which traditionally is indeed man, but this does not take into account the developments that the presence of woman in the family and in society has undergone in the 21st century. This is a matter of ecclesial dignity, responsibility, and participation.
The historical fact of the exclusion of woman from the priesthood because of the “impedimentum sexus” is undeniable. Nevertheless, already in 1948, and therefore well ahead of the disputes of the 1960’s, Fr. Congar pointed out that “the absence of a fact is not a decisive criterion for concluding prudently in every case that the Church cannot do it and will never do it.”
Moreover, another theologian adds, the “consensus fidelium” of many centuries has been called into question in the 20th century above all on account of the profound sociocultural changes concerning woman. It would not make sense to maintain that the Church must change only because the times have changed, but it remains true that a doctrine proposed by the Church needs to be understood by the believing intelligence. The dispute over women priests could be set in parallel with other moments of Church history; in any case, today in the question of female priesthood the “auctoritates,” or official positions of the magisterium, are clear, but many Catholics have a hard time understanding the “rationes” of decisions that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism. Today there is unease among those who fail to understand how the exclusion of woman from the Church’s ministry can coexist with the affirmation and appreciation of her equal dignity.” […]
In the judgment of “La Civiltà Cattolica,” therefore, not only should the infallibility and definitiveness of John Paul II’s “no” to women priests be brought into doubt, but more important than this “no” are the “developments that the presence of woman in the family and society has undergone in the 21st century.”
These developments - the reasoning of the magazine continues - now render incomprehensible the “rationes” for prohibitions “that, more than expressions of authority, appear to signify authoritarianism.”
“One cannot always resort to the past, as if only in the past are there indications of the Spirit. Today as well the Spirit is guiding the Church and suggesting the courageous assumption of new perspectives.”
And Francis is the first “not to limit himself to what is already known, but wants to delve into a complex and relevant field, so that it may be the Spirit who guides the Church,” concludes “La Civiltà Cattolica,” evidently with the pope’s imprimatur. (Latest From Casa Santa Marta Opens Doors for Women Priests.)
"Father" Giancarolo Pani, S.J., is merely a "front man" for the octogenarian juvenille delinquent who lives in the Casa Santa Marta in an ostenatious display of his rejection of "papal" pomp and privilege. Pani is thus doing for the absurdity of the "women priests" what Walter "Cardinal" Kasper did three years ago when helping to provide the rationale for the administration of what purports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service to Catholics who are divorced and civilly "remarried" without a decree of marital nullity from a conciliar marriage tribunal. Kasper was Bergoglio's front man for what became Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, whose torch has been carried by numerous allies of the false "pontiff's," and Pani is the "front man" for what will become a "top-down" movement rouse the Jacobins/Bolesheviks within the concilicar stuctures to start talking from the pulpit about God's "dreams" and "surprises.
One will note that "Father" Pani's article is based on a completley Modernist view of Catholic doctrine, one that responds to the "times" and is thus in line with the "expectations" of the "people" in an era of egalitarianism that rejects any form of authoritative teaching as nothing other than an unjust authoritarianism.
Pope Pius IX, writing at the end of The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, condemned the proposition that the Roman Pontiff should and must accommodate himself to the tenor of the times:
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.- -Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
By the way, one will search in vain for any listing of The Syllabus of Errors on the webpage for Pope Pius IX on the Vatican website. One will also search in vain for Pope Gregory XVI's condemnation of liberalism, including religious indifferentism, liberty of conscience and separation of Church and State, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, on the Vatican's page for his pontificate. And even though the page for Pope Saint Pius X does list Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, and Praestantia Scripturae, November 18, 1907, one will look in vain for our last truly canonized legitimate pontiff's condemnation of The Sillon, whose principles are identical to those of conciliarism in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.
Speaking of Pope Saint Pius X, the following passage from Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, demonstrates "Father" Giancarlo Pani, S.J., is a Modernist in the pattern of his fellow lay Jesuit, Senor Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and of each of his predecessors since the accession of the old Sillonist, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII, as the first of the current line of antipopes on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude:
34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)
For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical.
Pope Pius IX and the Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council condemned such views on April 24, 1870. a condemnation that was taken up anew by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sense. But the object of the religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907. See the Appendices below for another recitation of the Vatican Council's condemnations of everything that the conciliar "popes," including Karol Josef Wotyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio)
Behold a false religion, conciliarism, that is built on an edifice of sophisms that have indeed ruined and wrecked the average Catholic’s understanding of the Holy Faith. This edifice of sophisms has produced such instability and uncertainty in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that Joseph Ratziner/Benedict XVI’s interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council can be swept away by the next by using the exact same “hermeneutic” that he been used to sweep away the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church in order to justify the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, condemned interpretations of Sacred Scripture according to an unfettered use of the historical-critical method of modern Scriptural exegesis and, of course, ever-changing liturgical rites and pastoral practice.
As descendants of the original Modernists by way of the "New Theology," the conciliar revolutionaries have been able to build their false religion by overcoming three difficulties that had been identified by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907, that stood in their way of all Modernists to advance their errors and heresies:
42. Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.''
The Modernists pass judgment on the holy Fathers of the Church even as they do upon tradition. With consummate temerity they assure the public that the Fathers, while personally most worthy of all veneration, were entirely ignorant of history and criticism, for which they are only excusable on account of the time in which they lived. Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries. To the entire band of Modernists may be applied those words which Our predecessor sorrowfully wrote: "To bring contempt and odium on the mystic Spouse of Christ, who is the true light, the children of darkness have been wont to cast in her face before the world a stupid calumny, and perverting the meaning and force of things and words, to depict her as the friend of darkness and ignorance, and the enemy of light, science, and progress.''This being so, Venerable Brethren, there is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but their usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obstinacy. When an adversary rises up against them with an erudition and force that renders them redoubtable, they seek to make a conspiracy of silence around him to nullify the effects of his attack. This policy towards Catholics is the more invidious in that they belaud with admiration which knows no bounds the writers who range themselves on their side, hailing their works, exuding novelty in every page, with a chorus of applause. For them the scholarship of a writer is in direct proportion to the recklessness of his attacks on antiquity, and of his efforts to undermine tradition and the ecclesiastical magisterium. When one of their number falls under the condemnations of the Church the rest of them, to the disgust of good Catholics, gather round him, loudly and publicly applaud him, and hold him up in veneration as almost a martyr for truth. The young, excited and confused by all this clamor of praise and abuse, some of them afraid of being branded as ignorant, others ambitious to rank among the learned, and both classes goaded internally by curiosity and pride, not infrequently surrender and give themselves up to Modernism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 2007.)
These two paragraphs describe the modus operandi of each of the conciliar "popes" even though they have used different terms to describe their truly rigid adherence to the "evolution of dogma" that is the foundation of their entire false belief system. Indeed, these two paragraphs are really all one needs to know when reading anything written by the conciliar "popes," especially the three who have been the most prolific: Wojtyla/John Paul II, Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio. Each has disparaged Scholasticism and Tradition, although they have done so in different ways, and they have done so in direct defiance of Catholic teaching, including the following proposition that was condemned by Pope Pius XI in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864:
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. -- Ibid. (Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864.)
It is very easy to ignore Catholic doctrine once one decides to make of Catholicism what one will because it just "has" to "change" to appeal to the people.
This reminds me of the second article of mine that appeared in The Wanderer after the late, nefarious Modernist named Joseph Benardin, who was a true bishop, wrote in late-1992 concerning the necessity of "women priests." Indeed, the title of that article was taken from the following words of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ after most of the crowd who had eaten of the loaves and fishes he multiplied just a short while before turned away from Him after hearing His Eucharistic Discourse that was too much for them to bear:
 And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.  After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.  Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?  And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.  And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.
 Jesus answered them: Have not I chosen you twelve; and one of you is a devil?  Now he meant Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon: for this same was about to betray him, whereas he was one of the twelve. (John 6: 66-72.)
Our Lord did not become Incarnate in Our Lady's Virginal and Immaculate Womb by the power of God the Holy Ghost at the Annunciation to curry favor with the very rational creatures whose sins he came to redeem. He did not die on the wood of the Holy Cross to tickle the ears of the hateful Jews who, motivated in large part by our own sins having transcended time, put Him to death and taunted Him as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood atop the dung heap of Gologtha to redeem them even though they did not want to believe that He was doing so. Our Lord came to teach us His immutable truth, and no amount of sophisims from lay Jesuits can change that fact.
In truth of course, Joseph "Cardinal" Bernardin, was not the first to advance the agenda for women "priests." Indeed, I had the privilege in the Fall of 1984 of compiling a name index for an anthology of his articles that were published under the title of Women Priests and Other Fantasies, finding time for this while I was teaching three courses as an adjunct professor in the Department of Government and Politics at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York. Although I had spent a year living in the same residence, Saint Philip's Hall, at Holy Apostles Seminary as Father Miceli in the 1983-1984 academic year, and got to know him very well during that time, I was very impressed with the careful nature of his good Catholic scholarship in the book he asked me to index. This scholarship was also evident in his other books, including his doctoral dissertation at Fordham University,Ascent to Being, and The Gods of Atheism, The Antichrist, The Roots of Violence and his last book, a collection of retreat talks, Rendezvous with God.
Father Miceli, who entered the New Orleans Province of the Society of Jesus in 1936 at the age of twenty-one and was ordained to the Holy Priesthood in 1949, was, though, a boy from the South Bronx to the core of his pugnacious being. He was a street-fighter without peer. He loved to tear heretics to shreds with his incisive intelligence and his sharp, biting wit. One of his favorite ways of referring to a Catholic who dissent from the Sacred Deposit of Faith was by saying, "He [or she] is a disaaaaassta!"
To wit, pun completely intended, Father Miceli was eating a tuna fish salad sandwich in the refectory of Holy Apostles Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut, in September of 1983. I was seated at the table with him along with two seminarians, Michael Scott and Anthony Mary Dandry, who were installed as presbyters for the Diocese of Metuchen in 1987 and 1989, respectively (both now deceased).
Also at the table was a woman who was taking theology courses at the seminary for "theological fulfillment" just "in case" God the Holy Ghost "changed His mind" about ordaining women to the priesthood. Father Miceli patiently gave one learned explanation after another to this woman to show her about the ontological impossibility of ordaining women to the priesthood. Finally, however, Father Miceli, having reached the point of total intellectual exasperation, just shook his head in disbelief and spoke while chewing his tuna fish salad sandwich, "Lady, you're crazy!" He then smiled broadly, being very pleased with himself, and looked from side to side for approvals of satisfaction from the rest of us, which he, quite of course, received.
Well, "Father" Giancaro Pani's article in La Civilta Cattolica confirms that “women priests” are no longer the stuff of fantasies in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Like everything else in the false conciliar sect, today’s forbidden practice is tomorrow’s “innovation” that is approved by the conciliar officials in the Vatican after decades of disobedience has accustomed the “people” to a feature that has no precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. The same will be true one day of “women priests," and Giancarlo Pani's article indicates that such a day may not be too long in the offing.
Conciliarism has opened up a veritable Pandora's Box of relentless change and innovation that has robbed millions upon millions of Catholics of their sensus Catholicus and bewildered and confused those who do have something left of that sensus Catholicus. Protestations against the nonadmissability of women to the priesthood ring rather hollow when one considers the fact that women can touch what is purported to be the Sacred Species with their own hands as they distribute Holy Communion to the faithful in their roles as "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist." Women can proclaim the Word of God as lectors. They can lead "priestless" "Communion services." They can serve as administrators of parishes, having the responsibility, given to them by their "ordinaries," to supervise the work of "priests," thereby further emasculating the notion of the priesthood as an imaging of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass.
There are women serving as chancellors of the Catholic dioceses that are now in the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries. There has even been some talk from officials in the conciliar Vatican of permitting deaconesses. With little else in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has not been subject to change and reconsideration and reinterpretation, why should the average Catholic think that Our Lord's own choice exclusively of males to His Holy Priesthood is not going to "change" at some point in the future.
I asked Dr. John Page, the Executive Director of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (I.C.E.L.) from 1980 to 2002, when interviewing him in his offices in Washington, District of Columbia, for The Wanderer in 1993 if any of the scores of "experts" listed as ICEL's advisors supported ordination of women to the priesthood. He gave a vague answer, saying only that it was his job and that of I.C.E.L. to "push the liturgy into the Twenty-first Century." That answer was not a denial of the presence of perhaps even large number of ICEL "advisors" who supported women's ordination to the conciliar presbyterate, something that many theologians in the conciliar structures have long contended is only a "matter of time."
Even though Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II had reiterated the impossibility of the ordination of women to what is purported to be the Catholic priesthood, the expectations created by egalitarianism and feminism encouraged by the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service helped to prepare the way for ever newer “changes” on the level of universal praxis in the conciliar world after years of acts of disobedience that went unpunished by one conciliar “pope” after another.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has long cleaved to the Jacobin/Girondist view of the conciliar revolution, is merely ending any pretense that there is any token “opposition” inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River to “unapproved” practices that he believes is tearing down the “walls of exclusion” that have thus prevented women from what he believes is their rightful place in the leadership of liturgy and church administration. In other words, the Argentine Apostate, serving the role of the adversary himself, wants to place women over men, thus inverting the very order of Creation (Nature) and Redemption (Grace) signified by Our Lady’s humble fiat to the will of God the Father at the Annunciation that untied the knot of Eve’s prideful disobedience to God when she ate from the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Conciliarism has thus resulted in creating expectations that lead people into believing that ontological absurdities are possible even though its own officialdom does not see how this has occurred. Moreover, the exigencies of false ecumenism have been such that those in false religions believe that they have a mission from God Himself to "push" what they believe to be the "Catholic" Church further and further in the direction of the "enlightenment" represented by the most revolutionary strains of modern though, strains that reject the subordination of women even to Our Lord Himself (which is what the chapel veil signifies) and emphasizes the strict equality of all men at all times in all circumstances in order to appease the insatiable pride of those who do not accept the simple fact that each of us, whether a man or a woman, must conform our lives at all times to the Mind of God Himself as He has discharged It exclusively in the Catholic Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope. Such a due submission of men and women to the authority of the Catholic Church is opposed to the spirit of the "enlightenment," which rejects the Social and Personal Kingship of Jesus Christ over nations and over individual human beings, a spirit which exults in the unabashed "freedoms of speech, of press, and of religion" that permit error to be spread and souls to be confused by all manner of insidious poisons.
Moreover, while Jorge Mario Bergoglio has spoken out against the admissibility of women to the conciliar presbyterate, he has done so solely because of the fact that Karol Wojtyla/John Paul reaffirmed the inadmissibility of women to Holy Orders in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, May 22, 1994, not because he, Bergoglio, believes, that it is ontologically impossible for women to be ordained:
102. Lay people are, put simply, the vast majority of the people of God. The minority – ordained ministers – are at their service. There has been a growing awareness of the identity and mission of the laity in the Church. We can count on many lay persons, although still not nearly enough, who have a deeply-rooted sense of community and great fidelity to the tasks of charity, catechesis and the celebration of the faith. At the same time, a clear awareness of this responsibility of the laity, grounded in their baptism and confirmation, does not appear in the same way in all places. In some cases, it is because lay persons have not been given the formation needed to take on important responsibilities. In others, it is because in their particular Churches room has not been made for them to speak and to act, due to an excessive clericalism which keeps them away from decision-making. Even if many are now involved in the lay ministries, this involvement is not reflected in a greater penetration of Christian values in the social, political and economic sectors. It often remains tied to tasks within the Church, without a real commitment to applying the Gospel to the transformation of society. The formation of the laity and the evangelization of professional and intellectual life represent a significant pastoral challenge.
103. The Church acknowledges the indispensable contribution which women make to society through the sensitivity, intuition and other distinctive skill sets which they, more than men, tend to possess. I think, for example, of the special concern which women show to others, which finds a particular, even if not exclusive, expression in motherhood. I readily acknowledge that many women share pastoral responsibilities with priests, helping to guide people, families and groups and offering new contributions to theological reflection. But we need to create still broader opportunities for a more incisive female presence in the Church. Because “the feminine genius is needed in all expressions in the life of society, the presence of women must also be guaranteed in the workplace” and in the various other settings where important decisions are made, both in the Church and in social structures.
104. Demands that the legitimate rights of women be respected, based on the firm conviction that men and women are equal in dignity, present the Church with profound and challenging questions which cannot be lightly evaded. The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion, but it can prove especially divisive if sacramental power is too closely identified with power in general. It must be remembered that when we speak of sacramental power “we are in the realm of function, not that of dignity or holiness”. The ministerial priesthood is one means employed by Jesus for the service of his people, yet our great dignity derives from baptism, which is accessible to all. The configuration of the priest to Christ the head – namely, as the principal source of grace – does not imply an exaltation which would set him above others. In the Church, functions “do not favour the superiority of some vis-à-vis the others”. Indeed, a woman, Mary, is more important than the bishops. Even when the function of ministerial priesthood is considered “hierarchical”, it must be remembered that “it is totally ordered to the holiness of Christ’s members”. Its key and axis is not power understood as domination, but the power to administer the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the origin of its authority, which is always a service to God’s people. This presents a great challenge for pastors and theologians, who are in a position to recognize more fully what this entails with regard to the possible role of women in decision-making in different areas of the Church’s life. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)
Note how Jorge Mario Bergoglio referred to the "ministerial," not the sacerdotal (sacrificing), priesthood.
Moreover, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had the temerity to disparage the power that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, He Who is the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass, our High Priest Who governs us in all things, has given to his ordained priests to teach, rule and sanctify in His Holy Name. Bergoglio also dared to claim the priesthood is but a mere "function" that is not in the "realm" of "dignity" and holiness."
This man is a blaspheming heretic, one who makes a liar of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and of the teaching He gave to Holy Mother Church that has been guided infallibly by God the Holy Ghost.
Pope Pius XII's Mediator Dei refuted Bergoglio's reduction of the Holy Priesthood to but a mere function and not one that is separate and distinct from that of the common priesthood shared by each baptized Catholic:
83. For there are today, Venerable Brethren, those who, approximating to errors long since condemned teach that in the New Testament by the word "priesthood" is meant only that priesthood which applies to all who have been baptized; and hold that the command by which Christ gave power to His apostles at the Last Supper to do what He Himself had done, applies directly to the entire Christian Church, and that thence, and thence only, arises the hierarchical priesthood. Hence they assert that the people are possessed of a true priestly power, while the priest only acts in virtue of an office committed to him by the community. Wherefore, they look on the eucharistic sacrifice as a "concelebration," in the literal meaning of that term, and consider it more fitting that priests should "concelebrate" with the people present than that they should offer the sacrifice privately when the people are absent.
84. It is superfluous to explain how captious errors of this sort completely contradict the truths which we have just stated above, when treating of the place of the priest in the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. But we deem it necessary to recall that the priest acts for the people only because he represents Jesus Christ, who is Head of all His members and offers Himself in their stead. Hence, he goes to the altar as the minister of Christ, inferior to Christ but superior to the people. The people, on the other hand, since they in no sense represent the divine Redeemer and are not mediator between themselves and God, can in no way possess the sacerdotal power. (Pope Pius XII,Mediator Dei, November 20, 1947.)
That is pretty clear, is it not?
The priest his superior to the people by the virtue of the indelible seal that was impressed upon His immortal soul at his ordination when he his soul was conformed to the Priesthood and Victimhood of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for all eternity. He is to be treated with dignity and respect as befits the ineffable powers given unto him to utter mere words over the mere elements of the earth, thus calling down Christ the King from Heaven!
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's concept of a mere sacramental functionary whose "function" possesses no inherent dignity or holiness blasphemes Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself Who instituted His Holy Priesthood at the Last Supper with His own royal dignity, holiness and power.
Although Jorge Mario Bergoglio explained that the ordained priest "administers the Eucharist," he omitted what Pope Pius XI, writing in Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, December 30, 1935, explained at great length: the power to remit sins:
20. But among all these powers of the priest over the Mystical Body of Christ for the benefit of the faithful, there is one of which the simple mention made above will not content Us. This is that power which, as St. John Chrysostom says: "God gave neither to Angels nor Archangels" --the power to remit sins. "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain they are retained"; a tremendous power, so peculiar to God that even human pride could not make the mind conceive that it could be given to man. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And, when we see it exercised by a mere man there is reason to ask ourselves, not, indeed, with pharisaical scandal, but with reverent surprise at such a dignity: "Who is this that forgiveth sins also?" But it is so: the God-Man who possessed the "power on earth to forgive sins" willed to hand it on to His priests; to relieve, in His divine generosity and mercy, the need of moral purification which is rooted in the human heart.
21. What a comfort to the guilty, when, stung with remorse and repenting of his sins, he hears the word of the priest who says to him in God's name: "I absolve thee from thy sins!" These words fall, it is true, from the lips of one who, in his turn, must needs beg the same absolution from another priest. This does not debase the merciful gift; but makes it, rather, appear greater; since beyond the weak creature is seen more clearly the hand of God through whose power is wrought this wonder. As an illustrious layman has written, treating with rare competence of spiritual things: ". . . when a priest, groaning in spirit at his own unworthiness and at the loftiness of his office, places his consecrated hands upon our heads; when, humiliated at finding himself the dispenser of the Blood of the Covenant; each time amazed as he pronounces the words that give life; when a sinner has absolved a sinner; we, who rise from our knees before him, feel we have done nothing debasing. . . We have been at the feet of a man who represented Jesus Christ, . . . we have been there to receive the dignity of free men and of sons of God."
22. These august powers are conferred upon the priest in a special Sacrament designed to this end: they are not merely passing or temporary in the priest, but are stable and perpetual, united as they are with the indelible character imprinted on his soul whereby he becomes "a priest forever"; whereby he becomes like unto Him in whose eternal priesthood he has been made a sharer. Even the most lamentable downfall, which, through human frailty, is possible to a priest, can never blot out from his soul the priestly character. But along with this character and these powers, the priest through the Sacrament of Orders receives new and special grace with special helps. Thereby, if only he will loyally further, by his free and personal cooperation, the divinely powerful action of the grace itself, he will be able worthily to fulfill all the duties, however arduous, of his lofty calling. He will not be overborne, but will be able to bear the tremendous responsibilities inherent to his priestly duty; responsibilities which have made fearful even the stoutest champions of the Christian priesthood, men like St. John Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Gregory the Great, St. Charles and many others. (Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, December 30, 1935.)
Pope Pius XI also wrote of the inherent dignity and holiness of the priesthood, which is why a priest must remember his sacerdotal dignity and strive for a greater holiness of life than that of the lay faithful:
31. Most sublime, then, Venerable Brethren, is the dignity of the priesthood. Even the falling away of the few unworthy in the priesthood, however deplorable and distressing it may be, cannot dim the splendor of so lofty a dignity. Much less can the unworthiness of a few cause the worth and merit of so many to be overlooked; and how many have been, and are, in the priesthood, preeminent in holiness, in learning, in works of zeal, nay, even in martyrdom.
32. Nor must it be forgotten that personal unworthiness does not hinder the efficacy of a priest's ministry. For the unworthiness of the minister does not make void the Sacraments he administers; since the Sacraments derive their efficacy from the Blood of Christ, independently of the sanctity of the instrument, or, as scholastic language expresses it, the Sacraments work their effect ex opere operato.
33. Nevertheless, it is quite true that so holy an office demands holiness in him who holds it. A priest should have a loftiness of spirit, a purity of heart and a sanctity of life befitting the solemnity and holiness of the office he holds. For this, as We have said, makes the priest a mediator between God and man; a mediator in the place, and by the command of Him who is "the one mediator of God and men, the man Jesus Christ." The priest must, therefore, approach as close as possible to the perfection of Him whose vicar he is, and render himself ever more and more pleasing to God, by the sanctity of his life and of his deeds; because more than the scent of incense, or the beauty of churches and altars, God loves and accepts holiness. "They who are the intermediaries between God and His people," says St. Thomas, "must bear a good conscience before God, and a good name among men." On the contrary, whosoever handles and administers holy things, while blameworthy in his life, profanes them and is guilty of sacrilege: "They who are not holy ought not to handle holy things."
34. For this reason even in the Old Testament God commanded His priests and levites: "Let them therefore be holy because I am also holy: the Lord who sanctify them." In his canticle for the dedication of the temple, Solomon the Wise made this same request to the Lord in favor of the sons of Aaron: "Let Thy priests be clothed with justice: and let Thy saints rejoice." So, Venerable Brethren, may we not ask with St. Robert Bellarmine: "If so great uprightness, holiness and lively devotion was required of priests who offered sheep and oxen, and praised God for the moral blessings; what, I ask, is required of those priests who sacrifice the Divine Lamb and give thanks for eternal blessings?" "A great dignity," exclaims St. Lawrence Justinian, "but great too is the responsibility; placed high in the eyes of men they must also be lifted up to the peak of virtue before the eye of Him who seeth all; otherwise their elevation will be not to their merit but to their damnation."
35. And surely every reason We have urged in showing the dignity of the Catholic priesthood does but reinforce its obligation of singular holiness; for as the Angelic Doctor teaches: "To fulfill the duties of Holy Orders, common goodness does not suffice; but excelling goodness is required; that they who receive Orders and are thereby higher in rank than the people, may also be higher in holiness." The Eucharistic Sacrifice in which the Immaculate Victim who taketh away the sins of the world is immolated, requires in a special way that the priest, by a holy and spotless life, should make himself as far as he can, less unworthy of God, to whom he daily offers that adorable Victim, the very Word of God incarnate for love of us. Agnoscite quod agitis, imitamini quod tractatis, "realize what you are doing, and imitate what you handle," says the Church through the Bishop to the deacons as they are about to be consecrated priests. The priest is also the almoner of God's graces of which the Sacraments are the channels; how grave a reproach would it be, for one who dispenses these most precious graces were he himself without them, or were he even to esteem them lightly and guard them with little care. (Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, December 30, 1935.)
Pope Pius XI also condemned Bergoglio's oft-stated belief, expressed also in Evangelii Gaudium, that his presbyters must be involved actively with the poor, that they need to get themselves out of their sacristies and into the "muck" of the streets:
37. It would be a grave error fraught with many dangers should the priest, carried away by false zeal, neglect his own sanctification, and become over immersed in the external works, however holy, of the priestly ministry. Thereby, he would run a double risk. In the first place he endangers his own salvation, as the great Apostle of the Gentiles feared for himself: "But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway." In the second place he might lose, if not divine grace, certainly that unction of the Holy Spirit which gives such a marvelous force and efficacy to the external apostolate. (Pope Pius XI, Ad Catholici Sacerdotii, December 30, 1935.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's concept of the Holy Priesthood came into its own in the 1970s, and I had heard it many times from vocation directors in various dioceses and of religious communities. One vocation director told me the following on June 22, 1979: "A man is actually ordained to the priesthood when the people applaud following the imposition of hands. This ratifies the conferral of the order." Yes, those are exact words.
Even the official teaching of the conciliar church used to insist that there was a distinction, both in degree and in kind, between the Holy Priesthood and that of the lay faithful, a point was made by a "commission of cardinals" who had reviewed the infamous "Dutch Catechism":
8. The Ministerial or Hierarchical Priesthood and the Power of Teaching and Ruling in the Church. — Care must be taken not to minimize the excellence of the ministerial priesthood, that in its participation of the priesthood of Christ, differs from the common priesthood of the faithful, not only in degree, but in essence (Cf.: Conc. Vat. II, Const. Lumen Gentium, n. 10); Instructio de Cultu Mysterii eucharistici, AAS, 59  n. 11, p. 548).
Care should be taken that in describing the priestly ministry there is brought out more clearly the mediation between God and men which they exercise not only in preaching the word of God, in forming the Christian Community and in administering the Sacraments, but also and chiefly in offering the Eucharistic sacrifice in the name of the whole Church (cf. Conc. Vat. II, Const. Lumen Gentium, n. 28; Decr. Presbyterorum ordinis, nn. 2, 13).
Furthermore, the Cardinals asked that the new Catechism clearly recognize that the teaching authority and the power of ruling in the Church is given directly to the Holy Father and to the Bishops joined with him in hierarchical communion, and that it is not given first of all to the people of God to be communicated to others. The office of Bishops, therefore, is not a mandate given them by the people of God but is a mandate received from God Himself for the good of the whole Christian community.
It is to be brought out more clearly that the Holy Father and the Bishops in their teaching office do not only assemble and approve what the whole community of the faithful believes. The people of God are so moved and sustained by the spirit of truth that they cling to the word of God with unswerving loyalty and freedom from error under the leadership of the Magisterium to whom it belongs authentically to guard, explain and defend the deposit of faith. Thus it has come about that in understanding the faith that has been handed down, in professing that faith and in manifesting it in deed, there is a unique collaboration between Bishops and the faithful (Cf. Conc. Vat. II, Lumen Gentium, n. 11, and Dei Verbum, n. 10). Sacred Tradition and the Sacred Scripture—which constitute the one and only holy deposit of the word of God—and the magisterium of the Church are so joined that one cannot stand without the other (Cf. Conc. Vat. II, Const. Dei Verbum, n. 10). (Declaration of the Commission of Cardinals on the Dutch Catechism.)
Alas, basing the teaching authority of the Catholic Church on the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council can never prevent the rise of those who reject what was considered official in the "past" with impunity. A false foundation, no matter if used to try to reiterate Catholic teaching, can never provide a bulwark against error and heresy.
The Council of Trent condemned Bergoglio's revolutionary beliefs as follows:
And if any one affirm, that all Christians indiscrimately are priests of the New Testament, or that they are all mutually endowed with an equal spiritual power, he clearly does nothing but confound the ecclesiastical hierarchy, which is as an army set in array; as if, contrary to the doctrine of blessed Paul, all were apostles, all prophets, all evangelists, all pastors, all doctors. (Council of Trent, Twenty-fourth Session, Chapter 4, July 15, 1563.)
This all began with Father Martin Luther. It ends with Antichrist himself. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is just a "middle man," if you will, to serve as a very important bridge until then.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's call in Evangelii Gaudium, November 25, 2013, for women to be given more "responsibility" in the Catholic Church is simply a repetion of all that he has said throughout his long career of tyrannical Modernist destruction. It is why he has appointed feminist "bishops" to key positions. It denigrates the essential differences between men and women that exist in the Order of Nature (Creation) and the Order of Redemption (Grace), differences which even the Mother of God herself respected as she submitted herself duly to the authority of Saint Joseph, her Most Chaste Spouse and the Patron of the Universal Chuch and the Protector of the Faithful, and as she received the very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in Holy Communion from the episcopal hands of Saint John the Evangelist. And it is why he has given a wink and a nod to "Father" Giancalo Pani's article in La Civilta Cattolica.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio distorts history and truth, fearing not to blaspheme God and His Most Blessed Mother.
Bergoglio is a clever man. Although he is moving rapidly to amalgamate the disparate factions of falsehood into the One World Ecumenical Church as a tool of Judeo-Masonry’s One World Governance, and to mainstream practicing sodomites and adulterers and fornicators into parish life without demanding that they amend their lives, he is moving a bit—and just a bit—more incrementally in other areas. However, he has made it clear that he wants to feminize his false church as much as possible, including reducing presbyters to functionaries whose role will one day be supplanted by women, possibly during the reign of Bergoglio’s likely successor, Luis “Cardinal” Tagle, who is the conciliar “archbishop” of Manila, The Philippines.
One of the ways that Jorge Mario Bergoglio floats trial balloons to further revolutionize the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is to authorize “speculative” articles in the Vatican’s semi-official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, and in La Civiltà Cattolica, the Italian Jesuit journal, that are meant to reflect his mind in order to prepare the way for “papally”-approved innovations that have been in practice at the “retail level” in various nooks and crannies of the conciliar structures for decades now, including news eleven months ago that consideration was being given to let women preach during the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) — The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, published several commentaries reflecting on the possibility of allowing laypeople, including women, to preach at Mass.
Women already guide retreats, lead conferences and preach in some circumstances, wrote French Dominican Sister Catherine Aubin.
“So why can’t they preach before everyone during a celebration” of Mass? said the commentary — one of a series to appear March 2 in the newspaper’s monthly insert dedicated to women.
Church liturgical norms say that people who are not ordained — including nuns — may not preach the homily at Mass, although they can preach in other situations.
The Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law teaches that qualified and committed lay Catholic men and women are allowed to preach in particular circumstances and cooperate in exercising the ministry of the word. Preaching during Mass, however, is reserved to those who have received the sacrament of orders, that is, deacons and priests.
Sister Aubin, who is a theologian and professor at Rome’s Pontifical Urbanian University, said people who have experienced the joy and love of Christ are unable to “stop themselves from going out to speak it, to announce it, to proclaim it, because it is him, Christ, who makes all men and women — encountered along his journey — witnesses, messengers and apostles.”
Swedish Dominican Sister Madeleine Fredell wrote in her article that preaching is part of her vocation as a Dominican, and “even though I can (preach) almost anywhere,” she regretted “not being able to give the homily during Mass.”
“I am convinced that listening to the voice of women at the moment of the homily would enrich our Catholic worship,” said the theologian.
Enzo Bianchi, prior of the Bose ecumenical community, wrote in the newspaper’s main section that the issue of allowing laypeople, especially women, to deliver the homily “is sensitive, but I believe it is urgent to address it.”
“It would be important, without changing traditional doctrine, to offer the possibility to laypeople, men and women, to speak in the liturgical assembly with some clear conditions,” he wrote.
Specifically, he said, the lay Catholic must recognize that preaching is a charism and gift meant to be of real service to others and he or she must receive approval, even temporary, from the bishop, he said. Additionally, he said, before the delivery of the homily, at the ambo the priest presiding at Mass could bless the person the bishop has authorized to preach. (httpVatican Newspaper: "Theologians Reflect" on the Ontological Impossiblity of Women Priests.)
These are, of course, expressions that represent the antithesis of the humility of Our Lady, the very fairest flower of the human race, who always sought to lower herself before others despite the fact that she is the only woman ever conceived without stain of Original Sin and is therefore preeminent in grace above all other created beings. (Eve was created, not conceived, directly by God from Adam, and shared with her husband the preternatural gifts of having a superior will and a superior intellect as the fruits of Original Innocence.) The conciliar feminazis believe other Christs (conciliar presbyters presumed to be true priests) must bow before them and do as they please. Humility is simply not in the lexicon of such tools of the devil to feed the feminist pride of women who seek empowerment, not self-abasement for love of God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.
It is no accident, therefore, that the anti-Marianist and arch-Modernist blasphemer named Enzo Bianchi, one of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s favorite “theologians,” was permitted to author an article about women preaching at the Novus Ordo liturgical travesty as he believes that the Most Blessed Mother is not a “reference point for the advancement of women in the Church:
(Rome) "Mary can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the Church." In reality, Bianchi is a layman. He gave an interview to the daily newspaper La Repubblica, which was published last September 9th. Bianchi was appointed by Pope Francis as Consultor in July 2014 of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.
La Repubblica published an interview under the title "The church of the future," of Enzo Bianchi by Sylvia Roochney. Bianchi explained it: "In the Church there are good intentions, but about there are unreal expectations about women: The model Maria, Virgin and Mother, can not be the reference point for the advancement of women in the church. The fashionable, subliminally alleged idea that Mary was more important than St. Peter, is a stupid idea, just as the wheels of a car would be more important than the steering wheel."
Next Bianchi said, "We are not yet able to take unequivocal equality between men and women seriously. The path of the Church is still very far, because even all the men are at the decision-levers, while women are restricted to low services," said Enzo Bianchi.
That the Magisterium says the exact opposite, does not move "Prior" Bianchi. Bianchi wants to flatter Pope Francis with his sudden emphasis of the apostle Peter, although he himself called for the "overcoming" of the papacy "in a spirit of ecumenism" in 2013 (see The papal Consultant who wants to abolish the Pope - False Ecumenism), said on June 12, 2015: "The feminine genius is a grace: The church is a woman, and Mary is much more important than the apostles".
Pope John Paul II stressed the importance of Mary in his "Letter by the Pope to Women" of 29 June 1995; in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of 22 May 1994; in the Apostolic Letter Mulieres Dignitatem August 15, 1988; as Pope Paul VI. in the Apostolic ExhortationSignum magnum of 13 May 1967 to name just a few of many examples that refute Bianchi's assertion.
Bianchi is known for his heterodox statements: Last August, he claimed that "family is a form that is given by society". Specifically, he said, so that the family could be changed by the society.
The former Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy of the Pontifical Lateran University, Msgr. Antonio Livi, called Enzo Bianchi a "false prophet". Bianchi was the representative of a "horizontal, anthropocentric Christianity without God, replacing the only way to salvation by a demagogic search for worldly peace, according to an illusory universal friendship and by secular solidarity," said the Catholic historian Cristina Siccardi.
Silvia Ronchey is also no stranger. The Assistant Professor of Byzantine Studies and daughter of a former Italian minister of culture, she comes from a Masonic tradition. She is a welcome guest in the circle of the aproned brothers. Her father, Alberto Ronchey took part in the Bilderburg Meeting in 1969 as a journalist for the Corriere della Sera in Mont Tremblant, Canada.
In 2011 Silvia Ronchey the historically confusing book "The True Story of Hypatia" that says less about Hypatia, but all the more about Ronchey's anti-Catholic and anti-Christian prejudices. Gustavo Raffi, the then Grand Master of the Grand Orient of Italy, even traveled to promote the book. (Antipapal Consulto Bianchi Says Our Lady Is Not A "Suitable Reference Point for the Advancement of Women int he Counterfeit Church of Conciliarism.)
Yet it is Enzo Bianchi enjoys the favor of “Pope” precisely because of the reasons that “Monsignor” Antonio Livi gave to document Bianchi’s defections from the Holy Faith. The man is indeed a false prophet. Ah, so is “Pope Francis,” and this something for men such as Antonio Livi to recognize and to accept as to enable a figure of Antichrist and his heretical beliefs and blasphemous statements about Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and Our Lady is itself a work of Antichrist and is thus a cowardly refusal to see the truth that is plainly before the eyes of all those who have been given the gift of the true Faith through no merits of their own.
Although I tended to believe until Giancaro Pani's article appeared in La Civilta Cattholica that it might not be until the accession of Bergoglio’s successor to the antipapal aluminum folding chair that a new kind of “hermeneutic” will be “discovered” that justifies the “ordination” of women to the conciliar presbyterate, it appears as though the Pani article is the first "shot across the bow" to signal that such a "hermeneutic" has now been "found." Gee, it is rather remarkably how God the Holy Ghost hid all of these hermeneutics from Holy Mother Church for nearly two millennia while true pope after true pope guided by His infallible assistance taught the exact opposite of what it is being justified today.
The reality is this, though: it is just a matter of time before “ordination" of women, which have taken place in split-off sects from conciliarism, will become accepted as a “tradition” founded in the “prophetic insights” of the Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some of the synods of Lutherans, Congregationalists and other Protestant sects, including the so-called “United Church of Christ,” an thus receive the “official” sanction of a conciliar “pope.”
If one thinks that this far-fetched, the appendix below provides information that will help reader to see that it was once thought impossible that the “conservative” “Pope John Paul II” would permit altar girls. Indeed, the Polish Modernist and Phenomenologist gave his “papal” assent to a set of instructions, Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, that were designed to “hold the line” against “abuses” in the liturgical abuse par excellence, the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical travesty. Today’s “forbidden practice” becomes tomorrow’s accepted “tradition” whose “tradition” is founded in opposition to the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church and that has “evolved” as a result of acts of disobedience to the conciliar church’s own Modernist “code of canon law.”
In other words, revolutionaries use disobedience to get their way in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, starting with their disobedience to Our Lord Himself and His Sacred Deposit of Faith. Women priests are not just the stuff of fantasies any more. Not at all.
We must not lose heart in these difficult times. It is essential for us to maintain the true Catholic Faith in the underground no matter what anyone may think of us for doing so, and we can only do this with the help of Our Lady, she who is the very Blessed Mother of God, and of her Most Chaste Spouse, our Good Saint Joseph, who is the Patron of the Universal Church and the Protector of the Faithful.
Additionally, we have the witness of the lives of the saints, whose work on earth for love of God and the eternal good of souls is crowned by their intercession for us from Heaven, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, who helped to defend the doctrine of the Divine Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Council of Ephesus in opposition to the heretic named Nestorius:
The praises of Cyril of Alexandria have been celebrated not only by one writer or another, but have even been registered in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. He was born of distinguished parents, and was the nephew of Theophilus, Pope of Alexandria. While he was still young he displayed marks of his excellent understanding. After giving a deep study to letters and science he betook himself to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, to be perfected in the Christian faith. After his return to Alexandria, and the death of Theophilus, he was raised to that see. In this office he kept ever before his eyes the type of the Shepherd of souls as it had been laid down by the Apostle; and by ever adhering thereto deservedly earned the glory of an holy Bishop.
Zeal for the salvation of souls was kindled in him, and he undertook all care to keep in the faith and in soundness of life the flock unto him committed, and to preserve them from the poisonous pastures of infidelity and heresy; hence, in accordance with the laws, he caused the followers of Novatus to be expelled from the city, and those Jews to be punished who had been induced by rage to plan a massacre of the Christians. His eminent care for the preservation of the Catholic faith pure and undenled shone forth especially in his controversy against Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who asserted that Jesus Christ had been born of the Virgin Mary as man only and not as God, and that the Godhead had been bestowed upon Him because of His merits. Cyril first attempted to convert Nestorius, but when he found this hopeless he denounced him to the Supreme Pontiff the holy Celestine.
As delegate of Pope Celestine, Cyril presided at the Council of Ephesus where the Nestorian heresy was condemned; Nestorius deprived of his see; and the Catholic doctrine as to the unity of Person in Christ and the divine Motherhood of the glorious Virgin Mary was laid down amid the rejoicings of all the people, who escorted the bishops to their lodgings with a torch-light procession. For this reason Nestorius and his followers made Cyril the object of slanders, insults, and persecutions which he bore with profound patience, having all his care for the purity of the faith, and taking no heed to what the heretics might say or try against him. At length he died a holy death, in the year of salvation. And of his own papacy the 32nd. After vast work for the Church of God, and leaving behind him divers writings directed either against heathens and heretics or to the exposition of the holy Scriptures and of Catholic doctrine, the Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII. extended to the Universal Church the Office and Mass of this most eminent champion of the Catholic faith, and light of the Eastern Church. (Matins, The Divine Office, Feast of Saint Cyril of Alexandria.)
We must not have anything to do with a false church whose teachings are so unstable that they open to mockery within a very short space of time by those who succeed them, and we must be willing, following the example of Saint Cyril of Alexandria of Saint Apollonia, whose feast in honor of her holy martydom for refusing to worship false idols during the reign of Emperor Decius is commemorated today, February 9, 2017, to be made the "object of slanders insults, and persecutions" from even our closest relatives and former friends and associates.
Similarly, we must follow the example of Saint Cyril of Alexandria to take no need of what others might say or try against us. Despite our own sins and failings and mistakes, we must stand for the truths of the Holy Faith in all of their holy integrity no matter what anyone says about us or causes us to suffer. Period.
May our daily fidelity to praying as many Rosaries as our state-in-life permit as we pray the Litany of Loreto in her honor and that of Saint Joseph to help us to imitate the total self-abnegation of Saints Cyril of Alexandria and Apollonia so that we can, despite our sins and failings, plant the seeds for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the flowering once again of the true Catholic Faith in the hearts, minds and souls of everyone on the face of the earth.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saint Cyril of Alexandria, pray for us.
Saint Apollonia, pray for us.
Pushing the Envelope to Altar Girls
Despite various conciliar pronouncements that have been made when various breakoff sects from conciliarism have “ordained” women, nothing will stop the not-so-secret efforts on the part of conciliar priests/presbyters to "push the envelope" on the ontological (referring to the nature of things) impossibility of "women's ordination."
To paraphrase the late Hubert Horatio Humphrey, the American "bishops" were as pleased as punch that their strategy worked, so much so that they used it to expand the conciliar practice of distributing what purports be Communion under both kinds, thereby creating a "need" for so-called Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to further blur the distinction between the priesthood of the ordained priest and the common priesthood of the lay faithful (the late Monsignor George Kelly, who was well connected with Vatican officials, confirmed this to me in his offices at Saint John's University in 1983 when I was consulting with him about the late "Bishop" John Raymond McGann's infamous persecution of the late Father Robert Mason, the pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes Church in Massapequa Park, New York, from 1976 to 2008), and they used it yet again to secure permission in 1994 from Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II for "altar girls" in 1994. Wojtyla/John Paul II was not serious about enforcing the ban against altar girls that was reiterated in various postconciliar documents, including Inaestimabile Donum, April 17, 1980, which was issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship as a follow-up to Wojtyla/John Paul II's Holy Thursday letter to conciliar priests/presbyters, Dominicae Cenae, February 24, 1980):
18. There are, of course, various roles that women can perform in the liturgical assembly: these include reading the Word of God and proclaiming the intentions of the Prayer of the Faithful. Women are not, however, permitted to act as altar servers. (Inaestimabile Donum.)
Inaestimabile Donum, which I thought, quite naively and stupidly, of course, was going to "solve" liturgical abuses in the Novus Ordo service, which is, of course, as noted above, the liturgical abuse par excellence, cited Liturgicae Instauratione, which was issued by the then named Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on September 5, 1970, as the source for the reiteration of the ban of women from serving at the altar. Interestingly, Liturgicae Instauratione was issued less than ten months after the Novus Ordo went into effect on Sunday, November 30, 1969, as a means of correcting the "unauthorized" abuses that had become very widespread in such a short space of time. Such widespread abuses were, as I have recognized for some time now, the inevitable result of what happens when a false liturgical rite is promulgated and implemented, especially one that was meant to eradicate the traditional Roman Rite (please see Taking The Obvious For Granted).
Just as Martin Luther did not foresee the disastrous consequences of his revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man's return to the Catholic Church that he himself denounced but never understood were entirely of his own doing, so is it the case that the conciliar revolutionaries, in their zeal to accommodate what they believed was the Catholic liturgy to the desires of Protestants, did not foresee the liturgical free-for-all that would develop almost as soon as the Novus Ordo went into effect as the parishes under conciliar captivity began to resemble the cacophonous nature of congregationalism (each parish "doing liturgy" a little differently) than the universal nature of Catholicism. Endless efforts have thus been made by these conciliar revolutionaries to put their fingers the dike to prevent the flood of "unauthorized" abuses from spreading. Each of these efforts has failed. They must fail as nothing that is premised on false beliefs can ever be made to "work" for the temporal or eternal good of man, no less, of course, for the honor and glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity.
Here is the section from Liturgicae Instauratione that discussed the "proper" role of women in the staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordoservice:
7. In conformity with norms traditional in the Church, women (single, married, religious), whether in churches, homes, convents, schools, or institutions for women, are barred from serving the priest at the altar.
According to the norms established for these matters, however, women are allowed to:
a. proclaim the readings, except the gospel. They are to make sure that, with the help of modern sound equipment, they can be comfortably heard by all. The conferences of bishops are to give specific directions on the place best suited for women to read the word of God in the liturgical assembly.
b. announce the intentions in the general intercessions;
c. lead the liturgical assembly in singing and play the organ or other instruments;
d. read the commentary assisting the people toward a better understanding of the rite;
e. attend to other functions, customarily filled by women in other settings, as a service to the congregation, for example, ushering, organizing processions, taking up the collection . (Liturgicae Instauratione, September 5, 1970.)
Here one can see the flawed efforts of the conciliar revolutionaries to "hold the line" on some things while permitting other things that are offensive to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and thus injurious to the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem.
Where is the logic in expecting to hold the line against women serving at the altar when they are permitted to touch with their own unconsecrated hands what purports be the Sacred Species?
Where is the logic in expecting to hold the line against women serving at the altar when they are permitted to flood the sanctuary, which is the preserve of the priest and those males who are permitted to serve him as the extension of the hands of Christ, Who is the Chief Priest and Victim and every Mass?
There is no such logic. The falsehoods of concilairism are as illogical and thus self-destructive as the falsehoods of every other heresy, including Protestantism, which is but a precursor and prototype of conciliarism, especially in its Anglican forms.
Conciliarism has opened up a veritable Pandora's Box of relentless change and innovation that has robbed millions upon millions of Catholics of theirsensus Catholicus and bewildered and confused those who do have something left of that sensus Catholicus. Protestations against the nonadmissibility of women to the priesthood ring rather hollow when one considers the fact that women can touch what is purported to be the Sacred Species with their own hands as they distribute Holy Communion to the faithful in their roles as "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist."
Women can proclaim the Word of God as lectors.
They can lead "priestless" "Communion services."
They can serve as administrators of parishes, having the responsibility, given to them by their "ordinaries," to supervise the work of "priests," thereby further emasculating the notion of the priesthood as an imaging of the Chief Priest and Victim of every Mass. There are women serving as chancellors of the Catholic dioceses that are now in the hands of the conciliar revolutionaries. There has even been some talk from officials in the conciliar Vatican of permitting deaconesses. With little else in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that has not been subject to change and reconsideration and reinterpretation, why should the average Catholic think that Our Lord's own choice exclusively of males to His Holy Priesthood is not going to "change" at some point in the future.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the New Adam, came to undo the effects of the sin of the first Adam, the progenitor, who was a male. Only men can be progenitors. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the progenitor of our redemption. He chose twelve males to be His Apostles. Many women were His disciples. They were not present at the Last Supper as Our Lord, Who is both God and Man and thus has complete knowledge of everything and was not "culture bound" as some egalitarians wishing to find an "out" for women's "ordination" insist, ordained the twelve Apostles, including the traitor Judas Iscariot (whom now retired pastor of one conciliar church in the Diocese of Rockville Centre has placed in Heaven), knowing full well what He was doing. Our Lord broke every Pharisaical norm imaginable (associating with women, Samaritans and public sinners; curing and plucking grain on the Sabbath). Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the New Adam Who wrought our Redemption on the wood of the Holy Cross to pay back with His own Most Precious Blood the debt of human sin that was owed to Him in His Infinity as God, ordained twelve men to serve as the progenitors of the ineffable Sacrifice of the Cross as they offered Holy Mass acting in His very Person (in persona Christi).
As the late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen noted, if anyone was worthy to say "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum" and "Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis Mei, Hic est enim Calix Sánguinis mei, novi et ætérni testaménti; mystérium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur in remissiónem peccatórum" it was Our Lady as from whom else did Our Divine Redeemer obtain the Body and Blood with which He redeemed us on the wood of the Cross and which we receive in Holy Communion? Although the Venerable Mary of Agreda relates that Our Lady was in another room in the Cenacle at the Last Supper and was brought Holy Communion by an angel, she was not with Our Lord and the twelve Apostles as He instituted the the Holy Priesthood and the Holy Eucharist for our sanctification and salvation. There are different roles for men and women in the Order of Creation (Order of Nature) and there are different roles for men and women in the Order of Redemption (Order of Grace).
It is no diminution of the dignity of women to point this out.
Was Our Lady "offended" by the fact that she, the fairest flower of our race who had the privilege of Incarnating the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, was not ordained to the Holy Priesthood:? Of course not. No other woman has any "right" to be "offended" at her nonadmissibility to Holy Orders as this is the Holy Will of God Himself, Who acts in accord with the very nature of things as He has created them.
Despite the reaffirmation of the nonadmissibility of women to the priesthood that was made by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II iin 1994 and was reiterated in 2010 by means of an addition to the conciliar code of canon law at the direction of the since-retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, the simple fact of the matter is that many, although not all, of those who promote the ontological absurdity of women's "ordination" to the conciliar priesthood are permitted to remain in "good standing" in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
"Bishop" Emil Aloysius Wcela, a now retired auxiliary "bishop" in the theological and liturgical cesspool known as the Diocese of Rockville Centre, was permitted to be "consecrated" to the conciliar "episcopate on December 13, 1988, even though he was fully and openly on record in support of women's ordination to the conciliar priesthood. There are many other examples of this. Indeed, the disgraced former "bishop" of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Daniel Leo Ryan, permitted an article in support of women's ordination to appear his rag of a diocesan newspaper in 1996, prompting him to lash out at The Wanderer for running an article daring to criticize him for doing so.
As noted in the text of today’s commentary, “women priests” in the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism are just a matter of time. It is “when,” not “if.”