Jorge Mario Bergoglio and His Band of Revolutionaries Have No Concern for the Honor and Glory of God

Although the point has been made many times on this website, Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s own personal silence about the mockery of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Last Supper during the opening ceremonies of the 2024 Summer Olympics is simply exemplative of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s own mockery of God and defaming His greater honor and glory repeatedly as its “popes,” “bishops,” and priests/presbyters have esteemed the symbols of false religions, praised false religions, entered into temples of false worship, “prayed” with non-Catholics (Christian and non-Christian alike), and spoken of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother with irreverence, up to and including making heretical statements such as the following made by Jorge Mario Bergoglio about Our Lady:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, let us start with one privilege and distinction given to no other woman: Our Lady became the Mother of God at the moment of the Annunciation. No special privilege or distinction, Jorge? (See Appendix D below for Father Adolf Tanqueray's defense of the Divine Materinity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and its privileges, which Father Tanqueray summarized as follows: "From the dignity of the Divine Maternity proceed all the privileges granted to the Blessed Virgin, her most perfect sanctity, and her supernatural relations with creatures.")

Blasphemer.

Heretic.

Blaspheming heretic.

Obviously, Our Lady had been prepared for the moment of the Annunciation upon which our very salvation rested by her having been preserved from all stain of Original and Actual Sin from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception in the womb of our Good Saint Anne.

Pope Pius IX explained the doctrinal effects of her Immaculate Conception that had clothed her with Perfect Integrity of body and soul when he solemnly defined the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854:

Mary Compared with Eve

Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God -- indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.

Biblical Figures

Accordingly, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the lily among thorns, the land entirely intact, the Virgin undefiled, immaculate, ever blessed, and free from all contagion of sin, she from whom was formed the new Adam, the flawless, brightest, and most beautiful paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God himself and protected against all the snares of the poisonous serpent, the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted, the fountain ever clear and sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit, the most holy temple, the treasure of immortality, the one and only daughter of life -- not of death -- the plant not of anger but of grace, through the singular providence of God growing ever green contrary to the common law, coming as it does from a corrupted and tainted root.

Explicit Affirmation . . .

As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely. They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."-unmistakable evidence that she was crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.

. . . Of a Super Eminent Sanctity

To these praises they have added very noble words. Speaking of the conception of the Virgin, they testified that nature yielded to grace and, unable to go on, stood trembling. The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

This doctrine so filled the minds and souls of our ancestors in the faith that a singular and truly marvelous style of speech came into vogue among them. They have frequently addressed the Mother of God as immaculate, as immaculate in every respect; innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness; more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit. God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.

Everyone is cognizant that this style of speech has passed almost spontaneously into the books of the most holy liturgy and the Offices of the Church, in which they occur so often and abundantly. In them, the Mother of God is invoked and praised as the one spotless and most beautiful dove, as a rose ever blooming, as perfectly pure, ever immaculate, and ever blessed. She is celebrated as innocence never sullied and as the second Eve who brought forth the Emmanuel.  (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.)

What style of speech did Jorge Mario Bergoglio choose to use nine days ago?

Indeed, did Bergoglio's style of speech make it appear as though Our Lady "never lent an ear to the serpent" when he spoke as follows on December 20, 2013?

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

Our Lady did not understand, Jorge?

Blasphemer.

Heretic.

Does Bergoglio's style of speech make it appear that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the fairest flower of our race, was "never in darkness but always in light"?

Here is a brief list of three of other privileges granted to the august Mother of God, the very fairest flower of the human race who had been chosen by God to be the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant, the very Singular Vessel of Honor in whose Virginal and Immaculate Womb His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal Divine Son, the Eternal Word Himself through Whom all things were made, was made Incarnate by the working of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:

1. Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, a doctrine denied both by Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the misnamed conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by the man whose works he has been assigned the task of collecting for publication, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
2. Our Lady is the Queen of Heaven and of Earth. Not a "special privilege or distinction, Jorge?
3. Our Lady is the Mediatrix of All Graces, something signified by the Miraculous Medal that she herself told Saint Catherine Laboure, a spiritual daughter of Saint Vincent de Paul, the founder of the Congregation of the Mission whose feast was commemorated yesterday, Sunday, June 19, 2015, the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, and by the fact that the unreformed Roman Missal permits a commemoration of Our Lady under this title on May 31, which is the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
4. Our Lady is the Co-Redemptrix, something that Pope Leo XIII taught in Iucunda Semper Expectatione, September 8,1894:

The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips. First come the Joyful Mysteries. The Eternal Son of God stoops to mankind, putting on its nature; but with the assent of Mary, who conceives Him by the Holy Ghost. Then St. John the Baptist, by a singular privilege, is sanctified in his mother's womb and favored with special graces that he might prepare the way of the Lord; and this comes to pass by the greeting of Mary who had been inspired to visit her cousin. At last the expected of nations comes to light, Christ the Savior. The Virgin bears Him. And when the Shepherds and the wise men, first-fruits of the Christian faith, come with longing to His cradle, they find there the young Child, with Mary, His Mother. Then, that He might before men offer Himself as a victim to His Heavenly Father, He desires to be taken to the Temple; and by the hands of Mary He is there presented to the Lord. It is Mary who, in the mysterious losing of her Son, seeks Him sorrowing, and finds Him again with joy. And the same truth is told again in the sorrowful mysteries.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus is in an agony; in the judgment-hall, where He is scourged, crowned with thorns, condemned to death, not there do we find Mary. But she knew beforehand all these agonies; she knew and saw them. When she professed herself the handmaid of the Lord for the mother's office, and when, at the foot of the altar, she offered up her whole self with her Child Jesus -- then and thereafter she took her part in the laborious expiation made by her Son for the sins of the world. It is certain, therefore, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. Moreover, it was before the eyes of Mary that was to be finished the Divine Sacrifice for which she had borne and brought up the Victim. As we contemplate Him in the last and most piteous of those Mysteries, there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that she might receive us as her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice her own Son, and died in her heart with Him, stabbed with the sword of sorrow. (Pope Leo XII, Iucnda Semper Expectatione, September 8, 1894.)

This is, of course, all quite foreign to the naturalistic and Modernist mind of the blaspheming heretic named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

One can see rather readily the conciliar officials think nothing of offending the majesty and glory of God by advancing heretical propositions, uttering blasphemies themselves and/or suborning those uttered by others and mispresenting the facts about Our Lady and numerous saints, including Saint Alphonsus de Liguori and Saint Vincent Lerins among so many others.

Concerned About Offending Others as they Offend God Regularly

Some might point out that the conciliar Vatican broke its collective silence about the Olympics sacrilege by issuing the following statement about it on Saturday evening, August 3, 2024, the Feast of the Finding of the Body of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr:

The Holy See was saddened by certain scenes at the opening ceremony of the Paris Olympic Games, and can only join the voices that have been raised in recent days to deplore the offence caused to many Christians and believers of other religions.

In a prestigious event where the whole wsorld gathers around common values, there should be no allusions ridiculing the religious convictions of many people.

Freedom of expression, which of course is not in question, finds its limit in respect for others. (Holy See Communiqué.)

One will notice that there is no mention of Jorge Mario Bergoglio (who goes by the stage name of “Pope Francis”) in this communique, which expressed “sadness” only about the fact that “Christians and believers of other religions” were “offended” by “allusion ridiculing the religious convictions of many people.” There was, of course, no reference to the offense given to Christ the King, He Who is the very Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of the His Most Blessed Mother by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, at the Annunciation. The conciliar authorities are always concerned about the “sensibilities” of others and not about the honor and glory due to the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity.

There is no “freedom of expression” to blaspheme God. Yet it is that the conciliar communique would have us believe that the only limits to “freedom of expression” involve “respect for others,” not a loving reverence for the honor and glory of God Himself, something that is yet another correlative proof the falsity of the conciliar church.

As has been noted on this site repeatedly in the past twenty years, it is a very telling commentary that Mohammedans have more reverence for their false god, Allah, and for their false prophet, Mohammed, than most Catholics, including most of those within the conciliar structures, have for the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Holy Trinity. Most Catholics are not at all outraged when offenses are committed against the honor and glory of the true God, and they are entirely nonplussed when the conciliar “popes” are silent about the same offenses about which they are indifferent.

As I noted in my introduction to my republished reflection on Saint Dominic de Guzman yesterday, Sunday, August 4, 2024, the Eleventh Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Dominic, the conciliar Vatican shamed into making the pathetic statement it issued on Saturday evening, August 3, 2024, the Feast of the Finding of the Body of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr, because Mohammedans forced them into it, including the “supreme leader” of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the direct successor to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:

Top government officials in Iran and Turkey, along with other Muslim religious figures, are speaking out against the drag-queen-led parody of the Last Supper at the Paris Olympics opening ceremony that shocked Christians and others across the world. 

The supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, condemned the “insults” against Jesus Christ, noting that Jesus is a respected figure in Islam. 

“Respect for #JesusChrist … is an indisputable, definite matter for Muslims,” Khamenei said in a post on X. “We condemn these insults directed at the holy figures of divine religions, including Jesus Christ,” added the supreme leader of Iran since 1989.

Turkish President Recep Tayyi Erdoğan also spoke out against the ceremony, saying he intended to call Pope Francis at the earliest opportunity to discuss the “immorality committed against the Christian world.” 

The “disgraceful scene in Paris offended not only the Catholic world, not only the Christian world, but also us as much as them,” Erdoğan said during an address in the country’s capital of Ankara.

“Immorality displayed at the opening of the Paris Olympics once again highlighted the scale of the threat we face,” he added. (Muslim leaders condemn ‘disgraceful’ Olympics scene: It ‘offended us as much as them’.)

Mohammedans may “revere” Our Lord as a “prophet,” but he is not a “prophet,” is God, the very Logos through Whom all things were made, the Word made Flesh Who dwelt amongst us. Nevertheless, however, they were more offended about the offense given to Our Lord than was “Pope Francis,” who, as noted above, continues to keep his ever-moving mouth completely shut as though the offense to God was not of any concern him, Bergoglio, who really does not believe in the true God of Divine Revelation. I mean, no one who claims to be a Catholic and understands the nature of God and the reverence that is due to Him can be indifferent in the face of public blasphemies.

Then again, how many baptized Catholics are offended when some Hollywood production (motion picture or television program) blasphemes Our Lord or His Most Blessed Mother or the Holy Faith?

Most Catholics, sad to say, keep plunking down their dollars to go to movie theatres or, I suppose, to livestream movies and television programs into their homes, thereby inviting the devil himself directly into their midst and permitting him to pollute their eyes, which are the windows of their immortal souls, and their ears as images sounds either directly offend God and injure their own immortal souls by the use of outright blasphemy or do so by means of the promotion of impurity, indecency, immodesty, perversity, and all manner of gratuitous violence.

There is even a collective “ho-hum” among even many semi-traditional Catholics when a “conservative” or supposedly “traditional” pope says or does things that are directly contrary to the Holy Faith, especially by means of heresy or that which approaches error and by the direct violations of the First and Second Commandments as the selected images below attest:

October 27, 1986

August 19, 2005: Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict enters into a Talmudic synagogue in Cologne, Germany, refusing to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of those steeped in these false religion.

At the Cologne synagogue: prayer with the Jews

November 30, 2006: Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI entered into the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, taking off his shoes so as to symbolize that he was in a "holy place" and then turned in the direction of Mecca at the behest of his Mohammedan "host," who instructed him to assume the Mohammedan prayer position as they "prayed" together. God is offended by honor being given to such a false religion as the souls of His faithful Catholics are scandalized and bewildered and confused as a consequence.

Ratzinger at the Blue Mosque

April 15-20, 2008: Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visits the United States of America without ever once mentioning Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary. He personally esteemed the symbols of five false religions at the "John Paul II Cultural Center" in Washington, District of Columbia, Thursday, April 17, 2008, and praised the United Masonic Nations Organization on Friday, April 18, 2008. He also went into another Talmudic synagogue, where, of course, he refused to exhort anyone there to convert and as he listened patiently to a Talmudic hymn that denied the Messias had come once in time to redeem the entire human race (see No Room for Christ the King on the South Lawn, Latin and the Lector Babe, Asking Our Lady to Repair the Damage, No Room for Christ the King at the United Nations, Sorrow Beyond Description, No Room for Mary Immaculate Queen at Saint Patrick's Cathedral, No Room for Mary Immaculate Queen at Saint Joseph's Seminary, and All is Quicksand Without Our Lady.)

Ratzinger/Benedict receiving a copy of the Koran, "John Paul II Cultural Center," Washington, District of Columbia, Thursday, April 17, 2008. Would Our Lord receive a copy of this blasphemous document, no less with a smile on his face?  See the video of this exercise in apostasy, (See for yourself, April 17, 2008 - 6:15 p.m. - Interreligious Gathering.)

Ratzinger/Benedict at the Park East Synagogue, Friday, April 18, 2008.

May 8-15, 2009: Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visits Jordan and Israel, making the following incredible statements while there:

Places of worship, like this splendid Al-Hussein Bin Talal mosque named after the revered late King, stand out like jewels across the earth’s surface. From the ancient to the modern, the magnificent to the humble, they all point to the divine, to the Transcendent One, to the Almighty. And through the centuries these sanctuaries have drawn men and women into their sacred space to pause, to pray, to acknowledge the presence of the Almighty, and to recognize that we are all his creatures. (Speech to Muslim religious leaders, members of the Diplomatic Corps and Rectors of universities in Jordan in front of the mosque al-Hussein bin Talal in Amman)

Ratzinger/Benedict at the Mosque Al-Hussein bin Talal, Amman, Jordan, Saturday, May 9, 2009.

I cordially thank the Grand Mufti, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, together with the Director of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, Sheikh Mohammed Azzam al-Khatib al-Tamimi, and the Head of the Awquaf Council, Sheikh Abdel Azim Salhab, for the welcome they have extended to me on your behalf. I am deeply grateful for the invitation to visit this sacred place, and I willingly pay my respects to you and the leaders of the Islamic community in Jerusalem. (Courtesy visit to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the Mount of the Temple, since when is a place of false worship "sacred" to the true God of Divine Revelation?)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI entering the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, Wednesday, May 12, 2009. Note that the false "pontiff" has taken off his shoes once again.

Saints gave up their lives rather than to give even the appearance of such apostasy.

God of all the ages, on my visit to Jerusalem, the “City of Peace”, spiritual home to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, I bring before you the joys, the hopes and the aspirations, the trials, the suffering and the pain of all your people throughout the world.

God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, hear the cry of the afflicted, the fearful, the bereft; send your peace upon this Holy Land, upon the Middle East, upon the entire human family; stir the hearts of all who call upon your name, to walk humbly in the path of justice and compassion.

“The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him” (Lam 3:25)! (Prayer at the Western Wall, May 12, 2009; one will note, of course, that there is not one reference to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)

What's that about a picture being worth a thousand words?

An indication of the potential of this series of meetings is readily seen in our shared concern in the face of moral relativism and the offences it spawns against the dignity of the human person. In approaching the most urgent ethical questions of our day, our two communities are challenged to engage people of good will at the level of reason, while simultaneously pointing to the religious foundations which best sustain lasting moral values. May the dialogue that has begun continue to generate ideas on how Christians and Jews can work together to heighten society’s appreciation of the distinctive contribution of our religious and ethical traditions. Here in Israel, given that Christians constitute only a small portion of the total population, they particularly value opportunities for dialogue with their Jewish neighbors.

Trust is undeniably an essential element of effective dialogue. Today I have the opportunity to repeat that the Catholic Church is irrevocably committed to the path chosen at the Second Vatican Council for a genuine and lasting reconciliation between Christians and Jews. As the Declaration Nostra Aetate makes clear, the Church continues to value the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews and desires an ever deeper mutual understanding and respect through biblical and theological studies as well as fraternal dialogues. May the seven Bilateral Commission meetings which have already taken place between the Holy See and the Chief Rabbinate stand as evidence! I am thus grateful for your reciprocal assurance that the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Chief Rabbinate will continue to grow in respect and understanding in the future. (Courtesy visit to the two Chief Rabbis of Jerusalem at Hechal Shlomo Center in Jerusalem, May 12, 2009; for an elaboration on this topic, please see Respect Those Who Break the First Commandment? Respect Those Who Break the Fifth Commandment and Saint Peter and Anti-Peter.) 

Wanna quick antidote to this apostasy?

Back to Pope Leo XIII's Custodi Di Quella Fede once again:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

October 27, 2011, above. 

Bergoglio hid his pectoral cross when he wore "uttariya shawl which was a gift from Sri Lankan Hindu priest Kurukkal SivaSri  Mahadevasome on Tuesday, January 13, 2015, the Octave Day of the Epiphany of Our Lord, during his address to leaders of other false religions in Colombo, Sri Lanka (see Deja Vu In Sri Lanka):

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

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

Yes, “Pope Francis” believes that those who are concerned about saving their souls will lose their life, thus twisting Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s admonition for us not to seek to preserve our physical life and/or to seek the favor and esteem of others in order to curry favor with the world. Our Lord exhorted us to carry the cross on a daily basis, and most of those crosses simply involve the performance of our daily duties for the love of God as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church. (For example, getting up in the morning when we want to roll over and go back to sleep; doing a chore we disdain or think that is beneath our dignity; doing our work, whatever it might be, without being prompted to do it, etc.)

Here is the context of what Our Lord taught:

[21] From that time Jesus began to shew to his disciples, that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the ancients and scribes and chief priests, and be put to death, and the third day rise again. [22] And Peter taking him, began to rebuke him, saying: Lord, be it far from thee, this shall not be unto thee. [23] Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. [24] Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. [25] For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall find it.

[26] For what doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul? [27] For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every man according to his works. [28] Amen I say to you, there are some of them that stand here, that shall not taste death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16: 21-28.)

Those who seek to keep the Ten Commandments are not seeking to save their physical lives in this passing world as Saint Peter urged Our Lord to do just moments after he had received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. Far from it. Those who, despite their own sins and failings, strive to keep the Ten Commandments as they make reparation for their sins are seeking to please the Most Blessed Trinity according to the teaching of the Beloved Disciple, Saint John the Evangelist, as follows:

[1] My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just: [2] And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. [3] And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments. [4] He who saith that he knoweth him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. [5] But he that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected; and by this we know that we are in him. (1 John 2: 1-5.)

[21] Dearly beloved, if our heart do not reprehend us, we have confidence towards God: [22]And whatsoever we shall ask, we shall receive of him: because we keep his commandments, and do those things which are pleasing in his sight. [23] And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ: and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us. [24] And he that keepeth his commandments, abideth in him, and he in him. And in this we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (1 John 3: 21-24.)

[1] 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. [2] In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. [3] For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. [4] For whatsoever is born of God, overcometh the world: and this is the victory which overcometh the world, our faith. [5] Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5: 1-5.)

Perhaps even more to the point is the teaching of the Divine Master Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ:

[19] He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. [20] For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5: 19-20.)

Bergoglio’s hatred of those who keep the Ten Commandments is just one of many things he has in common with an Augustinian monk named Father Martin Luther who he, the Argentine Apostate, believes is a “witness” to Our Lord:

“[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: The Thirty-Three Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote.)

This is pretty much an exact representation of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio has said repeatedly, including on Friday, January 27, 2017, at the Ding Dong School of Apostasy otherwise known as the Casa Santa Marta behind the walls (imagine that, and they even have guards there, too!) of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.

As the words of Holy Writ quoted above prove beyond any question, the false beliefs of Bergoglio and the man he admires as a “witness” of a generic Christian “faith” are mortal enemies of Our Lord and of His true Church, thus making them mortal enemies of the souls for whom Our Divine Redeemed shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday to redeem.

Pope Pius XI, writing to condemn German national socialism, which arose, of course, as the direct consequence of Martin Luther’s overthrowing of the Social Reign of Christ the King in various of the German states five hundred years ago this very year, explained that we are bound to the “conscientious observation of the Ten Commandments”:

29. It is on faith in God, preserved pure and stainless, that man's morality is based. All efforts to remove from under morality and the moral order the granite foundation of faith and to substitute for it the shifting sands of human regulations, sooner or later lead these individuals or societies to moral degradation. The fool who has said in his heart "there is no God" goes straight to moral corruption (Psalms xiii. 1), and the number of these fools who today are out to sever morality from religion, is legion. They either do not see or refuse to see that the banishment of confessional Christianity, i.e., the clear and precise notion of Christianity, from teaching and education, from the organization of social and political life, spells spiritual spoliation and degradation. No coercive power of the State, no purely human ideal, however noble and lofty it be, will ever be able to make shift of the supreme and decisive impulses generated by faith in God and Christ. If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says -- Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. To let forces of moral formation of such efficacy lie fallow, or to exclude them positively from public education, would spell religious under-feeding of a nation. To hand over the moral law to man's subjective opinion, which changes with the times, instead of anchoring it in the holy will of the eternal God and His commandments, is to open wide every door to the forces of destruction. The resulting dereliction of the eternal principles of an objective morality, which educates conscience and ennobles every department and organization of life, is a sin against the destiny of a nation, a sin whose bitter fruit will poison future generations. 

30. Such is the rush of present-day life that it severs from the divine foundation of Revelation, not only morality, but also the theoretical and practical rights. We are especially referring to what is called the natural law, written by the Creator's hand on the tablet of the heart (Rom. ii. 14) and which reason, not blinded by sin or passion, can easily read. It is in the light of the commands of this natural law, that all positive law, whoever be the lawgiver, can be gauged in its moral content, and hence, in the authority it wields over conscience. Human laws in flagrant contradiction with the natural law are vitiated with a taint which no force, no power can mend. In the light of this principle one must judge the axiom, that "right is common utility," a proposition which may be given a correct significance, it means that what is morally indefensible, can never contribute to the good of the people. But ancient paganism acknowledged that the axiom, to be entirely true, must be reversed and be made to say: "Nothing can be useful, if it is not at the same time morally good" (Cicero, De Off. ii. 30). Emancipated from this oral rule, the principle would in international law carry a perpetual state of war between nations; for it ignores in national life, by confusion of right and utility, the basic fact that man as a person possesses rights he holds from God, and which any collectivity must protect against denial, suppression or neglect. To overlook this truth is to forget that the real common good ultimately takes its measure from man's nature, which balances personal rights and social obligations, and from the purpose of society, established for the benefit of human nature. Society, was intended by the Creator for the full development of individual possibilities, and for the social benefits, which by a give and take process, every one can claim for his own sake and that of others. Higher and more general values, which collectivity alone can provide, also derive from the Creator for the good of man, and for the full development, natural and supernatural, and the realization of his perfection. To neglect this order is to shake the pillars on which society rests, and to compromise social tranquillity, security and existence. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

It is important to highlight the following sentences from the the first paragraph quoted above:

If the man, who is called to the hard sacrifice of his own ego to the common good, loses the support of the eternal and the divine, that comforting and consoling faith in a God who rewards all good and punishes all evil, then the result of the majority will be, not the acceptance, but the refusal of their duty. The conscientious observation of the ten commandments of God and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legislator, says -- Thou must! -- also gives by His grace the power to will and to do. (Pope Pius XI, Mit Brennender Sorge, March 17, 1937.)

Bergoglio believes that the Ten Commandments are a "burden" to men by preventing them from going "forward," and he does not believe that God makes it possible for men to do what He has taught them, thus blaspheming God as a deceiver.

Pope Pius XI reminded us that there is a God who actually rewards the good and punishes all evil, and that the "conscientious observatoin of the ten commandments and the precepts of the Church (which are nothing but the practical specifications of rules of the Gospels) is for every one an unrivaled school of personal discipline, moral education and formation of character, a school that is exacting, but not to excess. A merciful God, who as Legisltor, says --Thou must! -- also give by His grace the power to will do so so."

The Argentine Apostate does not believe that it is possible to keep the Ten Commandments perfectly nor does he believe that it is necessary to do so. All that matters to him is "going forward," which he is doing very rapidly by throwing himself headlong into hell at the moment of his Particular Judgment if he does not repent of his errors and abjure them publicy before he dies.

As demonstrated in the very limited photographic display above, it should be kept in mind that conciliarism is founded on the violation of each of the Ten Commandments, starting with the First and Second. An appendix found at the end of this commentary summarizes some of the ways in which the words of the conciliar “popes” have put into question not only the binding nature of the Ten Commandments but the very immutable nature of God Himself and of His Divine Revelation.

The conciliar revolutionaries have furthermore engaged blasphemed Our Lord and His Most Blessed Mother, invoked the "deities" of false gods, esteemed the symbols of false religions with their own hands, propagated and staged a liturgical travesty--the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service--that makes a mockery of the Third Commandment, violated the Fourth Commandment by teaching that civil states do not have any obligation to recognize the true Church or to pursue the common temporal good in light of First and Last Things, denied that the civil state has a right founded in the Natural Law to exercise the death penalty for heinous crimes or has the right to engage in just wars, undermined the Sixth and Ninth Commandments by inverting the ends proper to marriage, providing explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to purity and propagated a concept of "natural family planning" that breeds selfishness and narcissism (to say nothing of promoting sodomy in a variety of ways, including in so-called "sex education" programs), divinized the environment in violation of the Seventh Commandment, misrepresented Our Lord's teaching and that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, thereby bearing false witness in violation of the Eighth Commandment, and coveted the goods of the Catholic Church in violation of the Tenth Commandment. 

Although the Feast of Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen was celebrated one hundred four days  ago, that is, on Thursday, April 24, 2024, it is very appropriate to recall Dom Prosper Gueranger's tribute to him as it contains a very clear condemnation of all that is taught and practiced by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of theological, moral and liturgical revolutionaries:

Our Risen Lord would have around him a bright phalanx of martyrs. Its privileged members belong to the different centuries of the Church’s existence. Its ranks open to-day to give welcome to a brave combatant, who won his palm, not in a contest with paganism, as those did whose feasts we have thus far kept, but in defending his mother, the Church, against her own rebellious children. They were heretics that slew this day’s martyr, and the century that was honoured with this triumph as the seventeenth.

Fidelis was worthy of his beautiful name. Neither difficulty nor menace could make him fail in his duty. During his whole life, he had but the glory and service of his divine Lord in view: and when the time came for him to face the fatal danger, he did so, calmly but fearlessly, as behooved a disciple of that Jesus who went forth to meet his enemies. Honour, then, be to-day to the brave son of St. Francis ! truly he is worthy of his seraphic Patriarch, who confronted the Saracens, was a martyr in desire !

Protestantism was established and rooted by the shedding of torrents of blood; and yet Protestants count it as a great crime that, here and there, the children of the true Church made an armed resistance against them. The heresy of the sixteenth century was the cruel and untiring persecutor of men, whose only crime was their adhesion to the old faith–the faith that had civilized the world. The so-called Reformation proclaimed liberty in matters of religion, and massacred Catholics who exercised this liberty, and prayed and believed as their ancestors had done for long ages before Luther and Calvin were born. A Catholic who gives heretics credit for sincerity when they talk about religious toleration proves the he knows nothing about the past or the present. There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children. Heresy starts with an attempt to annihilate them that remain faithful; when it has grown tired of open persecution it vents its spleen in insults and calumnies; and when these do not produce the desired effect, hypocrisy comes in with its assurances of friendly forbearance. The history of Protestant Europe, during the last three centuries, confirms these statements; it also justifies us in honouring those courageous servants of God who, during that same period, have died for the ancient faith. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)  

Permit me to highlight two sentences quoted just above:

There is a fatal instinct in error, which leads it to hate the Truth; and the true Church, by its unchangeableness, is a perpetual reproach to them that refuse to be her children. Heresy starts with an attempt to annihilate them that remain faithful; when it has grown tired of open persecution it vents its spleen in insults and calumnies; and when these do not produce the desired effect, hypocrisy comes in with its assurances of friendly forbearance. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)  

A careful reading of these sentences will reveal the exact modus operandi that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is using at the Casa Santa Marta to bludgeon and belittle believing Catholics while praising falsehood and error in the name of “mercy” and “human fraternity” at the same time.

Entrusting ourselves as ever to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, remembering to pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits, may we remain steadfast in our refusal to have anything to do with even the whiff of heresy that emanates from the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Heaven cannot be obtained by making compromises with error or by being silent about it. We must call error by its proper name, not seeking to "tolerate" it in order to "understand" it better, no less than disparaging those who seek keep what Pope Pius XI called the "conscientious observation" of the Ten Commandments.

The conciliarists lose in the end. Christ the King will emerge triumphant once again as the fruit of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of His Mother and our Queen, Mary Immaculate. The Church Militant will rise again from her mystical death and burial.

On the Feast of Our Lady of the Snows

Today is the Feast of Our Lady of the Snows, a day on which snows fell on the Esquiline Hill in Rome whereon was found the trace of what became the Basilica of Saint Mary Major, one of the four Roman archbasilicas, the very place where the Crib in which the Newborn Baby Jesus was placed by Our Lady can be found, the Crib on which Saint Jerome rested his own head in adoration. It is no accident that Saint Jerome's relics themselves are to be found inside of the Basilica of Saint Mary Major, whose history began on this very day, August 5, with the miraculous snows in the middle of a Mediterranean summer:  

In the time of Pope Liberius, there lived at Rome a certain nobleman named John and a noble lady his wife, who had no children to whom to leave their substance. Then they vowed that they would make the most holy Virgin Mother of God their heiress, and earnestly besought her in some way to make known to them upon what godly work she would that the money should be spent. The blessed Virgin Mary graciously listened to their prayers and heart-felt earnestness, and by a miracle assured them of her will.

On the 5th day of August, which is that time when the heat of summer waxeth greatest in Rome, a part of the Esquiline Hill was covered by night with snow. And on this same night the Mother of God appeared in a dream to John and his wife separately, and told them that on that spot, which in the morning they should see clad with snow, they should build a Church, to be dedicated in the name of the Virgin Mary, for that this was the way in which she chose that they should make her their heiress. John went and told it to Pope Liberius, who declared that he also had been visited by a like dream.

Therefore he came in a solemn procession of Priests and people to the snow-clad hill, and traced upon that spot the plan of a Church which was built with the money of John and his wife. It was afterwards rebuilt by Sixtus III. At the beginning it was called by divers names, sometimes the Liberian Basilica, sometimes the Church of St Mary-at-the-Manger. Howbeit, since there are in Rome many Churches called after the Holy Virgin Mary, and this Church doth excel them all, both in honour, and because of the strange sign wherewith it was dedicated, it hath come to be called the Church of St Mary, the Greater. The memory of the dedication thereof is kept every year by a Feast-day that taketh name from the wonderful fall of snow which on this day took place. (Matins, The Divine Office, August 5, Feast of Our Lady of the Snows.)

Dom Prosper Guranger, O.S.B., elaborated on the events that resulted in the building of Santa Maria Maggiore, the Basilic of Saint Mary Major:

Rome, delivered from slavery by St. Peter on the first of this month, today offers to the world a wonderful spectacle. On seven hills had pagan Rome set up her pageantry and built temples to her false gods; seven churches now appear at the summits on which Christian Rome rests her now truly eternal foundations.

By their very site, the Basilicas of St. Peter and of St. Paul, of St. Laurence and of St. Sebastian, placed at the four outer angles of the city of the Caesars, recall the long siege continued for three centuries around the ancient pagan Rome, while the new Christian Rome was being founded. St. Helena and her son Constantine, recommencing the work of the foundations of the holy City, carried the trenches further out; nevertheless, the churches which were their own particular work—the Holy Cross in Jerusalem and the Archbasilica of Our Savior on the Lateran hill—are still at the very entrance of the pagan stronghold, close to the gates, and leaning against the ramparts; just as a soldier, setting foot within a tremendous fortress which has long been under siege, advances cautiously, surveying both the breach through which he has just passed, and the labyrinth of unknown paths opening before him.

Who will plant the standard of Sion in the center of Babylon? Who will force the enemy into his last retreat, and casting out the vain idols, set up his palace in their temples? O Thou to Whom was said this word of the Most High: "Thou art My Son; I will Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance," Thou mighty One, with Thy sharp arrows routing armies, listen to the cry re-echoing from the whole redeemed world: "With Thy comeliness and Thy beauty set out, proceed prosperously and reign!" (Ps. 45) But the Son of the Most High has a Mother on earth; the song of the Psalmist inviting Him to the triumph extols also the Queen standing at His right hand in a vesture of gold; if it is from His Father that He holds His power, it is from His Mother that He receives His crown, and He leaves Her in return the spoils of the mighty. Go forth then, ye daughters of the new Sion, and behold thy King in the diadem wherewith His Mother crowned Him on the joyful day, when, taking possession through Her of the capital of the world, He espoused the Gentile race.

Truly that was a day of joy, when Mary, in the Name of Jesus, claimed Her right as Sovereign and Heiress of the Roman soil! To the East, at the highest point of the eternal City, She appeared on that blessed morning, literally like the rising dawn; beautiful as the moon shining by night; more powerful than the August sun, surprised to see Her tempering his heat, and doubling the brightness of his light with Her mantle of snow; more terrible than an army; for from that date, daring what neither Apostles nor Martyrs had attempted, and what Jesus Himself would not do without Her, She dispossessed the deities of Olympus of their usurped thrones. As was fitting, the haughty Juno, whose altar disgraced the Esquiline, the false queen of those lying gods, was the first to flee before Mary's face, leaving the splendid columns of Her polluted sanctuary to the only true Queen of earth and Heaven.

Forty years had passed since the days of Pope St. Sylvester, when the "image of Our Savior, depicted on the walls of the Lateran, appeared for the first time to the Roman people" (Breviary Lesson for the Feast of the Dedication of the Archbasilica of Our Savior). Rome, still half pagan, beheld today the Mother of Our Savior; under the influence of the pure symbol (of snow) at which she gazed in surprise, she felt die down within her the evil ardor which once made her the scourge of nations, whereas now she was to become their mother; and in the joy of her renewed youth she beheld her once sullied hills covered with the white garment of the Bride of Christ.

Even from the times of the Apostolic preaching, the faithful, who gathered in large numbers in Rome in spite of herself, knew the Blessed Virgin Mary and paid to Her in those days of martyrdom a homage such as no other creature could receive; witness in the catacombs those primitive frescoes of Our Lady, either alone or holding Her Divine Child, but always seated (as a Queen), receiving from Her place of honor the praise, messages, prayers or gifts of prophets, archangels and kings (Cemeteries of Priscilla, of Nereus and Achilleus, etc.) In the Trastevere, where in the reign of Augustus a mysterious fountain of oil had sprung up, announcing the coming of the Anointed of the Lord, Pope St. Callistus in 222 had built a church in honor of Her who is ever the true fountain of oil, the source whence sprang Christ, and together with Him all unction and grace. The Basilica raised by Pope Liberius, the beloved of Our Lady, on the Esquiline Hill, was not, then, the most ancient monument dedicated by the Christians of Rome to the Mother of God; but it at once took, and has always kept, the first place among Our Lady's churches in the City, and indeed in the world, on account of the solemn and miraculous circumstances of its origin.

Hast thou entered, said the Lord to Job, into the storehouses of the snow, or hast thou beheld the treasures of the hail; which I have prepared for the time of the enemy, against the day of battle and war? (Job 38: 22-23) On the 5th of August, then, at God's command the treasures were opened, and the snow was scattered like birds lighting upon the earth, and its coming was the signal for the lightnings of His judgments upon the gods of the nations. The Tower of David now dominates over all the towers of the earthly city; from Her impregnable position Our Lady will never cease Her victorious sorties till She has taken the last hostile fort. How beautiful will Thy steps be in these warlike expeditions, O Queen, whose standard, by the will of Thine adorable Son, must wave over the whole world rescued from the power of the accursed serpent. The ignominious goddess, overthrown from her impure pedestal by one glance of Thine, left Rome still dishonored by the presence of many vain idols. But Thou, all-conquering Lady, didst continue Thy triumphal march. The Church of Sancta Maria de Ara Coeli replaced on the Capitol the odious temple of Jupiter; the sanctuaries and groves dedicated to Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, and Prosperine hastened to take the title of One who had been shown in their fables under disfigured and degraded forms. The deserted Pantheon awaited the day when it was to receive the noble and magnificent name of Sancta Maria ad Martyres. What a preparation for Thy glorious Assumption is the series of earthly triumphs which this day inaugurates! The Basilica of Sancta Maria ad Nives (St. Mary of the Snows), called also the Liberian Basilica from its founder Pope Liberius, and also the Basilica of Sixtus, after Pope Sixtus III, who restored it, owes to this last the honor of becoming the monument of the Divine Maternity proclaimed at the Council of Ephesus; the name of St. Mary Mother, which it received on that occasion, was replaced under Pope Theodore I, who enriched it with its most precious relic—that of the Crib of Jesus—by Sancta Maria ad Praesepe. All these noble titles were afterward gathered into that of St. Mary Major, which is amply justified by the facts we have related, by universal devotion, and by the pre-eminence always assigned to it by the Sovereign Pontiffs. Though the last in order of time of the Seven Churches upon which Christian Rome is founded, it nevertheless ranked in the Middle Ages next to the Archbasilica of Our Savior; in the procession of the Greater Litanies on April 25th, the Roman Ordo assigned to the Cross of St. Mary's its place between that of St. Peter's and that of the Lateran. The important and numerous liturgical Stations appointed at the Basilica on the Esquiline testify to the devotion of the Romans and of all Catholics towards it. It was honored by having Councils celebrated and Vicars of Christ elected within its walls; the Popes for a short time made it their residence, and were accustomed on the Ember Wednesdays, when the Station is always held there, to publish there the names of the Cardinal Deacons or Cardinal Priests whom they had resolved to create.

As to the annual solemnity of its dedication, which is the object of the present Feast, there can be no doubt that it was celebrated on the Esquiline at a very early date. It was, however, not yet kept by the whole Church in the thirteenth century, for Pope Gregory IX originally assigned this day as the Feast of the newly canonized St. Dominic. It was Pope Paul IV who in 1558 definitively fixed the Feast of St. Dominic on the 4th of August; and the reason he gave is that the Feast of the Dedication of St. Mary of the Snows having since been made universal and taking precedence over the other, the honor due to the Holy Founder might be put in the shade if his Feast continued to be observed on the same day. The Breviary of Pope St. Pius V soon after promulgated to the entire world the Office, of which the following are the lessons:

Under the Pontificate of Liberius, John, a Roman patrician, and his wife, who was of an equally noble family, having no children to whom they might leave their estates, vowed their whole fortune to the Blessed Virgin Mother of God, begging Her most earnestly and continuously to make known to them by some means in what pious work She wished them to employ the money. The Blessed Virgin Mary graciously heard their heartfelt prayers and vows, and answered them by a miracle.

On the Nones of August (August 5th), usually the hottest time of the year in Rome, a part of the Esquiline hill was covered with snow during the night. That same night the Mother of God appeared in a dream to John and his wife separately, and told them to build a church on the spot they would find covered with snow, and to dedicate it to the Virgin Mary; for it was in this manner that She wished to become their Heiress. John related this to Pope Liberius, who said he had dreamt the same thing.

He went, therefore, with a solemn procession of priests and people to the snow-clad hill, and chose the site of a church, which was built with the money of John and his wife. It was afterwards rebuilt by Pope Sixtus III. At first it was called by different names: the Liberian Basilica, St. Mary at the Crib. But since there are many churches in Rome dedicated to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and, as this one surpasses all other basilicas in dignity, and by its miraculous beginning, it is distinguished from them also by its title of St. Mary Major. On account of the miraculous fall of snow, the anniversary of the dedication is celebrated by a yearly solemnity on this day.

What recollections, O Mary, does this Feast of Thy greatest Basilica awaken within us! And what worthier praise could we offer to Thee today than to remind Thee of the graces we have received within its precincts, and implore Thee to renew and confirm them? United with our Mother-Church in spite of time and distance, have we not, under its shadow, tasted the sweetest and most triumphant emotions of the liturgical cycle, now nearing its end?

On the First Sunday of Advent, it was here that we began the Liturgical Year, in the place most suitable for saluting the approach of the Divine Birth, which was to gladden Heaven and earth and manifest the sublime portent of a Virgin Mother. Our hearts were overflowing with desire on the holy Vigil of the Nativity, when from early morning we were invited to the bright Basilica, where the Mystical Rose was soon to bloom and fill the world with its fragrance. The grandest of all the churches which the people of Rome have erected in honor of the Mother of God, it stood before us rich in its marble and gold, but richer still in possessing, together with the portrait of Our Lady painted by St. Luke (Salus Populi Romani), the humble yet glorious Crib of Jesus, of which the inscrutable designs of God have deprived Bethlehem. During the blessed night of the Nativity, an immense concourse of people assembled in the Basilica awaiting the happy moment when the monument of the love and humility of the God-Man was to be brought in, carried on the shoulders of the priests, like an Ark of the New Covenant, whose welcome sight gives the sinner confidence and makes the just man thrill with joy. A few months passed away, and we were again in the noble sanctuary, this time compassionating our Holy Mother, whose Heart was filled with poignant grief at the foresight of the Sacrifice which was about to take place. But soon the august Basilica was filled once more with new joys, when Rome justly associated with the Paschal Solemnity the memory of Her, who more than all other creatures, had merited its joys, not only because of the exceptional share She had in all the sufferings of Jesus, but also because of the unshaken faith wherewith, during those long and cruel hours of His lying in the tomb, She awaited His Resurrection. Dazzling as the snow which fell from Heaven to mark the place of Thy predilection on earth, O Mary, a white-robed band of neophytes coming up from the waters of Baptism formed Thy graceful court and enhance the triumph of that great day. Obtain for us all, O Mother, affections as pure as the white marble columns of Thy beloved church, charity as bright as the gold glittering on its ceiling, works shining as the Paschal Candle, that symbol of Christ the Conqueror of death, which in ancient times offered Thee the homage of its first flames. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year, Feast of Our Lady of the Snows, August 5.)

A miracle took place on this day during the heat of the summer on the Esquiline Hill in Rome.  

Why do we doubt that such a miracle will take place at some point during the "heat," if you will, of the Great Apostasy in which we find ourselves?

Indeed, this Great Apostasy is witnessing a remarkable and rapid convergence of all of the heretofore disparate forces of Judeo-Masonry make their "official reconciliation" with what most people think is Catholicism but is in fact her counterfeit ape, a sect of Modernism that has been from its very beginning a means to make the events through which we are living at this time possible to come to fruition.

Do not be agitated.

We need to rely upon Our Lady now as did the Roman patrician and his wife during the reign of Pope Liberius. We need pray for the miracle of the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter, a true pope who will then consecrate Russia with all of the world's true bishops in fulfillment of her Fatima Message. The devil fears this miracle as he knows that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary spells doom from him and his forces of Judeo-Masonry that are preparing the way very rapidly for the ascent of Antichrist.

We entrust ourselves to Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary to help us in this time of apostasy and betrayal as we seek to make reparation for our own sins, which have indeed stained our souls so terribly, and for those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son, Christ the King, Whose Kingship is so mocked and reiviled by the lordds of Modernity in the world and in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Our Lady of the Snows, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthazar, pray for us.

Appendix

Heresy is the Gravest Sin One Can Commit, and Priests Must Oppose It

Sins against God, however, are graver in the hierarchy of evils than sins against men. Heresy is thus the gravest sin one can commit, and the counterfeit church of conciliarism has been built upon and continues to promote one Modernist heresy after another:

• The conciliar “popes” have made war upon the very the nature of dogmatic truth, cleaving to the philosophically absurd notion that dogmatic truth can never be expressed adequately at any one point in time, that each expression of dogma is necessarily "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which it was pronounced. Condemned by the [First] Vatican Council, Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and The Oath Against Modernism, and by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.  (See Antichrist Has Shown Us His Calling Card .)
• The “Second” Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, instituted the false ecclesiology of "full" and "partial" communion that flies in the face of the teaching of the Catholic Church, a teaching documented by Bishop Donald Sanborn in The New Ecclesiology: An Overview and The New Ecclesiology: Documentation and Communion: Ratzinger's Ecumenical One-World Church). This “new ecclesiology,” of course, was the handiwork of none other than Father Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who was acting upon a recommendation by a German Lutheran "observer" at the "Second" Vatican Council, suggested should be placed into the text of Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964, in order to give formal recognition to the "elements" of "sanctification" that he believed exists in the "ecclesial" (Protestant) "communities" and in the Orthodox churches. In other words, the man who is considered the “great dogmatist” helped to attack the Sacred Deposit of Faith at the "Second" Vatican Council to help to give birth to the heresy that is the “new ecclesiolgy, whose principal contention was refuted prophetically by Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: ​​​

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

Jorge Mario Bergoglio has taken the “new ecclesiology” to mean that all “believers,” including those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, are saved as long as they “do good," and he has built on the foundation of the attack upon the monarchical nature of the papacy that is "episcopal collegiality" to use "local churches" as laboratories for the development of subjective applications of Holy Mother Church's received teaching on Faith and Morals in the name of "synodality." 

The conciliar popes, of course, reject what Ratzinger/Benedict called disparagingly the “ecumenism of the return,” and Jorge Mario Bergoglio has gone so far as to issue endless apologies to Protestants and the Waldensians for the manner in which they had been “persecuted” by Catholics in the past, thereby making a mockery of the exhortations of one true pope after another for such a return of non-Catholics to the true Church. Thousands of "papal," "episcopal," sacerdotal/presbteryal "interfaith" prayer services have been held in full violation of admonitions of Saints Paul the Apostle and John the Evangelist as well as the the specific condemnation and prohibition of such services by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.

Despite all their protestations to the contrary, the conciliar "popes," starting with Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paul VI and continuing to the present time under Jorge Mario Bergoglio, have given "joint blessings" with non-Catholic clergymen and engaged in endless services exhibiting a syncretism for which millions of Catholic martyrs gave up their lives rather than to even give the appearance of doing andhave endorsed, at least on a de facto basis, the very sort of religious indifferentism condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, by Pope Pius IX in The Syllabus of Errors and Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864, by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, and Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, by Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, and by the Holy Office under Pope Pius XII, July 5, 1948:

Mixed gatherings of non-Catholics with Catholics have been reportedly held in various places, where things pertaining to the Faith have been discussed against the prescriptions of the Sacred Canons and without previous permission of the Holy See. Therefore all are reminded that according to the norm of Canon 1325 § 3 laypeople as well as clerics both secular and regular are forbidden to attend these gatherings without the aforesaid permission. It is however much less licit for Catholics to summon and institute such kind of gatherings. Let therefore Ordinaries urge all to serve these prescriptions accurately.

These are to be observed with even stronger force of law when it comes to gatherings called “ecumenical”, which laypeople and clerics may not attend at all without previous consent of the Holy See.

Moreover, since acts of mixed worship have also been posed not rarely both within and without the aforesaid gatherings, all are once more warned that any communication in sacred affairs is totally forbidden according to the norm of Canons 1258 and 731, § 2.

Given at Rome, at the premises of the Holy Office, on June 5^th 1948. (This was translated by those who run Novus Ordo Watch. See The Holy Office's 1948 Canonical Warning against Ecumenical Gatherings.)

The “Second” Vatican Council proclaimed the heresy of “religious liberty and the conciliar “popes” have consistently praised nonexistent ability of false religions to "contribute" to the "betterment" of nations and the world. Condemned by Pope Pius VI in Brief Quod aliquantum, March 10, 1791, Religious Liberty, a “Monstrous Right Pope Pius VII in Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814, Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832, and by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

• Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio have endorsed and even praised the Protestantism’s and Judeo-Masonry’s concept of the "separation of Church and State," a thesis called absolutely false by Pope Saint Pius X in Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906, and have have rejected outright the obligation of the civil state to recognize the Catholic Church as its official religion and to pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, an obligation reiterated by pope after pope following the rise of the religiously indifferentist civil state of Modernity.
• The conciliar “popes,” therefore, are social modernists of the sort described by Ratzinger/Benedict, therefore, falls into the category of a social modernist described by Pope Pius XI in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.
• Wojtyla/John Paul II became the first conciliar “pope” to enter into a Mohammedan mosque, doing so on May 7, 2001, in Damascus, Syria, paving the way for Ratzinger/Benedict and Bergoglio to do the same, thus engaging in acts of apostasy and blasphemy as they, who have believed themselves to be Successors of Saint Peter, have permitted themselves treated as inferiors while treating treated places of false worship that are hideous to God as worthy of respect, thereby scandalizing Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s little ones no end.
• Ratzinger/Benedict termed Mount Hiei in Japan, where the adherents of the Tendei sect of Buddhism, worship their devils, as "sacred," a term he used to describe the mosque of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem on May 12, 2009, and Bergoglio is constantly praising the temples of false religions as sacred places that give honor and glory to God.
• The conciliar “popes” have rejected the clarity and certainty of the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas, in favor of the condemned precepts of the so-called “New Theology” and they have held a view on the Doctrine of Justification that, in essence, hinges on the belief that the Fathers of the Council of Trent, who met under the influence and protection of God the Holy Ghost, were wrong (as is explained in Attempting to Coerce Perjury.)
• The counterfeit church of conciliarism has promulgated abominable, sacrilegious and sacramentally invalid liturgical rites, including the the aforementioned Novus Ordo liturgical travesty and the conciliar rites of "epsiscopal ordination"--the conciliar terminology, presbyteral "ordination," Confirmation and the so-called "Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick." The Novus Ordo service has been the chief means by which the conciliar authorities have broken down the senusus Catholicus of older Catholics and brainwashed three successive generations into accepting the doctrinal heresies and false moral teaching of a religious sect that is nothing other than the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church. Even the Sacrament of Penance has been renamed, at least in many places within the conciliar structures, as the "Sacrament of Reconciliation" as the faithful have the option of going to what they think is Confession on a "face to face" basis while sitting down rather than kneeling. 
• The egalitarianism of the conciliarism is such that the conciliar "popes" have granted permission for the administration of what they think is Holy Communion in the hand, to abolish, at least on a de fact basis, kneeling for what is purported to be Holy Communion,  abolished the Communion rail in many Catholic churches held in conciliar captivity, designed new church buildings and wreckovated others for the Cranmer Table to be in the nave of the church and to be circular in shape and permitted a veritable army of laity, including women, into the what used to be called the sanctuary of a Catholic Church.
• The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have taught that the Old Covenant God gave to Moses was never superseded by the New and Eternal Testatment that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ insyituted at the Last Supper on Maundy Thursday and ratified as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday, thus rejecting as "obsolete" the plain, immutable teaching of the Catholic Church as summarized very succintly by Pope Pius II in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

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

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

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

• The innocence and purity of the young have been undermined and corrupted by explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, instruction that was specifically prohibited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929, and reaffirmed by the Holy Ofice under his pontificate on March 21, 1931:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:  

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. (Passage and double-indented quotation as found in Pope Pius XI's Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

I) Can the method be approved, which is called "sexual education," or even "sexual initiation?"

Response: In the negative, and that the method must be persevere entirely as set forth up to the present entirely as set forth up to the present by the Church and saintly men, and recommended by the Most Holy Father in the Encyclical Letter, "On the Christian Education of Youth," given on the 31st day of December, 1929. Naturally, care must especially be taken that a full and solid religious instruction be given to the youth of both sexes without interruption; in this instruction there must be aroused a regard, desire, and love for the angelic virtue; and especially must it be inculcated upon them to insist on prayer, to be constant in the sacraments of penance and the Most Holy Eucharist, to be devoted to the Blessed Virgin Mother of holy purity, with filial devotion and to commit themselves wholly to her protection; to avoid carefully dangerous reading, obscene plays, associated with the wicked, and all occasions of sin.

By no means, then, can we approve what has been written and published in defense of the new method especially in these recent times, even on the part of some Catholic authors. (Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 asThe Sources of Catholic Dogma--referred to as "Denziger," by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 597-598.)

• Sins against Holy Purity, including fornication and adultery have been minimized and those who persist in states of public scandal by means of these sins have been welcomed to receive what the conciliar revolutionaries purport to be the Sacraments without reforming their lives.
• Similarly, those practice and persist in perverse sins of unnatural vice have been welcomed in the name of a false concept of "mercy" and their lifestyles of perdition have been celebrated by many conciliar "bishops" and priests/presbyters worldwide without any "papal" rebuke under the current Bergoglian regime--and only infrequently and inconsistently before the elevation of the Argentine Apostate to his current position as the universal public face of apostasy. 
• The counterfeit church of conciliarism has inverted the ends proper to the Sacrament of Matrimony and endorsed what is, in essence, a Catholic form of “natural” contraception, and enshrined this inversion in their corrupted 1983 Code of Canon Law:

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English:  1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1 1983 Conciliar Code of Canon Law. By the way, Father Vigano, your beloved Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II propagated the so-called 1983 Code of Canon Law. Not even a true pope can change something that exists in the very nature of things. Why no criticism of "Saint John Paul II"?)

The entire fabric of the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s teaching on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, including its endorsement of the falsehood that is "natural family planning," is built on the fabric of the inversion of the ends of marriage that was condemned personally by Pope Pius XII on March 29, 1944, a condemnation that he cited and reiterated in the strongest terms possible in his aforementioned Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951:

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625. It should be pointed out in this regard that the Reverend Frank Pavone and Priests for Life are supporters of "natural family planning," which is based on the very personalism condiemned by Pope Pius XI in 1944 and again in 1951. For antidotes, please see Fifty Years After Humane Vita and Life, Death, and Truth: Under Attack by Medicine and Law.

• The conciliar revolutionaries have placed the safety of the body over the sanctification and salvation of souls while deifying the natural environment and allying very formally with one anti-population, pro-abortion, pro-contraception nogoodnik and their organizations dedicated to the propagation of Communist, globalist, statist propaganda that empower the civil state, deprive men of their legitimate liberties, gut industries, heavily tax citizens and make national sovereignty a relic that belongs in the same category as the  Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the immutable Sacred Deposit of Faith. Naturalism and Pantheism, not Catholicism, guide the conciliar ideologues who are rigidly committed to the propagation of junk science while offending God by means of their hideous liturgies, false doctrines, false teaching on moral theology and false pastoral theology that leads men on the path to eternal ruin. (See Jorge's Band of Theological Racketeers Legitimize Paul Ehrlich)

It was on Saturday, October 15, 2022, the Feast of Saint Teresa of Jesus, that it was announced that Jorge Mario Bergoglio appointed a pro-abort atheist ally of the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab to the very misnamed “Pontifical” Academy for Life:

VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — The Pontifical Academy for Life on Saturday announced Pope Francis’ appointment of pro-abortion, World Economic Forum-linked economist Mariana Mazzucato as one of its new “Ordinary Academicians.”

Mazzucato, a self-described “atheist” and professor of economics at University College London (UCL), was first announced as one of the PAL’s new appointees in an October 15 press release which stated, “The Pontifical Academy for Life is organizing the next Assembly, which is set for Feb. 20-22, 2023, on the theme ‘Converging on the Person. Emerging Technologies for the Common Good.'”

According to the release, “This is a topic of great relevance in these years because ethical reflection is unavoidable in the face of a world that is profoundly changing before our eyes … In this sense, it is important that the Pontifical Academy for Life include women and men with expertise in various disciplines and from different backgrounds, for a constant and fruitful interdisciplinary, intercultural and interreligious dialogue.”

“On behalf of all the Academicians, we express heartfelt thanks to Pope Francis for the attention with which he follows our work,” added the release. “And we reaffirm our commitment to bring into the world that Gospel-based prophetic inspiration and vocation in order to promote human life always and everywhere.”

While the PAL says this appointment is part of its larger goal of fostering an “ethical” and “Gospel-based” reflection to “promote human life always and everywhere,” in addition to being a speaker at the WEF – the globalist group behind the socialist, anti-Christian “Great Reset” agenda – Mazzucato is also enthusiastically pro-abortion, in direct contradiction to the infallible and unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church.

In June, following the United States Supreme Court’s overturning of the landmark 1973 pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision, Mazzucato tweeted “So good!” in response to a pro-abortion commentator making anti-Christian statements disparaging the Bible while condemning the court’s pro-life ruling.

“I don’t care that you’re a Christian, I don’t care what the Bible says, like I feel like its a clown show like sitting here trying to decipher what your little mythical book has to say about these very real political issues,” said left-wing political commentator Ana Kasparian in the video which Mazzucato threw her support behind.

“I do not believe in Christianity which means that you do not get to dictate the way I live my life based on your religion, I don’t care what the Bible says … I don’t care about your [expletive] religion.”

In 2016, Mazzucato also tweeted favorably about Pope Francis’ support of the so-called “climate change” agenda, saying, “As an atheist, never thought I would love a Pope this much.”

Appointing people who hold positions in direct opposition to the Catholic faith has become a trend in the Vatican during Francis’ pontificate.

Last year, Francis appointed pro-abortion population control activist Jeffrey Sachs to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, and in 2017, appointed a pro-abortion Anglican minister to the PAL.

Outside of his appointments of non-Catholics to official positions in Rome, Francis also has a history of appointing heterodox prelates to high-ranking positions of authority within the Church’s clerical hierarchy.

In September, Francis appointed pro-LGBT Portuguese Cardinal José Tolentino de Mendonça as Prefect of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, just months after his June decision to promote a collection of pro-LGBT and anti-Latin Mass cardinals to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. (Pope appoints pro-abortion World Economic Forum speaker to Pontifical Academy for Life.)

Obviously, no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would so such a thing, something that is lost on those who continue to believe that the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, mystical bride of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head, and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, can in any way be responsible for what is taught and done by her counterfeit ape, the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and that there has been in the past such a thing as a heretical pope, something that is an ontological impossibility.

Allying themselves openly with George Soros and his Soros Foundation, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has endorsed "palliative care," which is nothing other than the killing of the sick and whoever else is said to be suffering from a "declining" "quality of life," and encouraged Catholics to give their consent to be vivisected for their vital bodily organs under the aegis of the medical industry's manufactured myth of "brain death" that provided scientific cover for the "legalization" of the sort of barbarous practices to which the Aztecs and other pagans were so devoted. (See  Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry and Attack Dogmatic Truth, Open the Doors Wide for George Soros.)

Mind you, this is just a very partial and incomplete listing of the many ways in which the counterfeit church of conciliarism collectively has defected from the Holy Faith. All that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing is to the put the “finishing touches,” if you will, on all that has gone before him. The Argentine Apostate has used his daily screeds at the Ding Dong School of Apostasy at the Casa Santa Marta and exhortations and encyclicals such as Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, Laudato Si, May 24, 2015, and Amoris Laetitia, March 16, 2016, to map out a program of theological relativism that has suborned hardened sinners in their lives and wickedness and given aid and comfort to every leftist, statist, collectivist, globalist, pro-abort, pro-perversity and pro-“palliative care” politician and social leader on the face of the earth. The truth is plain for all but the culpably blind to see: conciliarism is a false religion, and it has been such openly since the promulgation of Lumen Gentium on November 21, 1964, after its occult beginnings in the six years leading up to its release.

A believing Catholic has a responsibility to recognize heresy for what it is and to recognize that the Catholic Church can never countenance heresy and that there has never been nor can there ever be a heretical pope as each is an ontological impossibility.

Although one does not remain inert and passive in the face of the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means (and the killing of innocent human beings by means of the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” and human vivisection, the starvation and dehydration of brain-damaged human beings, and “palliative care”/hospice, outright euthanasia, suicide, assisted suicide, physician assisted suicide), a Catholic must recognize that one of the reasons that the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments have been increasingly under attack by medicine and law is that the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Commandments have been under attack by the conciliar revolutionaries, who are themselves the greatest blasphemers par excellence in human history.

Appendix B

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s Long History of Blasphemy and Countenancing Abominable Sacrileges

It is to state the obvious that the Reverend Frank Pavone’s “excommunication” for “blasphemous communications” is hypocritical given the fact that conciliarism is in se a work of both heresy and blasphemy, starting with the following blasphemous contention that served as the basis of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity”:

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time."

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.  

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

Ratzinger/Benedict’s belief that it was “necessary” to “learn” the “truth” about his repackaged and relabeled dogmatic evolutionism means that the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, had kept it hidden from Holy Mother Church until the “Second” Vatican Council and that He did not direct the expression of dogmatic truths by the Fathers of the Church's dogmatic councils, a belief that is as blasphemous as it is heretical.

This is what Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the "new theologians" deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?

Let me remind you:

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.)

“Pope Francis” himself has blasphemed Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His Most Blessed Mother as he has distorted and misrepresented the teaching of the work of various saints, including, the Patron Saint of Moral Theologians, Saint Alphonsus de Liguori.

Here is a brief review:

Here are the pertinent passages from Bergoglio’s “homily,” followed by just a bit of commentary and refutation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, let us start with one privilege and distinction given to no other woman: Our Lady became the Mother of God at the moment of the Annunciation. No special privilege or distinction, Jorge? (See Appendix D below for Father Adolf Tanqueray's defense of the Divine Materinity of the Blessed Virgin Mary and its privileges, which Father Tanqueray summarized as follows: "From the dignity of the Divine Maternity proceed all the privileges granted to the Blessed Virgin, her most perfect sanctity, and her supernatural relations with creatures.")

Blasphemer.

Heretic.

Blaspheming heretic.

Obviously, Our Lady had been prepared for the moment of the Annunciation upon which our very salvation rested by her having been preserved from all stain of Original and Actual Sin from the first moment of her Immaculate Conception in the womb of our Good Saint Anne.

Pope Pius IX explained the doctrinal effects of her Immaculate Conception that had clothed her with Perfect Integrity of body and soul when he solemnly defined the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception in Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854:

Mary Compared with Eve

Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom "he who is mighty has done great things," was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God -- indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.

Biblical Figures

Accordingly, the Fathers have never ceased to call the Mother of God the lily among thorns, the land entirely intact, the Virgin undefiled, immaculate, ever blessed, and free from all contagion of sin, she from whom was formed the new Adam, the flawless, brightest, and most beautiful paradise of innocence, immortality and delights planted by God himself and protected against all the snares of the poisonous serpent, the incorruptible wood that the worm of sin had never corrupted, the fountain ever clear and sealed with the power of the Holy Spirit, the most holy temple, the treasure of immortality, the one and only daughter of life -- not of death -- the plant not of anger but of grace, through the singular providence of God growing ever green contrary to the common law, coming as it does from a corrupted and tainted root.

Explicit Affirmation . . .

As if these splendid eulogies and tributes were not sufficient, the Fathers proclaimed with particular and definite statements that when one treats of sin, the holy Virgin Mary is not even to be mentioned; for to her more grace was given than was necessary to conquer sin completely. They also declared that the most glorious Virgin was Reparatrix of the first parents, the giver of life to posterity; that she was chosen before the ages, prepared for himself by the Most High, foretold by God when he said to the serpent, "I will put enmities between you and the woman."-unmistakable evidence that she was crushed the poisonous head of the serpent. And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace.

. . . Of a Super Eminent Sanctity

To these praises they have added very noble words. Speaking of the conception of the Virgin, they testified that nature yielded to grace and, unable to go on, stood trembling. The Virgin Mother of God would not be conceived by Anna before grace would bear its fruits; it was proper that she be conceived as the first-born, by whom "the first-born of every creature" would be conceived. They testified, too, that the flesh of the Virgin, although derived from Adam, did not contract the stains of Adam, and that on this account the most Blessed Virgin was the tabernacle created by God himself and formed by the Holy Spirit, truly a work in royal purple, adorned and woven with gold, which that new Beseleel made. They affirmed that the same Virgin is, and is deservedly, the first and especial work of God, escaping the fiery arrows the the evil one; that she is beautiful by nature and entirely free from all stain; that at her Immaculate Conception she came into the world all radiant like the dawn. For it was certainly not fitting that this vessel of election should be wounded by the common injuries, since she, differing so much from the others, had only nature in common with them, not sin. In fact, it was quite fitting that, as the Only-Begotten has a Father in heaven, whom the Seraphim extol as thrice holy, so he should have a Mother on earth who would never be without the splendor of holiness.

This doctrine so filled the minds and souls of our ancestors in the faith that a singular and truly marvelous style of speech came into vogue among them. They have frequently addressed the Mother of God as immaculate, as immaculate in every respect; innocent, and verily most innocent; spotless, and entirely spotless; holy and removed from every stain of sin; all pure, all stainless, the very model of purity and innocence; more beautiful than beauty, more lovely than loveliness; more holy than holiness, singularly holy and most pure in soul and body; the one who surpassed all integrity and virginity; the only one who has become the dwelling place of all the graces of the most Holy Spirit. God alone excepted, Mary is more excellent than all, and by nature fair and beautiful, and more holy than the Cherubim and Seraphim. To praise her all the tongues of heaven and earth do not suffice.

Everyone is cognizant that this style of speech has passed almost spontaneously into the books of the most holy liturgy and the Offices of the Church, in which they occur so often and abundantly. In them, the Mother of God is invoked and praised as the one spotless and most beautiful dove, as a rose ever blooming, as perfectly pure, ever immaculate, and ever blessed. She is celebrated as innocence never sullied and as the second Eve who brought forth the Emmanuel.  (Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854.)

What style of speech did Jorge Mario Bergoglio choose to use nine days ago?

Indeed, did Bergoglio's style of speech make it appear as though Our Lady "never lent an ear to the serpent" when he spoke as follows on December 20, 2013?

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

Our Lady did not understand, Jorge?

Blasphemer.

Heretic.

Does Bergoglio's style of speech make it appear that the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the fairest flower of our race, was "never in darkness but always in light"?

Here is a brief list of three of other privileges granted to the august Mother of God, the very fairest flower of the human race who had been chosen by God to be the New Eve and the Ark of the New Covenant, the very Singular Vessel of Honor in whose Virginal and Immaculate Womb His Co-Eternal and Co-Equal Divine Son, the Eternal Word Himself through Whom all things were made, was made Incarnate by the working of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:

1. Our Lady’s Perpetual Virginity, a doctrine denied both by Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the misnamed conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and by the man whose works he has been assigned the task of collecting for publication, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
2. Our Lady is the Queen of Heaven and of Earth. Not a "special privilege or distinction, Jorge?
3. Our Lady is the Mediatrix of All Graces, something signified by the Miraculous Medal that she herself told Saint Catherine Laboure, a spiritual daughter of Saint Vincent de Paul, the founder of the Congregation of the Mission whose feast was commemorated yesterday, Sunday, June 19, 2015, the Eighth Sunday after Pentecost, and by the fact that the unreformed Roman Missal permits a commemoration of Our Lady under this title on May 31, which is the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
4. Our Lady is the Co-Redemptrix, something that Pope Leo XIII taught in Iucunda Semper Expectatione, September 8,1894:

The recourse we have to Mary in prayer follows upon the office she continuously fills by the side of the throne of God as Mediatrix of Divine grace; being by worthiness and by merit most acceptable to Him, and, therefore, surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven. Now, this merciful office of hers, perhaps, appears in no other form of prayer so manifestly as it does in the Rosary. For in the Rosary all the part that Mary took as our co-Redemptress comes to us, as it were, set forth, and in such wise as though the facts were even then taking place; and this with much profit to our piety, whether in the contemplation of the succeeding sacred mysteries, or in the prayers which we speak and repeat with the lips. First come the Joyful Mysteries. The Eternal Son of God stoops to mankind, putting on its nature; but with the assent of Mary, who conceives Him by the Holy Ghost. Then St. John the Baptist, by a singular privilege, is sanctified in his mother's womb and favored with special graces that he might prepare the way of the Lord; and this comes to pass by the greeting of Mary who had been inspired to visit her cousin. At last the expected of nations comes to light, Christ the Savior. The Virgin bears Him. And when the Shepherds and the wise men, first-fruits of the Christian faith, come with longing to His cradle, they find there the young Child, with Mary, His Mother. Then, that He might before men offer Himself as a victim to His Heavenly Father, He desires to be taken to the Temple; and by the hands of Mary He is there presented to the Lord. It is Mary who, in the mysterious losing of her Son, seeks Him sorrowing, and finds Him again with joy. And the same truth is told again in the sorrowful mysteries.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus is in an agony; in the judgment-hall, where He is scourged, crowned with thorns, condemned to death, not there do we find Mary. But she knew beforehand all these agonies; she knew and saw them. When she professed herself the handmaid of the Lord for the mother's office, and when, at the foot of the altar, she offered up her whole self with her Child Jesus -- then and thereafter she took her part in the laborious expiation made by her Son for the sins of the world. It is certain, therefore, that she suffered in the very depths of her soul with His most bitter sufferings and with His torments. Moreover, it was before the eyes of Mary that was to be finished the Divine Sacrifice for which she had borne and brought up the Victim. As we contemplate Him in the last and most piteous of those Mysteries, there stood by the Cross of Jesus His Mother, who, in a miracle of charity, so that she might receive us as her sons, offered generously to Divine Justice her own Son, and died in her heart with Him, stabbed with the sword of sorrow. (Pope Leo XII, Iucnda Semper Expectatione, September 8, 1894.)

This is, of course, all quite foreign to the naturalistic and Modernist mind of the blaspheming heretic named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

No special privileges?

Well, anyone who wants to have the heavenly assistance of the Mother God nunc, et in hora mortis ought to rise immediately to defend her honor, not to exculpate the hideous blaspheming heretic from Argentina.

Additionally, Jorge Mario Bergoglio has praised numerous blasphemous works of art, has said and done nothing while Catholic churches, including cathedrals, in conciliar captivity have hosted scandalous celebrations of sodomy, up to and including “transgenderism,” which Bergoglio himself has reaffirmed at least by implication in his meetings with those who have mutilated their bodies to do the biologically impossible, namely, to “change” their gender, and has said the following about Saint Alphonsus de Liguori:

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

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

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

Listening to reality

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

Interjection Number One:

This is all just blasphemous nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection Number Two:

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

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

The Devil brings sinners to hell by closing their eyes to the dangers of perdition. He first blinds them, and then leads them with himself to eternal torments. If, then, we wish to be saved, we must continually pray to God in the words of the blind man in the gospel of this day,” Lord, that I may see." Give me light: make me see the way in which I must walk in order to save my soul, and to escape the deceits of the enemy of salvation. I shall, brethren, this day place before your eyes the delusion by which the devil tempts men to sin and to persevere in sin, that you may know how to guard yourselves against his deceitful artifices. ("The Delusions of Sinners: Sermon for Quinquagesima Sunday," as found in Saint Alphonsus de Liguori, The Sermons of Saint Alphonsus Liguori For All the Sundays of the Year, republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1982, pp. 118-119.)

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