Although not the principal subject of this commentary, I do think that it is appropriate to spend just a bit of time following up on what appeared to have been a “spontaneous” “papal” initiative to marry a couple who had been living in sin for the last eight years, if not longer. As has been the case so many times in the past, the “spontaneity” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s initiative may not have been “spontaneous” after all:
January 19, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – A wedding ceremony presided over by Pope Francis on a recent flight in Chile and portrayed as spontaneous by the couple appears in fact to have been planned well in advance.
In the website of the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio, published on December 19 of last year, an article speaks of the same couple, flight attendants named Carlos Ciuffardi and Paula Podest Ruiz, who say they are hoping that Pope Francis will marry them at high altitude during the pre-planned flight.
Under the subheading “Matrimony in the air,” the newspaper reports that the two award-winning flight attendants, who work together for Latam Airlines, have been selected to form part of the crew of Francis’ flight. It goes on to explain that the two are married civilly but have postponed an expected Catholic wedding for eight years, and are hoping that Pope Francis will marry them during the flight.
“So both hope that this January this postponed plan [to marry] can finally be carried out on the plane and be conducted by none other than Pope Francis himself,” wrote El Mercurio.
“We would love it,” Podest Ruiz is quoted as saying. “It [the airplane] is our place, it is our second home, it’s where we feel safe.”
However, Ciuffardi’s account to the press following the event gave the impression that the wedding was offered and given spontaneously by the pope.
“When the time came for the group photo of all flight crew with the pope, he invited us to sit down [next to him],” said Ciuffardi in a video interview following the flight. “He asked us...”
Podest Ruiz interrupted, “We began to converse with him...”
“And that would be the moment. It was like that!” added Ciuffardi, snapping his fingers to illustrate how quickly it happened. “It occurred to him [to do it]!”
“I don’t know if someone had said something to him [about it] because . . . we don’t know,” said Ciuffardi.
Although Director of the Holy See Press Office Greg Burke later told the media that the wedding “was not the Pope's idea; it was their idea, but the Pope was happy to do it,” the Holy See’s Vatican News site has done nothing to counteract the impression that the event was spontaneous and unplanned, as it has been portrayed in most of the international media (including LifeSite).
The apparently spontaneous and canonically irregular nature of the wedding has raised questions among Catholics about the validity of the marriage, and also the extent to which Pope Francis takes the sacrament of matrimony seriously.
“As this story reverberates ‘round the world, now, deacons, priests, and bishops who try to uphold Church norms fostering values such as deliberate marriage preparation, an ecclesial context for a Catholic wedding, and the use of established and reliable texts for expressing consent will, undoubtedly, have the Podest-Ciuffardi wedding tossed in their face as evidence that, if Pope Francis does not insist on such legalistic silliness and only cares about whether two people love one another, why shouldn’t they do likewise?” wrote eminent canon lawyer Edward Peters yesterday, after reading initial reports of the event. “The ministry of conscientious clergy in this regard just got harder." (Maybe Not So Spontaneous.)
Spontaneous or not, the comments made by lay canon lawyer Edward Peters contained in the Lifesite News story just above are entirely correct, and, as noted in part two of this commentary, Jorge Mario Bergoglio knows full well that his “initiatives” are going to be copied by “bishops” and priests/presbyters who are his ideological allies. This will leave those clergymen within the counterfeit church of conciliarism who are trying to abide by this false, illegal religious sect’s own code of canon law and to follow the rite of matrimony as found in the misnamed “Roman Missal” of Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria/Paul VI completely helpless and without any “legal” recourse when two people living in sin, perhaps a couple they meet on the street, asks to be married “spontaneously.” After all, why can’t “Father Schmo,” say, do what the “pope” himself has done in a very public.
Mind you, the convalidation of those who have “married” civilly is not uncommon and those who recognize the errors of their ways by seeking it are to be commended for wanting to return to the bosom of Holy Mother Church, but it is the mind of Holy Mother Church that all the proper investigations must be made concerning a couple’s canonical freedom to marry, including any impediments of consanguinity, as well as providing a proper instruction to the couple concerning the nature and duties of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Convalidation is not done “spontaneously,” which means, of course, that Jorge Mario Bergoglio was simply acting in an entirely lawless manner if the Carlos Ciuffardi and Paula Podest Ruiz “wedding” was spontaneous.
Given the Alice in Wonderland nature of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, however, it may very well turn out to be the case that some conciliar official in Argentina saw the news story and then requested that the baptismal certificates of Senor Ciuffardi and Senora Podest be sent to the Vatican. I would not be surprised if this happened, although “Pope Francis” is bound to be asked about the matter during the inflight press conference while he is traveling back from Peru to Rome tomorrow. One can be sure that spokesflack Greg Burke is preparing the false “pontiff” for such a question. Even then, however, we can never be sure that what comes out of the Argentine Apostate’s mouth is true as he is notorious for spinning all on his own without any help from others. He is a positivist to the very core of his wretched being.
Nevertheless, let me hazard what the false “pontiff” might say when he is asked about the “spontaneous” marriage:
Q. You have been criticized by canon lawyers and other commentators for not following the Code of Canon Law and the rubrics of the rite of marriage when you officiated at the spontaneous wedding of Carlos Ciuffardi and Paula Podest Ruiz. I have several questions for you.
First, the newlyweds said after the ceremony that you asked them if they wanted you to marry them, although Greg Burke said that it was they who asked you to marry them. Which is it?
A. They asked me, no? Simple.
Q. What about the canonical objections?
A. Jesus Himself had to contend with the doctors of the law. May God spare us from today’s doctors of the law who wanted to get in the way of love.
Q. What about a prudent consideration of their baptismal certificates to ascertain whether they were canonically free to marry?
A. They told me that they had made the arrangements to be married before the earthquake eight years ago. The records would be there, right? So? What is your point?
Q. Holiness, but what about the need to give them some instruction about the sacrament?
A. What instruction did they need? They have been together for eight years. They have had all the preparation that they need, no? We cannot put the law and rules before love. Ever.
Obviously, Bergoglio will be more verbose than this, and he is likely to get defensive at times. However, the answers he gives may very well run along similar lines.
No matter Jorge’s answers, however, it is very clear that he did not follow ask Senor Even if all the rules of the conciliar sect had been followed, though, the fact remains that he did not ask Senor Ciuffardi and Senora Podest the following questions as contained in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo’s rite of marriage:
24. The priest then questions them about their freedom of choice, faithfulness to each other, and the acceptance and upbringing of children:
N. and N., have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in marriage?
Will you love and honor each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?
The following question may be omitted if, for example, the couple is advanced in years.
Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?
Each answers the questions separately.
25. The priest invites the couple to declare their consent:
Since it is your intention to enter into marriage, join your right hands, and declare your consent before God and his Church.
The bridegroom says:
I, N., take you, N., to be my wife. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
The bride says:
I, N., take you, N., to be my husband. I promise to be true to you in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health. I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.
If, however, it seems preferable for pastoral reasons, the priest may obtain consent from the couple through questions.
First he asks the bridegroom:
N., do you take N. to be your wife? Do you promise to be true to her in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love her and honor her all the days of your life?
The bridegroom: I do.
Then he asks the bride:
N., do you take N. to be your husband? Do you promise to be true to him in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, to love him and honor him all the days of your life?
The bride: I do.
If pastoral necessity demands it, the conference of bishops may decree, in virtue of the faculty in no. 17, that the priest should always obtain the consent of the couple through questions.
In the dioceses of the United States, the following form may also be used:
I, N., take you, N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
I, N., take you, N., for my lawful husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
If it seems preferable for pastoral reasons for the priest to obtain consent from the couple through questions, in the dioceses of the United States the following alternative form may be used.
N., do you take N. for your lawful wife (husband), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do you part?
The bride (bridegroom): I do.
26. Receiving their consent, the priest says:
You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. What God has joined, men must not divide.
May the Lord bless + these rings which you give to each other as the sign of your love and fidelity.
28. The bridegroom places his wife's ring on her ring finger. He may say:
N., take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
The bride places her husband's ring on his ring finger. She may say:
N., take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Catholic Liturgical Library.)
None of this was done onboard the “papal” plane three days ago.
Readers of this site, no matter how few in number they may be, might be interested in seeing the contrast between the Rite of Holy Matrimony in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, including the following instruction provided to pastors in Volume I of the Roman Ritual:
20. A marriage of two Catholics should be celebrated in the parish church, and only if the Ordinary or the pastor give permission may it be celebrated in another church or in a semipublic oratory. The Ordinary may allow a marriage to be celebrated in a private home only in some extraordinary case, and then there must always be a just and reasonable cause for granting the permission. But should not permit it in a church or oratory of a seminary or convent of women except in an urgent case, and then with due precautions. Mixed marriages must not take place in church. But in the prudent judgment of the Ordinary this rule cannot be observed, without giving rise to greater evil, it is left to his discretion to grant a dispensation in the matter. (The Roman Ritual In Latin and English in Plainchant Notation, Translated and Edited with Introduction and Notes by the Reverend Philip T. Weller, Volume I, the Sacraments and Processions, first published by The Bruce Company, 1950, and republished by Preserving Christian Publications in 2005 and 2007, pp. 461.)
One will see rather readily that the “1983 Code of Canon Law” is very different from the summary of the 1917 Pio-Benedict Code of Canon Law, some of whose provisions were summarized in the Roman Ritual as cited just above, stating with the fact that, as a matter of course, marriages may be performed in “other suitable places” and that mixed marriages are to take place in a parish church. In other words, what was a dispensation in the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church is now the required norm:
Can. 1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.
§2. The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.
§3. A marriage between a Catholic party and a non-baptized party can be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.
Can. 1119 Outside the case of necessity, the rites prescribed in the liturgical books approved by the Church or received by legitimate customs are to be observed in the celebration of a marriage.
Can. 1120 The conference of bishops can produce its own rite of marriage, to be reviewed by the Holy See, in keeping with the usages of places and peoples which are adapted to the Christian spirit; nevertheless, the law remains in effect that the person who assists at the marriage is present, asks for the manifestation of consent of the contracting parties, and receives it. (Conciliar Code of Canon Law.)
Perhaps most significantly, the Rite of Matrimony in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition takes place before the celebration of the Nuptial Mass. Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini/Paulus Infirmorum inveniuntur changed this on April 2, 1964, with the issuance of Ordo Celebrandi Matrimonii Sacramentum, thereby placing the actual rite of marriage after the “homily” and before the “general intercessions of the faithful.”
Although the forms of the Catholic and conciliar marriage rites are similar (see the text from the Roman Ritual in the Appendix below), they are not identical.
Indeed, the major glaring difference is to be found in the Roman Rite’s reiteration of the very reason why Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted Holy Matrimony in the prayer that is said after the priest blesses the wedding rings and thus closes the marriage rite before the celebration of the Nuptial Mass:
Let us pray
Look down, we beseech thee, O Lord, upon these servants of thine, and graciously assist with they care the institution thou didst ordain for the propagation of the human race; so that they who are bound together by thy authority may attention to perfection by thy help. Through Christ our Lord. R. Amen. (The Roman Ritual In Latin and English in Plainchant Notation, Translated and Edited with Introduction and Notes by the Reverend Philip T. Weller, Volume I, the Sacraments and Processions, first published by The Bruce Company, 1950, and republished by Preserving Christian Publications in 2005 and 2007, pp. 465.)
As been noted on this site so many times in the past, the conciliar revolutionaries do not believe that the propagation of the human race is the first end of marriage. Although the text of the conciliar rite of marriage includes a reference to welcoming children and educating them in the Faith, there is no such prayer as is one above as found in Volume I of the Roman Ritual.
Always Protesting the Innocence of the Guilty
Even though Jorge Mario Bergoglio is breaking new ground as a Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionary by performing the “spontaneous” marriage, he has made it a point to carry on a few “traditions” of his immediate predecessors, especially when it comes to defending his false “bishops” who have protected perverted putative clergymen and when it comes to defending “bishops” themselves who have been accused of perverted behavior.
Yes, it was a day after illegal, lawless church’s version of William Jefferson Blyth “I feel your pain” Clinton, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, prayed and cried with victims of clerical abusers that this little pest of a human being, who might be demon dressed up to look like a man, denounced those who have criticized his own lavender-friendly appointee as the “bishop” of Osorno, Chile, Juan Barros, for having protected a proven perverted presbyter, Fernando Karadima:
SANTIAGO, Chile — A number of Chilean Catholics reacted with disappointment and anger on Friday, a day after Pope Francis spoke in defense of a bishop who they say protected a pedophile priest. The remarks, made on Thursday just before Francis left Chile for Peru, upended his efforts to rehabilitate the Catholic Church’s reputation while visiting South America.
Francis told reporters Thursday there was not a shred of evidence against Bishop Juan Barros Madrid, who victims of the Rev. Fernando Karadima, Chile’s most notorious priest, have accused of being complicit in his crimes.
“The day someone brings me proof against Bishop Barros, then I will talk,” Francis said before celebrating Mass outside the northern Chilean city of Iquique. “But there is not one single piece of evidence. It is all slander. Is that clear?”
The pope’s comments set off a storm in Chile, raising questions about his commitment to repairing the damage from sexual abuse scandals and improving the decline in the church’s image and following in the traditionally devout country.
Benito Baranda, coordinator of the pope’s visit to Chile, told a radio station in Santiago that Bishop Barros “should have ceased to be bishop a long time ago.” He added: “The damage he is inflicting on the church is big.”
Mr. Baranda, a psychologist, said that the church “never believed Karadima’s victims from the start” and that the pope’s support for the bishop “reignites the feeling of not being believed, or that they are exaggerating or being deceitful. It’s like when children say they suffer abuse but no one believes them because they are children.”
However, the president of the Chilean bishops’ conference, Msgr. Santiago Silva, said the organization would “unconditionally support” the pope’s position on Bishop Barros. “The pope told us what he wants, and he wants Monsignor Barros to continue,” Monsignor Silva said.
Alejandro Goic, the bishop of Rancagua, said that what “the pope says has extraordinary value,” but he added that “the church’s main priority should be the victims.”
Anne Barrett Doyle, a co-director of BishopAccountability.org, a group that monitors abuse cases, called the pope’s remarks “a stunning setback.”
She added: “He has just turned back the clock to the darkest days of this crisis. Who knows how many victims now will decide to stay hidden, for fear they will not be believed?”
And the government’s spokeswoman, Paula Narváez, said on her Twitter account: “Respecting, believing and supporting victims of sexual abuse is an ethical imperative. No institutional defense can override this basic principle for a fair society, one that is empathetic with those who most need it.”
Father Karadima was convicted by the Vatican in 2011 of abusing teenage boys beginning in the 1980s, and he was ordered to lead a “life of prayer and penitence.” That year, a judge found the allegations “truthful and reliable” but dismissed a criminal case because the statute of limitations had expired.
Bishop Barros, a former military chaplain, was part of Father Karadima’s inner circle and, according to one of the victims, witnessed the priest’s advances on him.
“As if I could have taken a selfie or picture while Karadima abused me or others and Juan Barros stood there watching it all,” one of Father Karadima’s victims, Juan Carlos Cruz, wrote on Twitter.
The pope told a group of tourists visiting Vatican City in 2015 that people in Orsono who protested the appointment were “dumb.”
“The Osorno community is suffering because it’s dumb,” he said, according to video recorded by one of the tourists. The city had “let its head be filled with what politicians say, judging a bishop without any proof.”
This week, lay and religious groups from Osorno and Santiago, the capital, protested throughout the pope’s visit and called for action against the bishop.
But Bishop Barros has continued to enjoy the support of the Vatican, and there was no public indication that Francis was reconsidering his position. Bishop Barros participated in the pope’s ceremonies in Santiago, Iquique and the southern city of Temuco. In Iquique, Bishop Barros told reporters that Francis had offered him “words of support and affection.”
The Associated Press reported this week that Francis had acknowledged the furor over the legacy of Father Karadima in a 2015 letter to the Chilean bishop’s conference. The letter said the pope proposed Bishop Barros and two other bishops go on sabbatical before taking up any new positions, a plan that ultimately fell apart.
Francis began his visit to Chile on Tuesday morning by publicly apologizing for the sexual abuse involving the clergy, saying he felt “pained and ashamed” over the “irreparable damage” done to their victims. But he refused to meet with victims of Father Karadima.
“What the pope has done today is offensive and painful, and not only against us, but against everyone seeking to end the abuses,” James Hamilton, one of the victims, said during a news conference Thursday.
The archbishop of Santiago, Francisco Javier Errázuriz, who has been harshly criticized by Father Karadima’s victims for failing to protect them or investigate their accusations at the time, said the controversy over Bishop Barros was an “invention.” (Jorge Says Critics of Barros are Slanderers.)
Gee, where have we heard this tune before?
Well, for starters, we have heard it from the lips of Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself.
Yes, the false “pontiff” uttered the famous words, “Who am I to judge?”, when he was asked onboard the antipapal plane traveling from “World Youth Day” 2013 to Rome about the documented accusations against his own handpicked nominee, “Monsignor” Battista Ricca, to head the Institute for Religious Works, the Vatican Bank. Jorge’s then spokesflack, “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., had denied such proof existed, promoting Vaticanologist Sandro Magister to write the following at the time:
Because of the documented charge that "Monsignor" Battista Ricca, whom Bergoglio/Francis himself appointed as the head of the Institute of Religious Works (the Vatican Bank) is a sodomite. Bergoglio/Francis is standing by his "man" in this instance, claiming that a "preliminary investigation" showed nothing even though the facts, documented by Sandro Magister, who did a sold piece of reporting on this matter, are to the contrary. Here is just a brief review:
"To Father Lombardi, who defines as 'not trustworthy' what was published regarding Msgr. Ricca, L'Espresso replies reaffirming point by point the facts referred by Sandro Magister in his piece, confirmed by several primary sources and, as a whole, considered at the time of such gravity by the same Vatican authorities that forced them to remove the Monsignor from the Uruguay nunciature, in which he rendered his service, giving scandal to bishops,priests, religious and lay persons in that country.
"It can be added that the Vatican authorities, instead of making up improbable and ad-lib denials, could verify the trustworthiness of all that was published by L'Espresso by simply consulting the exhaustive documentation in their possession on the affair, in particular that related to his time in the Montevideo nunciature. Further documentation is available from the Uruguayan authorities, from security forces to fire brigades. Not to mention the numerous bishops, priests, religious, laymen in Uruguay who were direct witnesses of the scandal and are ready to speak." (On "Gay Lobby", Sandro Magister challenges the Vatican: "We have the evidence".)
Put into this context, therefore, what the false “Bishop of Rome” said on this issue four and one-half years ago now means that Battista Ricca is his “brother” as long as he has “good will” and “seeks God,” that he, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has no problem with supposedly “past” sins of perversity as God forgives and forgets, requiring him to do the same.
In this, you see, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis demonstrates himself to be completely sanguine about the horror of personal sin and his total openness to having "gay men" in the clergy if they “seek God” and “have good will.”
Battista Ricca is still on the job inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River, and Juan Barros will remain on the job in Osorno, Chile, until Bergoglio promotes him either within the ranks of the Chilean conciliar “hierarchy” or to the Vatican itself.
Then again, as has been noted on this site rather consistently over the years, the fine art of “killing the messenger” has been practiced quite a lot in the corridors and offices chancery officials of archdioceses and dioceses under the control of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in this time of apostasy and betrayal. This is not simply some “observation” I have made as a sideline observer of some sort, but from first-hand experience dealing with the no-goodniks in those chancery offices.
Although not mentioned by name, yours truly was pretty thoroughly excoriated from a pulpit in Sioux City, Iowa, in early May of 1993 after I had provided parents with assistance in "fighting" programs that involved explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments, which included a meeting we held in the offices of the then diocesan ordinary "Bishop" Lawrence Soens, who continues to deny allegations of clergy abuse that came to public light in the last decade (denials that continue despite a review board in the Diocese of Davenport having found that some of those allegations to be credible Retired "Bishop" Abused Minors). "Bishop" Soens looked as though we were talking Swahili to him when we discussed the teaching of the Catholic Church.
Unlike the experience I had ten years previously when Silvio Cardinal Oddi came to the rescue of a beleaguered pastor on Long Island who was under attack for his orthodoxy, however, "Rome" did not come to the rescue in 1993. The then-prefect of the conciliar church's Congregation for the Clergy," Jose Tomas "Cardinal" Sanchez, shrugged his shoulders when I met with him in Rome later in late-May of 1993, "Who should I believe? You say one thing. The bishop will say another. Who do I believe? Why are these programs wrong?" You think that I would have learned that the cavalry wasn't coming to the rescue?
There is probably no need to recount once again the vitriol that was directed at the courageous Mr. Stephen G. Brady, the founder of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., who publicly accused "Bishop" Daniel Leo Ryan of corrupt behavior in a press conference that he held on February 12, 1997, after all private entreaties made to Ryan and to the Congregation for the Bishops in Rome failed to secure his resignation. Mrs. Kathleen Sass, who served for many years as the communications director for the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, denounced Mr. Brady.
Even some "conservative" Catholics, most of whom were associated with Opus Dei, denounced Mr. Brady and the man who wrote the following article, Roman Catholic Faithful Accuses Bishop Ryan of Harassment. "You're causing scandal." "You're dividing the Church." "You've committed calumny." "No one has any need to know this." And those were only the printable sorts of reactions that can be recounted twenty-one years later.
Bitter divisions emerged in the diocese between those who supported the "loving," "caring" "bishop" and those who had been stonewalled for years by Ryan on doctrinal and liturgical abuses in the Diocese of Springfield who were predisposed to believe the charges of moral corruption against him. (For something of a synopsis of the Ryan case, see Seven Years Later, written about twenty-six months before the first article appeared on this site that discussed the papal vacancy that exists at this time.)
Even the conciliar authorities had to admit publicly in early-2003 what the late Francis "Cardinal" George admitted privately to Stephen Brady in early 1998, namely, that Daniel Leo Ryan was guilty as charged. Stephen Brady was never credited with his courage by the conciliar revolutionaries who enabled him and protected him at every turn imaginable until the matter become public. The "clerical club" mattered more than anything else, and the chickens are still coming home to roost in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as a result.
Thus it is that I have been an eyewitness to clerical abuse of the sheep.
Patterns of human behavior aren't all that different when people attempt to protect themselves by shooting the messenger.
It's the same in politics or the courtroom or all along and up and down the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide at this time of apostasy and betrayal. It was amazing to see the likes of a William Jefferson Blythe Clinton or his wife, the always-programmed robot named Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro or Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr., or Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch or Andrew Mark Figlio di Sfachim Cuomo use the most vile terms to seek to caricature and demonize anyone and everyone who opposes them. It's the same in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. As a general, although far from ironclad, rule, those who resort to the name-calling and use of emotionalism to deflect just criticisms are the ones who are not telling the truth in a given conflict.
The rot in the illegal, lawless conciliar sect is such that Tarcisio “Cardinal” Bertone, an ally of Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who is not one of “Pope Francis’s” favorite individuals spoke in the same sort of positivistic terms as Bergoglio himself when speaking in 2007 on the subject of clergy abuse here in the United States of America
Nashville, Tenn., Aug 9, 2007 / 11:21 am (CNA).- A particularly candid Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone spoke yesterday afternoon about the situation surrounding the sex abuse scandal in the United States. The Church’s second in command praised the Church’s response and reserved some critical words for those who have seized on the scandal as an opportunity for profit.
“The Church in the US has suffered deeply, has responded with dignity, and invites everyone to truly commit to a reversal of this situation,” said Bertone.
“While I was still at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and then as the Archbishop of Genoa, I accompanied the American Church through this trial, this period, and I repeat that they faced this trial with dignity and courage.”
However, the Cardinal was particularly upset with those who have turned the situation into a means of making a profit. “The business aspect, the financial aspect, has nothing to do with cleaning up the reality of the situation. It is an unbearable business that has been created here in the United States…it’s unbearable and also disgraceful.”
The Cardinal also seemed to speak with some indignation about the way that the Church has been singled out as a target. He said that, “the proportion of priests who are involved in this scandal is very small given that there are 44,000 priests in the United States.”
“I could only hope that the other social agencies would have the same courage to face this problem as the Roman Catholic Church did.”
The Secretary of State also showed that he was concerned that a comprehensive solution is provided to the sex abuse problem and continued to point out how the most analysis of the Church’s response is slanted.
“I ask if the other organizations have provided financial compensation for the victims…have they taken care of the victims and those who have been guilty? We cannot abandon the victims or dismiss the guilty as lost.” (Ratzinger's right-hand man addresses sex abuse scandal in the US)
This despicable, reprehensible view of the crisis caused by the systematic recruitment, retention and promotion of sodomites into every nook and cranny of the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the view that prevails yet today in the conciliar Vatican under Jorge Mario Bergoglio. What I wrote nearly eleven years ago is relevant yet again:
These comments of 2007 were beneath contempt, representing the height of arrogance and absolute, rank insensitivity for the harm that has been visited upon countless thousands upon thousands of souls by the corrupt and malicious behavior of the American "bishops" and their chancery factotums and their attorneys and the representatives of their insurance companies, each of whom lied to the victims of the sordid behavior of various "bishops" and priests and then sought to intimidate them into silence when these victims refused to accept these lies. The claim that the "Church in the US" has "responded with dignity" to the scandals that have exploded into full public view was and remains a contemptible lie. There is no other word to describe such an outrageous distortion of the truth.
Responded with dignity?
Go tell that to Frank Bergen, a one-time male prostitute who was used by the corrupt former "bishop" of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, Daniel Leo Ryan, a product of the corrupt machine of perversity that emanated from the Archdiocese of Detroit and ran through his own home diocese, Joliet, Illinois, a bastion of feminism and heterodoxy and one liturgical outrage after another under the sordid "episcopal" reign of the now retired Joseph Imesch, a product of the Archdiocese of Detroit. Imesch was consecrated by the progenitor of the revolutionary "Call to Action" movement, John Cardinal Dearden, Archbishop of Detroit from 1958 to 1990, and co-consecrated by that notorious supporter of the Homosexual Collective, "Bishop" Thomas Gumbleton, Dearden's prized protege.
Ryan's corruption was brought to light by Mr. Stephen G. Brady, the courageous founder of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., in early-1997 after private efforts to demand Ryan's resignation remained unanswered. Frank Bergen was one of Ryan's many victims, two of which included conciliar "priests," one of whom was taken to Rome in 1998 by the late Father John A. Hardon, S.J. and presented his case personally before Dario Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, then the Prefect of the Conciliar Congregation for the Clergy. No one in the conciliar hierarchy cared for Frank Bergen's immortal soul as he spent time in prison in Jacksonville, Illinois, where I interviewed him in early-1998.
Stephen Brady was stonewalled by the conciliar hierarchy in the United States, denounced in the most vicious terms by Ryan's paid flack, Mrs. Kathleen Sass, who has never once offered a public apology for her bitter denunciations of Mr. Brady's statement of the actual truth about her corrupt, perverted former employer, and he was stonewalled by officials in the conciliar Vatican, which did not take any action against Ryan for over two one-half years, doing so only after a lawsuit had been filed (which lawsuit would have required depositions to be taken under oath). And it took over three years after that for the Diocese of Springfield to actually admit what Stephen G. Brady had been documenting since his first communication with Daniel Ryan in November of 1996: that this unrepentant pervert, who has never once apologized for his wanton behavior, was indeed guilty as charged.
Responded with dignity?
Go tell that to the scores of people in the Archdiocese of Boston who were browbeaten as one perverted priest after another, some of whom had been ordained before 1968 and were thus true priests, was protected by the late Bernard “Cardinal Law” (my article on him keeps being pushed back by Jorge’s shenanigans in Chile and Peru) and Thomas Daily and William F. Murphy and Robert Banks and Richard Lennon and John McCormack, including Father Paul Shanley, a co-founder of an organization whose title is so repugnant that it will not be mentioned here.
Responded with dignity?
Go tell that to the scores of people in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and the Diocese of Orange who were stonewalled for years by Roger Mahony and Tod Brown, neither of whom are noted to be, shall we say, friends of the authentic Tradition of the Catholic Church.
Responded with dignity?
Go tell that to the scores of people molested and then victimized by the legal teams of the Dioceses of Spokane and Tucson and San Diego and Davenport, each of which went into bankruptcy so as to avoid the deposition process.
Responded with dignity?
Go tell that to the victims of Father Rudy Kos in the Diocese of Dallas.
Responded with dignity?
Go tell that to the way in which the late John “Cardinal” O'Connor and other conciliar "bishops" transferred perverted priests to the service of the Military Ordinariate in order to get them out of the way of legal jeopardy, playing the old "shell game" as they enabled men steeped unrepentantly in the ravages of one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance?
Responded with dignity?
Go tell that to the way in which the conciliar Vatican, which has its own nest of perverts, to be sure, protected and promoted "bishops" who were themselves perverted and about whose perversion its officials had been informed most fully (Daniel Ryan, Thomas Dupre, Patrick Ziemann, Keith Symons, Andrew O'Connell, Rembert Weakland, Kendrick Williams, among others).
Those who have turned the situation into a means of making profit?
What other recourse did victims have except to take the conciliar "bishops" to court after years of seeking redress through their corrupt chancery offices caused them to be victimized and humiliated yet again and again and again?
A means of profit?
What price can be put on the harm done to souls by "bishops" and "priests" who reject articles contained in the Deposit of Faith and who subject the children in the educational institutions under their control to the insidious harm of explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and the Ninth Commandments?
Tarcisio Bertone's attempt in 2007 to defend the actions of the reprobate conciliar "bishops" in the United States of America by claiming that other "institutions" have had similar problems was amazingly bold, but is in no less bold than Bergoglio's own bitter attacks on critics of Juan Barros.
We are not judged when we die on the basis of how good or bad we were in life in comparison to others.
We are judged solely on the objective state of our souls at the moment of our deaths. The state of the souls of others is completely irrelevant to the responsibility we bear for our own sins, each of which must be confessed to and absolved by a true priest in the Sacred Tribunal of Penance so as to be the beneficiaries of the treasures of the infinite, inestimable riches of the Mercies of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus in this life and at the hour of our deaths, at which hour we pray that Our Lady, the Queen and the Mother of Mercy, will be interceding for us with our Divine Judge. We are responsible for our own sinful actions and can never seek to minimize their gravity by claiming others are just as—if not more—guilty than ourselves.
Moreover, Bertone's rhetorical question about whether other organizations "have provided financial compensation for the victims…have they taken care of the victims and those who have been guilty" represented the same sort of hubris as that contained in the apocryphal story of the man who killed his parents and then claimed for mercy from a judge because he was an orphan.
With a very few exceptions, usually involving efforts to preempt lawsuits and the public disclosure of the next of perversity in the ranks of the conciliar structures, almost every instance of a Catholic diocese currently in conciliar captivity paying out any amount of money to any victim of its perverted "bishops" and "priests" has been the result of public pressure brought by news stories in the secular media and by threat, if not the actual filing, of lawsuits and the discovery process and the resultant disclosures therefrom. The Archdioceses of Boston and Los Angeles stonewalled victims and their families for years, trying every legal machination possible. Bertone's assertion in this regard is repulsive.
Remember, however, for all of your Motu Mass flag-wavers out there (by the way, Jorge is taking Summorum Pontificum apart brick by brick, to borrow a phrase), Tarcisio Bertone had the full support of Joseph Ratzinger, who, apart from appointing a "coadjutor" in 2010, did nothing to remove Roger Mahony from his position of conciliar power in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles until he reached retirement age, enabling him to continue his assault upon the worship of God and upon the perennial teaching He has entrusted to His Catholic Church.
Like his predecessor, Karol Wojtyla, who promoted and protected the conciliar "bishops" caught up in their own perverse scandals and/or involved in the protection of priests tainted thereby despite evidence being presented to him personally over the years, Joseph Ratzinger appointed and promoted the likes of William Levada and George Niederauer and so many others between April 19, 2005, and February 28, 2013. Not even the report of the Murphy Commission on clergy abuse in Ireland prompted the antipope emeritus to sack a single Irish "bishop."
The wreckage of souls caused by the conciliar revolution against Catholic Faith Worship, and Morals is vast.
Then again, why should the conciliar revolutionaries care about how souls have been abused, both physically and spiritually?
They preside over the liturgical offense given to God Himself every day in the form of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.
They preside over the abomination of inter-religious "prayer meetings" that are held in full violation of the precepts of the First Commandment.
They have presided over the destruction of church sanctuaries and the removal of statues in order to conform Catholic church buildings to the new theology underlining the new order of "worship."
They preside over the constant dissemination of lies concerning "religious liberty" and the "separation of Church and State" and the new ecclesiology.
It is now the case that a putative “pope,” who is busy discussing “biodiversity,” implying that animals life and human life are of equal value and that man has no right to master the earth and to subdue it in a responsible manner, in Chile, can make short work of practically every remaining vestige of Catholicism within his false, illegal, lawless religious sect.
Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II.
Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who was himself completely, passively indifferent to the transfer of a perverted presbyter, Peter Hullermann, when he, as “Cardinal” Ratzinger, served as the conciliar “archbishop” of Munich and Freising, Germany, in 1980.
Please, enter the Wayback Machine to year 2010 when Ratzinger/Benedict was under siege for how he handled the Hullermann case. One will see that a German conciliar official who was set up to the “fall guy” for “Pope Benedict” did not exactly cotton to the task.
Case-in-point: the elderly Monsignor Gerhard Gruber of the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising in Germany, who was fingered by officials in the conciliar Vatican and in his own chancery office as the "culprit" who reassigned a known clerical abuser, Father Peter Hullermann, a priest of the Diocese of Essen, Germany, while Joseph Ratzinger was then the conciliar "archbishop" of Munich and Freising. It has been noted in several articles on this site that it is very plausible to contend that Ratzinger did indeed have direct knowledge of the case of Father Hullermann and that he personally approved the latter's assignment to parish work in a meeting at which he presided on January 15, 1980. This is just not idle speculation. Monsignor Gruber became very upset eight years ago that he had to take for the "fall" for his "pope:"
Catholic Church officials assigned full responsibility for the reassignment of a known pedophilic priest to retired vicar general Gerhard Gruber who served as deputy to Joseph Ratzinger when he was archbishop. Gruber is now challenging a Church statement that he "acted on his own authority," a claim he says was never discussed with him.
The emergency plan was hastily assembled in the Archdiocese of Munich and Freising on the evening of March 11, a Thursday. The Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper had exposed the scandal surrounding pedophile priest Peter H., and the affair over sexual abuse in the church was getting dangerously close to the pope.
Peter H., a vicar from the western German city of Essen who had molested boys on several occasions, was sent to Munich in 1980, where he was assigned to work as a pastor again. As a result, he was able to abuse even more boys. The archbishop and chairman of the diocesan council, which approved H.'s appointment, was Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI.
Ratzinger also chaired a meeting on Jan. 15, 1980, in which the pedophile priest's living arrangements and therapy were discussed. He must have been familiar with H.'s criminal past. Because of this, the diocese has, in recent weeks, left no stone unturned in its effort to explain why the current pope could not be held accountable for H.'s continued service in his diocese.
That effort has been supported by documents found in the diocese records office that related to H., and that were signed by someone else at the time: the loyal Vicar General Gerhard Gruber, Ratzinger's deputy during his time as archbishop.
Apparently no one on the crisis team objected to the idea of taking Pope Benedict "out of the firing line" and using Gruber, 81, as a scapegoat instead. On the morning of March 12, while the press office was busy drafting a statement in which Gruber was given the full blame for H.'s appointment to serve as a pastor, and that included Gruber's personal apology, a church official was badgering the retired priest on the phone.
But Gruber, who felt put under pressure, later confided in theologian friends. He told them that he had been emphatically "asked" to assume full responsibility for the affair, and that church officials had promptly faxed him a copy of the statement and instructed him to make any changes he deemed necessary.
According to the statement released by the archdiocese, Ratzinger was partly responsible for making the decision to accept H.'s appointment. "Notwithstanding this decision," however, H. was assigned "by the then vicar general" to assist in pastoral care, without restriction, in a Munich parish. The statement also read: "Gruber assumes full responsibility for the incorrect decisions." A spokesman for the archdiocese later added that Gruber had "acted on his own authority" in the case of Peter H.
Gruber's friends say that the old man was only familiar with parts of the statement, that he was apparently being used as a scapegoat and that he was also under additional emotional pressure. To everyone's surprise, Gruber wrote an open letter in which he qualified the archdiocese's statement, writing that he did not sign any documents over which he had no influence. He also noted that he was "very upset" about the "manner in which the incidents were portrayed" by the archdiocese. "And the phrase 'acted on his own authority' also wasn't discussed with me," he wrote.
The archdiocese was unwilling to comment on the accusations, except to state it continued to believe that the former vicar general had acted on his own authority in the case of Peter H., and that he had admitted to having made mistakes. Gruber has gone on a trip to recuperate from "weeks that have been very stressful for me." His loyalty is greatly appreciated in Munich. Archbishop Reinhard Marx, Gruber writes, has sent him his best wishes and "expressed his appreciation for my 'participation'." (Catholic Abuse Scandal: Was Munich's Vicar General Forced to Serve as Ratzinger's Scapegoat?; see also Priest says he was pressurised into taking blame for pope.)
Monsignor Gruber was not the only one eight years ago who was thrown under the conciliar bus to seek to indemnify Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
Dario "Cardinal" Castrillon Hoyos, who commended a conciliar "bishop" in France, Pierre Pican, for refusing to turn over a presbyter to the civil authorities (see Dario Castrillon Hoyos, Meet Pope Saint Pius V), sought to protect himself and the then antipope, Ratzinger/Benedict, by blaming the refusal to hand over clerical abusers for criminal prosecution by the civil authorities on none other than Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II ("Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts):
Meanwhile, according to the Spanish daily La Verdad, Colombian cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos said at a weekend conference in Murcia that Pope John Paul approved the policy of not reporting to the police clerical sex abuse crimes.
In a September 2001 letter, recently published by the French Catholic publication Golias, Cardinal Hoyos wrote to French bishop Pierre Pican to congratulate him for not reporting an abuser priest. Earlier that year, Bishop Pican received a suspended three-month sentence for not reporting serial abuser Fr René Bissy, who was eventually given an 18-year prison sentence for child sex abuse crimes between 1989 and 1996.
Speaking in Murcia on Saturday, Cardinal Hoyos confirmed the text of the letter, adding also that Pope John Paul had seen it and “authorised me to send it to all the bishops”.
Four months earlier, in 2001, Pope John Paul assigned judicial responsibility for certain “grave” sins (including child sex abuse) to the Congregation For The Doctrine Of The Faith. It was following this that the then prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Ratzinger, wrote to all Catholic bishops advising that they refer all credible cases of clerical child sex abuse to him. That letter was accompanied by another one, also in Latin, instructing that this be kept secret.
If Cardinal Hoyos’s claim is true it would suggest that Pope John Paul’s 2001 directive was intended to encourage a policy of cover-up. (Priest says he was pressurised into taking blame for pope.)
Fall guys aren't usually stand-up guys. This is true in politics. This is true in commerce. This is true in professional sports. This is true in ecclesiastical matters.
John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis.
What’s the difference?
It’s always the same with lawless men such as these.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI acted as he did in 1980 with Father Peter Hullermann because he has always had a casual, dismissive attitude concerning the horror of personal sin.
It was as “Cardinal” Ratzinger/Benedict has said he has "nothing against" those who go to what they think is Holy Mass in the conciliar structures "on occasion, " meaning that he has little regard for the Third Commandment and for one of the six Precepts of the Church. (CARDINAL RATZINGER ON THE FUTURE OF CHRISTIANITY).
Ratzinger/Benedict's lack of regard for the Third Commandment ws but a logical consequence for the lack of regard that he has for the First and Second Commandments as he did, as Benedict XVI, personally esteem the symbols of five false religions with his priestly hands and had said that "Christians and Jews pray to the same Lord" whilecalled mosques and synagogues and even a mountain in Japan, Mount Hiei, atop which the Buddhists worship their devils, as "sacred" places.
One who can so flagrantly violate the First and Second Commandments with such utter impunity demonstrates in the objective order of things, leaving aside subjective culpability solely to God Himself, Who alone knows the interior dispositions of souls, that he does not understand Who God is or what He has revealed to us through His true Church.
This lack of understanding of the identity of God flows logically from Ratzinger/Benedict's lack of understanding of the nature of God and His Revelation, believing that the expressions of dogmatic truth are contingent on the historical circumstances in which they were formulated. One who gets such basic things wrong is not going to have much of a real sense of the horror of personal sin and how to respond to it appropriately, which is one of the reasons that the false “popes” and their band of conciliar "bishops" have sought to protect perverted priests/presbyters time and time again until their cover-ups and abuse of power made headlines that could no longer be ignored.
Much like Bergoglio himself, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI once claimed, blasphemously, that Holy Mother Church is a "sinner church," not the spotless, immaculate Mystical Bride of her Invisible Head, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He believes in a "church" that has no claim to any temporal rights whatsoever, placing himself in quite some contrast with our true popes, including Pope Pius XI:
“Let me go one step further. From today’s crisis, a Church will emerge tomorrow that will have lost a great deal. She will be small and, to a large extent, will have to start from the beginning. She will no longer be able to fill many of the buildings created in her period of great splendor. Because of the smaller number of her followers, she will lose many of her privileges in society. Contrary to what has happened until now, she will present herself much more as a community of volunteers ....
"As a small community, she will demand much more from the initiative of each of her members and she will certainly also acknowledge new forms of ministry and will raise up to the priesthood proven Christians who have other jobs. In many smaller communities, respectively in social groups with some affinity, the normal care of souls will take place in this way ....
"There will be an interiorized Church, which neither takes advantage of its political mandate nor flirts with the left or the right. This will be achieved with effort because the process of crystallization and clarification will demand great exertion. It will make her poor and a Church of the little people .... All this will require time. The process will be slow and painful ....
“From this interiorized and simplified Church, a great force will pour out. The men of an [artificially] planned world will feel unspeakably isolated. When God will seem to have totally disappeared for them, they will experience a complete and horrible poverty. And then they will discover the small community of those who believe as something entirely new ....
"Her [the Church’s] real crisis has hardly started. We still have to go through some great storms .... Certainly she will never again be the dominant force in society to the degree that she was until recently. (Fr. Ratzinger's progressivist plan to change the face of the Church.)
Where’s the difference between Ratzinger and his successor, Bergoglio, on this point.
Perhaps even more to the pope, where’s the different between Ratzinger and Bergoglio on the treatment of perverted clergymen?
Well, perhaps the only real difference is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not making any pretense about his preferential option, if you will, for all things lavender.
Today is the Third Sunday after the Epiphany and the Commemoration of Saint Agnes, the Patroness Saint of the diocese where I grew up and have spent about three-fifths of my life, the Diocese of Rockville Centre on Long Island.
Saint Agnes preferred death than than to sin. We must prefer death and dishonor rather than to be accounted among those who believe that men such as the conciliar “popes,” including Jorge Mario Bergolio, who have lawlessly praised every heresy and error under the sun and who deny the very nature of dogmatic truth (which is nothing other than a denial of the nature of God Himself).
We must have the courage of Saint Agnes, whose feast we celebrate today, to die for the Holy Faith if called upon to do so, and to be willing to die the death of white martyrdom by refusing to concede anything to falsehood, whether on the level of supernatural faith or the truths governing the existence of our phsical bodies, at any time for any reason whatsoever:
This is a virgin's birthday; let us then follow the example of her chastity. It is a Martyr's birthday; let us then offer sacrifices. It is the birthday of the holy Agnes; let men then be filled with wonder, little ones with hope, married women with awe, and the unmarried with emulation. But how shall I set forth the glory of her whose very name is an utterance of praise? It seemeth to me that this being, holy beyond her years, and strong beyond human nature, received the name of Agnes, not as an earthly designation, but as a revelation from God of what she was to be. For this name Agnes is from the Greek, and being interpreted, signifieth Pure. So that this saintly maiden is known by the very title of Chastity and when I have added thereto the word Martyr, I have said enough. She needeth not the praise which we could utter, but do not. None is more praiseworthy than she for whose praise all mouths are fitted. As many as name her, so many praise her, by the noble title of martyr.
We learn by tradition that this holy martyr testified in the thirteenth year of her age. We will pass by the foul cruelty which did not spare her tender years, to contemplate the great power of her faith, whereby she overcame the weakness of childhood, and witnessed a good confession. Her little body was hardly big enough to give play to the instruments of their cruelty, but if they could scarce sheathe their swords in her slight frame, they found in her that which laughed the power of the sword to scorn. She had no fear when she found herself grasped by the bloody hands of the executioners. She was unmoved when they dragged her with clanging chains. Hardly entered on life, she stood fully prepared to die. She quailed not when the weapons of the angry soldiery were pointed at her breast. If they forced her against her will to approach the altars of devils, she could stretch forth her hands to Christ amid the very flames which consumed the idolatrous offerings, and mark on the heathen shrine the victorious Cross of the Lord. She was ready to submit her neck and hands to the iron shackles, but they were too big to clasp her slender limbs. Behold a strange martyr! She is not grown of stature to fight the battle, but she is ripe for the triumph; too weak to run in the race, and yet clearly entitled to the prize; unable from her age to be aught but a learner, she is found a teacher.
She went to the place of execution a virgin, with more willing and joyful footsteps than she would have gone with to the nuptial chamber as a bride. The spectators were all in tears, and she alone did not weep. They beheld her with wonder, laying down that life of which she had hardly begun to taste the sweets, as freely as though she had drained it to the dregs and was weary of its burden. All men were amazed when they saw her whose years had not made her her own mistress, arise as a witness for the Deity. Consider how many threats her murderer used to excite her fears, how many arguments to shake her resolution, how many promises to bribe her to accept his offers of marriage. But she answered him It is an insult to Him Whom I have wedded to expect me to comply. He That first chose me, His will I be. Headsman, why waitest thou? Perish the body which draweth the admiration of eyes from which I would turn away. She stood, prayed, and then bent her neck for the stroke. Now mightest thou have seen the murderer trembling as though he himself were the criminal, the executioner's hand shake, and the faces of them that stood by turn white at the sight of her position, and all the while herself remain without fear. This one victim brought God a double offering, that of her purity, and that of her faith. She preserved virginity and achieved martyrdom. (The Life and Martyrdom of Saint Agnes as found in The Divine Office: Matins, January 21.)'
Our own faith must be as pure and as strong as that of Saint Agnes, remembering these words that Our Lord spoke as recorded in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew:
 The brother also shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the son: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and shall put them to death.  And you shall be hated by all men for my name' s sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.  And when they shall persecute you in this city, flee into another. Amen I say to you, you shall not finish all the cities of Israel, till the Son of man come.  The disciple is not above the master, nor the servant above his lord.  It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the goodman of the house Beelzebub, how much more them of his household?
 Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known.  That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops.  And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.  Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.  But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
 Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows.  Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.  But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.  Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword.  For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
 And a man' s enemies shall be they of his own household.  He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me; and he that loveth son or daughter more than me, is not worthy of me.  And he that taketh not up his cross, and followeth me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for me, shall find it.  He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me. (Matthew 10: 21-40.)
Adhere to the truths of the Catholic Faith.
Who cares if we are held to be of no account in the world?
What matters is that we, despite our past sins and present failings, remain faithful to the true Faith by cooperating with the graces won for us by the shedding of every single drop of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross that flows into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces. We must follow the pathways of the saints.
We have to fear only one thing: dying in a state of Final Impenitence. The petty potentates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and of civil governments will pass from the scene soon enough. Our Lady's Immaculate Heart will indeed triumph in the end. We simply need to be about the business of clinging to the true Faith while we make no concessions to conciliarism or to the nonexistent legitimacy of its false shepherds as we make reparation for our sins by praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit, offering the fruit of our prayers and sacrifices and mortifications and humiliations to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and at the hour of our death.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Agnes, pray for us.
Rite of Holy Matrimony as found in The Roman Ritual, Volume I
N., wilt thou take N. here present for thy lawful wife, according to the rite of Holy Mother Church?
Response: I will.
Then the priest asks the bride:
N., wilt thou take N. here present for thy lawful husband according to the rite of Holy Mother Church?
Response: I will.
Having witnessed their mutual consent, the priest bids them to join their right hand.
Where the custom prevails, the bridal couple may pledge themselves to each other in the following words, repeating them after the priest; the man:
I, N., take thee, N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
I, N., take thee, N., for my lawful wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
The priest adds: I join you together in sacred wedlock. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Next he sprinkles them with holy water and then blesses the ring, saying:
V. Our help is in the name of the Lord.
R. Who made heaven and earth.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come unto thee.
V. The Lord be with you. R. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray:
Bless thou, O Lord, this ring, which we bless in thy name, that she who is to wear it may render to her husband unbroken fidelity. Let her abide in peace and be obedient to thy will, and may they live together in constant mutual love. Through Christ our Lord. R. Amen.
With this ring I wed thee, and I promise unto thee my fidelity.
Priest: In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.
V. Strengthen, O God, what thou has wrought in us.
R. From out thy holy temple which is in Jerusalem.
V. Preserve thy servants.
R. Who place their confidence in thee, my God.
V. Send them, Lord, aid from on high.
R. And from Sion, watch over them.
V. Be unto them, O Lord, a tower of strength,
R. In the face of the enemy.
V. O Lord, hear my prayer.
R. And let my cry come unto thee.
V. The Lord be with you. A. And with thy spirit.
Let us pray
Look down, we beseech thee, O Lord, upon these servants of thine, and graciously assist with they care the institution thou didst ordain for the propagation of the human race; so that they who are bound together by thy authority may attention to perfection by thy help. Through Christ our Lord. R. Amen.