Recycling Very Old Material At Jorge's Ding Dong School of Apostasy

What can be called Jorge’s Week of Unhinged, Undisguised Celebration of Apostasy included, among other things, the false “pontiff’s frank and open embrace of “universal salvation” except, of course, for those who are the “excluders,” meaning believing Catholics, obviously.

This is what the egregious blasphemer said at the Casa Santa Marta on Thursday, November 5, 2015:

The Christian includes, he does not close the door to anyone, even if this provokes resistance. He who excludes, because he believes himself to be better, generates conflicts and divisions, and does not consider the fact that “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God.” That was the message of Pope Francis during Thursday morning’s Mass at Casa Santa Marta.

In the Letter to the Romans, Saint Paul exhorts us not to judge and not to despise our brothers, because, the Pope said, this leads to excluding them from “our little group,” to being selective, and this is not Christian.” Christ, in fact, “with His sacrifice on Calvary” unites and includes “all men in salvation.” In the Gospel, publicans and sinners draw near to Jesus – “that is, the excluded, all those that were outside,” – and “the Pharisees and the scribes complained”:

“The attitude of the Scribes and the Pharisees is the same, they exclude. [They say,] ‘We are the perfect, we follow the law. These people are sinners, they are publicans’; and the attitude of Jesus is to include. There are two paths in life: the path exclusion of persons from our community and the path of inclusion. The first can be little but is the root of all wars: all calamities, all wars, begin with an exclusion. One is excluded from the international community, but also from families, from friends – How many fights there are! – and the path that makes us see Jesus and teaches us Jesus is quite another, it is contrary to the other: to include.”

There is resistance in the face of inclusion

“It is not easy to include the people,” Pope Francis said, “because there is resistance, there is that selective attitude.” For this reason, Jesus tells two parables: the parable of the lost sheep, and the parable of the woman and the lost coin. Both the shepherd and the woman will do anything to find what they have lost, and when they find it, they are full of joy:

“They are full of joy because they have found what was lost and they go to their neighbours, their friends, because they are so happy: ‘I found, I included.’ This is the ‘including’ of God, against the exclusion of those who judge, who drive away people, persons: ‘No, no to this, no to that, no to that…’; and a little of circle of friends is created, which is their environment. It is a dialectic between exclusion and inclusion. God has included us all in salvation, all! This is the beginning. We with our weaknesses, with our sins, with our envy, jealousies, we all have this attitude of excluding which – as I said – can end in wars.”

If I exclude, I will one day stand before the tribunal of God

Jesus, the Pope said, acts like His Father, Who sent Him to save us; “He seeks to include us,” “to be a family.”

“We think a little bit, and at least – at least! – we do our little part, we never judge: ‘But this one has acted in this way…’ But God knows: it is his life, but I don’t exclude him from my heart, from my prayer, from my greeting, from my smile, and if the occasion arises I say a good word to him. Never excluding, we have no right! And how Paul finishes the Letter: ‘We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God . . .  then each of us shall give an account of himself to God.’ If I exclude I will one day stand before the judgment seat of God, I will have to give an account of myself to God. Let us ask the grace of being men and women who always include, always, always! in the measure of healthy prudence, but always. Not closing the doors to anyone, always with an open heart: ‘It pleases me, it displeases me,’ but the heart is open. May the Lord grant us this grace.” (The Christian includes; Pharisees exclude)

As Novus Ordo Wire has a very good analysis of this screed, readers of this site can examine the material in Circus Jorge, part seven, the end! for a review of what has become Bergoglio’s most infamous attack on “conservatives” within the “hierarchy” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and Condemning Himself to Hell Every Day, part two for some documentation found in Monsignor Henry Denziger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma concerning how God does indeed exclude unrepentant sinners and heretics from Heaven for all eternity. There is no need to repeat myself again on this matter just because the Argentine Apostate is a broken record on these themes.

The purpose of this commentary is to point out that, as is ever the case with Jorge’s daily sessions of his Ding Dong School Of Apostasy, there is really nothing new or newsworthy about what the Argentine Apostate said on Thursday, November 5, 2015. The only thing that is any bit different than what he has said in the past about “Pharisees” and “Pelagians” who want a dogmatic, “rigid,” “self-referential” and “closed-in-on-itself” “no church” is that he is more and more unhinged now after the “maturation” exhibited by “Synod ’15,” which he closed with a lollapalooza of an attack on those who expressed opposition to his Jacobin/Bolshevik brand of conciliarism.

As has been noted so many times on this site for nearly thirty-two months, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is saying nothing at the Casa Santa Marta that he had said during his time as a conciliar presbyter and “bishop” before his accession to the chair of universal apostasy on Wednesday, March 13, 2015.

Indeed, his entire program was laid out by the infamous Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., in his Good Friday “homily” that was preached in front of Jorge Mario Bergoglio on Friday, March 29, 2013, at the Basilica of Saint Peter inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River:

We must do everything possible so that the Church may never look like that complicated and cluttered castle described by Kafka, and the message may come out of it as free and joyous as when the messenger began his run. We know what the impediments are that can restrain the messenger: dividing walls, starting with those that separate the various Christian churches from one another, the excess of bureaucracy, the residue of past ceremonials, laws and disputes, now only debris.

In Revelation, Jesus says that He stands at the door and knocks (Rev 3:20). Sometimes, as noted by our Pope Francis, he does not knock to enter, but knocks from within to go out. To reach out to the “existential suburbs of sin, suffering, injustice, religious ignorance and indifference, and of all forms of misery.”

As happens with certain old buildings. Over the centuries, to adapt to the needs of the moment, they become filled with partitions, staircases, rooms and closets. The time comes when we realize that all these adjustments no longer meet the current needs, but rather are an obstacle, so we must have the courage to knock them down and return the building to the simplicity and linearity of its origins. This was the mission that was received one day by a man who prayed before the Crucifix of San Damiano: “Go, Francis, and repair my Church“.

“Who could ever be up to this task?” wondered aghast the Apostle before the superhuman task of being in the world “the fragrance of Christ”; and here is his reply, that still applies today: “We’re not ourselves able to think something as if it came from us; our ability comes from God. He has made us to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; because the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life”(2 Cor 2:16; 3:5-6).

May the Holy Spirit, in this moment in which a new time is opening for the Church, full of hope, reawaken in men who are at the window the expectancy of the message, and in the messengers the will to make it reach them, even at the cost of their life. (Clerical Heretic Cantalamessa Preaches to Lay Heretic Bergoglio.)

What are “dividing walls?” you might ask. 

Catholic doctrines, especially as proclaimed in the Second Millennium without the assent of the Orthodox and under the influence of the “rigid” Scholastic named Saint Thomas Aquinas. That’s what.

Cantalamessa’s “excess bureaucracy” referred not merely the existence of different dicasteries in the Vatican but of the very fact that even the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s alleged Code of Canon Law and the judicial machinery necessary to interpret and enforce gets “in the way” of “evangelization.” This is seen clearly when one considers the heretical charismatic’s description of “the residue of past ceremonials, laws and disputes, now only debris.” Bergoglio has, of course, shown us just how committed he is to this revolutionary program, which was outlined in its entirety by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

38. It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to he reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized. The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?

39. It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all. For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of all allies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Despite all of the complexity that they use to make it appear that they alone have the ability to understand the “hidden meaning” of the Gospel, the method of Modernists is really quite simple to understand. Modernists simply project onto God and His Divine Revelation their own false beliefs. As unfettered by their heretical ancestors in Orthodoxy and Protestantism, Modernists claim that they are “stripping away” a version of the Gospel that had been “corrupted” by Scholasticism and by the Church’s general councils of the Second Millennium, especially the Councils of  Florence and Trent and the [First] Vatican Council.

In other words, everything about Divine Revelation is reduced to a supposedly “pure” reading of the Gospels that just happens that is able to be reinterpreted according to the “needs” of the times. Open contradictions of the defined teaching of the Catholic Church are called “legitimate developments of doctrine” even though such an exercise defies logic and the anathemas of Holy Mother Church.

Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X explained that Scholasticism is one of the chief obstacles that Modernists have to remove in order for their rationalistic system of heresies to seem “sensible” even though it is based on inherent sets of contradictions that lead to endless changes and adaptations:

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men's minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: "The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science." They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those "who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind...or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church"; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: "We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church." Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: "I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.'' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Pope Pius XII, our last true pope thus far, explained the "new theologians" who attempted to recycle and repackage Modernism had the same hatred for Scholasticism as the foundation for the a clear explication of the truths contained in the Sacred Deposit Faith:

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

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

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

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

While Pope Pius XII noted later in Humani Generis that certain scholastic aids may be divested in the study of philosophy, he reiterated the fact that the method of Saint Thomas Aquinas was to be taught to priests so that the path to error not be introduced into their minds and thus become part of their own preaching to the faithful:

30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which We have just referred. However, even in these fundamental questions, we may clothe our philosophy in a more convenient and richer dress, make it more vigorous with a more effective terminology, divest it of certain scholastic aids found less useful, prudently enrich it with the fruits of progress of the human mind. But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by divine revelation. Whatever new truth the sincere human mind is able to find, certainly cannot be opposed to truth already acquired, since God, the highest Truth, has created and guides the human intellect, not that it may daily oppose new truths to rightly established ones, but rather that, having eliminated errors which may have crept in, it may build truth upon truth in the same order and structure that exist in reality, the source of truth. Let no Christian therefore, whether philosopher or theologian, embrace eagerly and lightly whatever novelty happens to be thought up from day to day, but rather let him weigh it with painstaking care and a balanced judgment, lest he lose or corrupt the truth he already has, with grave danger and damage to his faith.

31. If one considers all this well, he will easily see why the Church demands that future priests be instructed in philosophy "according to the method, doctrine, and principles of the Angelic Doctor,"[8] since, as we well know from the experience of centuries, the method of Aquinas is singularly preeminent both for teaching students and for bringing truth to light; his doctrine is in harmony with divine revelation, and is most effective both for safeguarding the foundation of the faith, and for reaping, safely and usefully, the fruits of sound progress.[9]

32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some, who shamelessly call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. They say that this philosophy upholds the erroneous notion that there can be a metaphysic that is absolutely true; whereas in fact, they say, reality, especially transcendent reality, cannot better be expressed than by disparate teachings, which mutually complete each other, although they are in a way mutually opposed. Our traditional philosophy, then, with its clear exposition and solution of questions, its accurate definition of terms, its clear-cut distinctions, can be, they concede, useful as a preparation for scholastic theology, a preparation quite in accord with medieval mentality; but this philosophy hardly offers a method of philosophizing suited to the needs of our modern culture. They allege, finally, that our perennial philosophy is only a philosophy of immutable essences, while the contemporary mind must look to the existence of things and to life, which is ever in flux. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism, or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.

33. Finally, they reproach this philosophy taught in our schools for regarding only the intellect in the process of cognition, while neglecting the function of the will and the emotions. This is simply not true. Never has Christian philosophy denied the usefulness and efficacy of good dispositions of soul for perceiving and embracing moral and religious truths. In fact, it has always taught that the lack of these dispositions of good will can be the reason why the intellect, influenced by the passions and evil inclinations, can be so obscured that it cannot see clearly. Indeed St. Thomas holds that the intellect can in some way perceive higher goods of the moral order, whether natural or supernatural, inasmuch as it experiences a certain "connaturality" with these goods, whether this "connaturality" be purely natural, or the result of grace;[10] and it is clear how much even this somewhat obscure perception can help the reason in its investigations. However it is one thing to admit the power of the dispositions of the will in helping reason to gain a more certain and firm knowledge of moral truths; it is quite another thing to say, as these innovators do, indiscriminately mingling cognition and act of will, that the appetitive and affective faculties have a certain power of understanding, and that man, since he cannot by using his reason decide with certainty what is true and is to be accepted, turns to his will, by which he freely chooses among opposite opinions.

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.)

One can see that Pope Pius XII took careful pains to make the proper distinctions concerning methods of intellectual inquiry while at the same time explaining that the whole basis of the “new theology” was founded in a rejection of Scholasticism because of its metaphysical certitude concerning the nature of truth. The “new theologians” sought to replace certitude with paradox, contradiction, uncertainty, ambiguity, thereby leading the way open for the triumph of the senses. To put the matter more plainly, Pope Pius XII condemned the same Modernist principle of the “religious reality” springing from within human beings that had been condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis.

This is all important to understand and to keep in mind when there is a temptation to think that something a conciliar revolutionary has said is new. Nothing these men say or do is new. Nothing. Even though they fashion themselves to be champions of novelty and originality, the conciliar revolutionaries are positively boring in their unswervingly rigid adherence to every single Modernist precept, admitting that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has made it more possible for Modernism to be extended to the “peripheries” of venality, vulgarity and perversity.

Bergoglio began preparing Catholics for what he, most blasphemously, of course, refers to as “God’s surprises” two days after Cantalamessa’s own “homily,” that is on Easter Sunday, March 31, 2013, to discuss “God’s surprises” for the first time in his “Petrine Ministry.” These “surprises” were then and remain now nothing other than projections of the antipope’s own profane, vulgar, heretical and Judeo-Masonic mind upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Sacred Deposit of Faith:

We stop short, we don’t understand, we don’t know what to do. Newness often makes us fearful, including the newness which God brings us, the newness which God asks of us. We are like the Apostles in the Gospel: often we would prefer to hold on to our own security, to stand in front of a tomb, to think about someone who has died, someone who ultimately lives on only as a memory, like the great historical figures from the past. We are afraid of God’s surprises. Dear brothers and sisters, we are afraid of God’s surprises! He always surprises us! The Lord is like that. . . .

On this radiant night, let us invoke the intercession of the Virgin Mary, who treasured all these events in her heart (cf. Lk 2:19,51) and ask the Lord to give us a share in his Resurrection. May he open us to the newness that transforms, to the beautiful surprises of God. May he make us men and women capable of remembering all that he has done in our own lives and in the history of our world. May he help us to feel his presence as the one who is alive and at work in our midst. And may he teach us each day, dear brothers and sisters, not to look among the dead for the Living One. Amen. ( 30 March 2013, Fake, Phony, Fraud Abomination of an Easter Vigil.)

In other words, Bergoglio’s “holy spirit,” who is not very holy as he comes from Hades, had all manner of “surprises” in store for the world during the tenure of the Argentine Apostate as “Pope Francis.” Bergoglio was explaining thirty-one and one-half months ago that the “newness” of the past fifty years has “transformed” the old and is thus part of “God’s surprises.” Catholics just have to learn not to hold on to that in which they had taken, he believes, “false security,” namely, the immutable teaching and immoral liturgy of the Catholic Church. He was also justifying the “newness” that he has been unfolding in store for Catholics and non-Catholics alike before he returns to Buenos Aires, Argentina, at some point so that he can pick up his newspapers personally while taking the bus to his day job.

For those of you keeping score at home, that was reference number one to “God’s surprises,” meaning that Catholics must remove themselves from their “comfort zones” of “security” within the “bastions” of what they believe to be the Catholic Church.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio began his obsessive-compulsive name-calling campaign against anyone and everyone who holds to the immutable teachings of the Catholic Church on April 16, 2013. This man showed forth a deep-seated hatred of the authentic teaching of Holy Mother Church and a contempt for those who are committed to its protection just thirty-four days after his “election” to succeed Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI as the universal public face of apostasy.

Why has anyone been surprised at what he has been saying in the last few weeks after the closing of Circus Jorge?


Yes, what began on April 16, 2013, continues to this very day nearly thirty-one months later. However, let the record show that the first insult, that of “stubborn,” was hurled by Bergoglio at the Casa Santa Marta on that day:

Vatican City (AsiaNews) – Vatican II “was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit,” and yet, 50 years later, there is no “Church continuity”. There are “stubborn” members who even want to turn back and “tame the Holy Spirit.” Pope Francis took the opportunity to speak about the Council 50 years since it opened, inspired by the passage in the Acts of the Apostles that tells the story of Stephen who, before he was stoned, described as “stubborn” those who oppose the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Father spoke during the Mass he celebrated this morning in the chapel of Santa Marta (pictured), dedicated to Benedict XVI, who turns 86 today, so that “the Lord may be with him, comfort him and give him much consolation.” Francis personally extended his good wishes to Benedict XVI with whom he spoke by phone.

Vatican Radio reported that, during the homily, when he commented Stephen’s words and remembered Jesus’ rebuke to the disciples of Emmaus, “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke!”, the Pope said that “always, even among us, there is resistance to the Holy Spirit.”

“To put it plainly, the Holy Spirit gives us trouble. Because it moves us, makes us walk, impels the Church to go forward. And we are like Peter at the Transfiguration, ‘Ah, how nice to be this way, all together!’ . . . As long as it does not bother us. We want the Holy Spirit to doze off . . . we want to tame the Holy Spirit. That is wrong. Because He is God and He is the wind that comes and goes and one does not know from where. It is God’s power; it is what gives us consolation and strength to go on. But, going ahead! This bothers us. Comfort is better.”

“Today,” the pope went on to say, “it seems that we are all happy” for the presence of the Holy Spirit, but that “is not true. Such temptation is still topical. Case in point, let us think about the Council.”

The Council was a beautiful work of the Holy Spirit. Consider Pope John. He looked like a good parish priest; he was obedient to the Holy Spirit and he did it. But after 50 years, have we have done everything the Holy Spirit told us in the Council? In the continuity of growth of the Church that was the Council? No. We celebrate this anniversary, we make a monument, as long as it does not bother us. We do not want to change. What is more, some people want to go back. This is stubbornness, this is what we call, trying to tame the Holy Spirit, this is what we call becoming foolish and slow of heart.

“The same thing happens even in our personal lives, “the pope added. In fact, “the Spirit moves us to take a more evangelical way,” but we resist. The final exhortation is “Do not resist the Holy Spirit. The Spirit sets us free, with Jesus’ freedom, with the freedom of God’s children.”

“Do not resist the Holy Spirit. This is the grace I wish we would all ask for from the Lord: to be docile towards the Holy Spirit, that Spirit that comes from us and makes us go forward on the path of holiness, the beautiful holiness of the Church, the grace of docility towards the Holy Spirit.” (“Stubborn” are those who would turn back from Vatican II, Senor Bergoglio says.)

It is Jorge Mario Bergoglio who has repeatedly blasphemed God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable, as he maintains his own stubborn, hard-headed adherence to the doctrinal, moral, liturgical and pastoral revolutions wrought by the “Second” Vatican Council and the magisterium of the conciliar “popes. The man’s beliefs are nothing other than a denial of the very nature of God Himself and of the very Divine Constitution of the Church that He founded upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope.

For Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be correct, God the Holy Ghost either did not direct the council fathers of Holy Mother Church’s twenty general councils to formulate dogmas that condemn the apostasies, blasphemies, sacrileges and innovations of conciliarism or He “decided” after over nineteen hundred years to jettison the direction given in the past. Neither is possible. 

Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s obsessive-compulsive name-calling campaign against faithful Catholics, which is ever on display at the Casa Santa Marta and elsewhere, continued eleven days after it had begun as he used the word “Pharisee” for the first time to refer to them:

“Look to Christ who has sent us to preach the Gospel to proclaim His name with joy”: this call by Pope Francis addressed a group gathered this Saturday on the fourth week of the Easter in the chapel of Vatican Guest House “Domus Sanctae Marthae”.

The Christians should have no fear of the “joy of the Spirit.”

That withdrawal to self would be defeated.

At the service, the staff of the Vatican post office and the charitable organization “Santa Marta” participated.

“Santa Marta” has supported children of needy families, every nationality and religion in Rome for 90 years.

“It seemed as if this happiness can never be worn down,” the Pope said on the text of the reading of the day (Acts 13:44-52) on trust in Christ, the community of the disciples in Antioch, when they had gathered to hear the word of the Lord.

Thus, Francis wondered why the community of “withdrawn Jews”, “a small group”, “good people”, such were jealous when they saw the multitudes of Christians, and so began to persecute them.

Simply because the community had a closed heart, because it was not open to the novelty of the Holy Spirit,” said Francis, “They believed that everything had already been said that everything was as they thought that there must be, and therefore they felt themselves to be the defenders of the faith and began to speak against the apostles, to slander them … “

“The slander …” exclaimed the pope: “And so they went to address the pious women who had power. They filled their heads with ideas, with things, and urged them to talk to their husbands, which they would proceed against the apostles. This is an attitude of this group and also of all other groups in history, the closed groups: to negotiate with the powerful, solve the problems, but between ourselves’ … Just as those who had done on the morning of the resurrection, when the soldiers had gone, to tell them, ‘We have seen the’ … ‘ Shut up! Go … ‘. And with the money they have covered everything.”

Precisely, for the Pope, the attitude of this “closed religiosity” which does not have the freedom to be open to the Lord: “Your community life is in constant defense of the truth – because they believe that defending the truth is always slander, chatter … Really, they are a community of talkers who talk against it, destroy the others and look inward, always inward as closed off by a wall. The free community, however went ahead with the freedom of God and the Holy Spirit, suffering also under the persecution. And the word of the Lord spread through the whole region.”

Preceding the spreading of the witness is just the property of the congregation of the Lord, “because the good thing is this: it spreads more! The good does not retract into itself. This is a criterion, a criterion for being Church [sic], for our conscience: how are our communities, religious communities, parishes? Are they communities that are open to the Holy Spirit, Who always brings it forward to spread the word of God, or are they closed communities with very specific commandments that are unloaded on the shoulders of the faithful as the Lord had said of the Pharisees?”

The persecution begin “just for religious reasons and because of jealousy.” Yet the disciples “were not only full of the joy of the Holy Spirit, they spoke of beauty, they provided a route.”

The closed and confident community, seeking their safety in negotiating with the powerful or the money, “speaks with spiteful words, they insult, they condemn. That’s just their attitude. Maybe they forget when they were little the caresses of the mother. Such communities know nothing of tenderness, they know something of the duty how to do something, they know how to lock in an apparent observance of the commandments. As Jesus had told them, ‘You are like a grave, like a tomb, white, beautiful, but nothing more.’ We think today of the Church, which is so beautiful: this Church continues on. Think! many of the brothers and sisters who are suffering because of this freedom of spirit and are persecuted now in many parts of the world. But these brothers and sisters are fulfilled in the suffering and joy of the Holy Spirit.”

Finally Francis directed them to see Jesus, “He sends us to preach the Gospel with joy to proclaim His name, full of joy.” The Pope underlined that you never could have “fear of the joy of the Spirit,” a fear that leads to closing in upon itself. (Apostate Francis Criticizes the “Closed Religiosity” of the Jews.)

Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was not and is not any kind of a “novelty,” although the prophetic words spoken of Him by Isaias may be seen somewhat novel to most Catholics all across the the vast expanse of the ecclesiastical divide at this time.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not criticizing contemporary Talmudic Judaism in. He wouldn’t ever dream of doing that as his views are shaped by his rabbinical friends and their Noahhide laws.

No, he was criticizing the “closed-minded community” of those Catholics who refuse to accept the “novelties of the Holy Spirit” today, that is, those Catholics who refuse to accept the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of his false sect, the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Unlike his predecessor as the Petrine Minister of the Occupy Vatican Movement, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was not stressing the philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity” that is nothing other than a relabeling of Modernism’s “evolution of dogma.” No, Bergoglio continues to be on a veritable crusade, a word that he would loathe to use, of course, to berate “closed-minded” traditionalists into accept that which can never come from the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, “novelties.” No sale, Jorge. No sale.

Jorge thus had made his reference to “stubborn” and “closed-minded” Catholics on April 16, 2013, which was followed eleven days later by his first “papal” use of the word “Pharisee” to describe believing Catholics. The apostate’s he first reference to the “no church” was made on the Feast of Saint Athanasius, May 2, 2013:

Pope Francis focused on the first reading from Acts which recounts the first steps of the Church which, after Pentecost, went out to the “outskirts of faith” to proclaim the Gospel. The Pope noted that the Holy Spirit did two things: “first it pushed” and created “problems” and then “fostered harmony within the Church.” In Jerusalem, there were many opinions among the first disciples on whether to welcome Gentiles into the Church. There were those who said “no” to any agreement, and instead those who were open:

There was a ‘No’ Church that said, ‘you cannot; no, no, you must not’ and a ‘Yes’ Church that said, ‘but … let’s think about it, let’s be open to this, the Spirit is opening the door to us ‘. The Holy Spirit had yet to perform his second task: to foster harmony among these positions, the harmony of the Church, among them in Jerusalem, and between them and the pagans. He always does a nice job, the Holy Spirit, throughout history. And when we do not let Him work, the divisions in the Church begin, the sects, all of these things … because we are closed to the truth of the Spirit. “

But what then is the key word in this dispute in the early Church? Pope Francis recalled the inspired words of James, Bishop of Jerusalem, who emphasized that we should not impose a yoke on the neck of the disciples that the same fathers were not able to carry:

“When the service of the Lord becomes so a heavy yoke, the doors of the Christian communities are closed: no one wants to come to the Lord. Instead, we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we are saved. First this joy of the charism of proclaiming the grace, then let us see what we can do. This word, yoke, comes to my heart, comes to mind”.

The Pope then reflected on what it means to carry a yoke today in the Church. Jesus asks all of us to remain in his love. It is from this very love that the observance of his commandments is born. This, he reiterated, is “the Christian community that says yes”. This love, said the Pope, leads us to be faithful to the Lord” … “I will not do this or that because I love the Lord”:

“A community of’ yes’ and ‘no’ are a result of this’ yes’. We ask the Lord that the Holy Spirit help us always to become a community of love, of love for Jesus who loved us so much. A community of this ‘yes’. And from this ‘yes’ the commandments are fulfilled. A community of open doors. And it defends us from the temptation to become perhaps Puritans, in the etymological sense of the word, to seek a para-evangelical purity, from being a community of ‘no’. Because Jesus ask us first for love, love for Him, and to remain in His love.

Pope Francis concluded: this is “when a Christian community lives in love, confesses its sins, worships the Lord, forgives offenses, is charitable towards others and manifests love” and thus “feels the obligation of fidelity to the Lord to observe the commandments.” (A Robber Church that says ‘Yes.”)

First, the dispute that prompted the Council of Jerusalem did not revolve around whether to admit Gentiles to the Faith. As noted above, the dispute centered on whether Gentile converts had to undergo Jewish ritual circumcision to be baptized. There was no thought of excluding the Gentiles because they were pagans, only a question as to whether it was necessary to receive circumcision in order to be baptized and thus gain admission to the Catholic Church:

[1] And some coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved. [2] And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain others of the other side, should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem about this question. [3] They therefore being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice, and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles; and they caused great joy to all the brethren. [4] And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church, and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them. [5] But there arose some of the sect of the Pharisees that believed, saying: They must be circumcised, and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.

[6] And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter. [7] And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. [8] And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; [9] And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. [10] Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

[11] But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also. [12] And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. [13] And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. [14] Simon hath related how God first visited to take of the Gentiles a people to his name. . . .

[28] For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: [29] That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Fare ye well. [30] They therefore being dismissed, went down to Antioch; and gathering together the multitude, delivered the epistle. (Acts 15: 1-14; 28-30.)

(Bishop Challoner commented as follows in his Douay-Rheims Bible on the prohibition on eating blood and things strangled: “From blood, and from things strangled: The use of these things, though of their own nature indifferent, was here prohibited, to bring the Jews more easily to admit of the society of the Gentiles; and to exercise the latter in obedience. But this prohibition was but temporary, and has long since ceased to oblige; more especially in the western churches.”)

This is a little different that the construction on it given by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in 2013, who was attempting to equate today’s traditional Catholics with the Pharisees, the party of exclusion and of “no.”

Second, far from demonstrating the existence of a “no church,” this account provided us by Saint Luke in the Acts of the Apostles has been used by Holy Mother Church from time immemorial as one of the proofs that the Sacred Deposit of Faith consists of both Sacred Scripture and the unwritten teaching of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ that constitutes Sacred or Apostolic Tradition. The Council of Jerusalem proves this as well as being a death-knell to the belief that the Mosaic Law, which was obliterated and superseded when Our Lord breathed His last on the wood of the Holy Cross and the curtain in the Temple was torn in two from top to bottom as the earth shook.

Third, Jorge Mario Bergoglio would like us to believe that decision reached in the Council of Jerusalem was the result of the synthesis between the “yes church” and the “no church.” This is madness. It also blasphemy against the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who directed Saint James the Lesser, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, to decree as he did.

Then again, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is the true “no church” as it believes in a “Holy Spirit” who is capable of “changing his mind” according the circumstances of the times in which men live, one of the fundamental Lincoln Log building bogs of conciliarism, a place where it can be said that there is “justification by revolution alone.”

Obviously, God does say “no” to us. He has included explicit prohibitions in eight of the Ten Commandments. Each of the Ten Commandments contain implicit prohibitions that have been explicated by Holy Mother Church, she who is the sole repository and infallible explicator of their meaning. And God does say “no” to those who persist in mortal sins, including those of apostasy, to the point of their dying breath.

Ah, that was not what “Circus Jorge” was all about, was it?

Indeed, the conciliar “bishops” of Germany recently said that they very much want to say “yes” to those in sinful relationships:

Both of the official websites of the German and the Swiss Bishops' Conferences, and, have published numerous articles commenting upon the Synod of Bishops on the Family and its Final Report, as it was consensually approved by the bishops in Rome on October 24, 2015.

The tendency of both websites is the same. Both are rejoicing about the fact that the language of the Synod's document does not speak of sin and a deeper need for conversion anymore, but, rather, welcomes people in different life situations – independently of the prior questions as to whether their ways of life are sincerely and actually in accordance with God's Laws or not.

In the following, I will give a few representative examples.

Most importantly, the German Bishops' Conference organized a press meeting on the same day as the approval of the Final Report, October 24. Among the speakers were the more progressive-leaning prelates of Germany and Austria, such as Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, and Archbishop Heiner Koch, all of whom have consistently proposed a more liberal attitude toward the remarried divorcees and homosexual unions.

Cardinal Schönborn insisted in his own presentation concerning the pastoral care of significantly different marital situations that it is now to be “about a careful examination, an accompaniment.” He stressed that there is a “variety of situations which have to be examined carefully” and that “one needs an accompaniment which allows differentiations.” Schönborn later also spoke about the “homosexual partnership” which “is a partnership, not a marriage.” He said that the Church wanted to keep this distinction. He continued: “That, of course, does not mean that we reject civilly registered partnerships [civil unions]. That, indeed, has to be properly organized and regulated.”

While Cardinal Marx pointed out that there will now be a “stronger integration” of “remarried” divorcees into the life of the Church, such as being godparents at baptisms, Bishop Bode was the most outspoken. He said: “The great step of this Synod does not lie in the determining of the little details. […] When the space has been opened up as it has now been described [in the document], nothing is anymore to be seen about speaking of sin or of something contrary to nature – none of that is in there. I am very glad that this whole document has been approved with a two-thirds majority, right up to the most delicate parts.” This approval might be for some only a little step, Koch said, “but, for me, this is a great step.”

Archbishop Koch stressed that it was important at this Synod to build up trust among the bishops who were at times suspicious of a quasi-colonializing attitude of the Germans toward the African bishops and their positions. “We have gained trust. And we would not again start at the same point where we had started three weeks ago, if we were to start again today,” said Koch.

Moreover, for the German Professor Eberhard Schockenhoff – who had been one of the speakers at the controversial May 25 “Shadow Council” at the Gregorian University in Rome – the Synod also represents a great sign of progress. On October 25, he gave an interview to the German bishops' website,, in which he – like the other above-quoted speakers at the German press conference – praised the Synod's final document as a “great step ahead.” He said that the pope's encouragement toward an increase of decentralization within the Church encouraged the “German Bishops' hope for more freedom of action.” The compromise between the different participants in the German-speaking group at the Synod was for Schockenhoff of great importance because it “opens up the idea of a case-by-case approach” with regard to the “remarried” divorcees. “In this matter, this is a great step ahead.”

With regard to the very liberal approach in the Archdiocese of Freiburg, Germany, Schockenhoff said that this diocese and others can now rightfully say that their “practice of finding individual solutions [with regard to the “remarried” divorcees] is in accordance with the Universal Church's rules.” Herewith, he implies that the practice of allowing “remarried” divorcees to receive Holy Communion – as is currently the practice in the Diocese of Freiburg – is now also supported by the Synod's own message. With regard to homosexual unions, Schockenhoff stressed that “at least, they are not being excluded and condemned at all anymore. There is, after all, now another tone than before.”

Another speaker of the 25 May “Shadow Council,” the Swiss Professor Eva-Maria Faber, of Chur, has a similar assessment and praise of the Synod's final document. She said in an interview with the official website of the Swiss bishops, “There may not be anymore any generalizing judgments concerning different life situations, but it is now to be about looking at what people experience in these situations, and also, how they suffer in these situations.” Therefore, one has to accompany people – such as “remarried” divorcees – on their path, according to Faber.

Faber also stressed – just as Bishop Bode has done – that the language of the Church has changed: “It is striking that in the [Synod's] text, one now uses the expression 'complex situations' whereas in former times, one would have likely used the expression 'irregular situations.' In the preparation for this Synod, Pope Francis has distanced himself from this notion of an 'irregular situation' because it implies a generalizing condemnation.” Faber, therefore, also sees a “positive perspective” in this Synod's final document. (German and Swiss bishops hail Synod’s new tone welcoming those in sinful unions.)

Anyone who thinks that the German and Swiss apostates do not reflect the mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio perfectly is being willfully delusional or intellectually dishonest. There has never been any mystery as to what Jorge Mario Bergoglio believed before his “election,” textbook Modernist beliefs that he has laid out in a bold, brazen and profane manner that would have shocked some of the heretics of yore.

Yes, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had laid out his agenda of visceral revolutionary rhetoric and action in just a little over seven weeks s after his “election” on March 13, 2013. The thirty-two months have seen a daily repetition of this agenda, which he put in manifested form in Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, and reached its crescendo at “Synod ‘15” on Saturday, October 24, 2015, the Feast of Saint Raphael the Archangel, as Bergoglio gave his closing address that was the subject of Circus Jorge, part seven, the end! Circus Jorge, part seven, the end!.

The Argentine is carefully plotting ways to provide those of his “bishops” who oppose his false concept of “mercy” and his blasphemous misrepresentation of God the Holy Ghost as an agent of leading what is said to be the Catholic Church according to the “smell of the sheep” and the “voice of the faithful” with an exit strategy, shall we say, so that the Worldwide Conciliar Communion can use the heresy of episcopal collegiality not to “tolerate” vestiges of Catholicism but to be the means of even more radical outreaches to the peripheries of degradation and debauchery.

This love [of God] has a twofold and most conspicuous utility. In the first place it will excite us to acquire daily a clearer knowledge about the Holy Ghost; for, as the Angelic Doctor says, "the lover is not content with the superficial knowledge of the beloved, but striveth to inquire intimately into all that appertains to the beloved, and thus to penetrate into the interior; as is said of the Holy Ghost, Who is the Love of God, that He searcheth even the profound things of God" (1 Cor. ii., 10; Summ. Theol., la. 2ae., q. 28, a. 2). In the second place it will obtain for us a still more abundant supply of heavenly gifts; for whilst a narrow heart contracteth the hand of the giver, a grateful and mindful heart causeth it to expand. Yet we must strive that this love should be of such a nature as not to consist merely in dry speculations or external observances, but rather to run forward towards action, and especially to fly from sin, which is in a more special manner offensive to the Holy Ghost. For whatever we are, that we are by the divine goodness; and this goodness is specially attributed to the Holy Ghost. The sinner offends this his Benefactor, abusing His gifts; and taking advantage of His goodness becomes more hardened in sin day by day. Again, since He is the Spirit of Truth, whosoever faileth by weakness or ignorance may perhaps have some excuse before Almighty God; but he who resists the truth through malice and turns away from it, sins most grievously against the Holy Ghost. In our days this sin has become so frequent that those dark times seem to have come which were foretold by St. Paul, in which men, blinded by the just judgment of God, should take falsehood for truth, and should believe in "the prince of this world," who is a liar and the father thereof, as a teacher of truth: "God shall send them the operation of error, to believe Iying (2 Thess. ii., 10). In the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and the doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. iv., 1). But since the Holy Ghost, as We have said, dwells in us as in His temple, We must repeat the warning of the Apostle: "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed" (Eph. iv., 30). Nor is it enough to fly from sin; every Christian ought to shine with the splendour of virtue so as to be pleasing to so great and so beneficent a guest; and first of all with chastity and holiness, for chaste and holy things befit the temple. Hence the words of the Apostle: "Know you not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy. For the temple of God is holy, which you are" (1 Cor. iii., 16-17): a terrible, in deed, but a just warning(Pope Leo XIII, Divinum Illud Munus, May 9, 1897.)

I want to emphasize one passage in the text from Pope Leo XIII's Divinum Illud Munus as it applies directly to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and to those he enables in their own sins as he beats down, humiliates, excoriates anyone and everyone who hates sin and its promotion under law and in the popular culture for love of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity:

The sinner offends this his Benefactor, abusing His gifts; and taking advantage of His goodness becomes more hardened in sin day by day. Again, since He is the Spirit of Truth, whosoever faileth by weakness or ignorance may perhaps have some excuse before Almighty God; but he who resists the truth through malice and turns away from it, sins most grievously against the Holy Ghost. In our days this sin has become so frequent that those dark times seem to have come which were foretold by St. Paul, in which men, blinded by the just judgment of God, should take falsehood for truth, and should believe in "the prince of this world," who is a liar and the father thereof, as a teacher of truth: "God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying (2 Thess. ii., 10). In the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and the doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. iv., 1). But since the Holy Ghost, as We have said, dwells in us as in His temple, We must repeat the warning of the Apostle: "Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed" (Eph. iv., 30). Nor is it enough to fly from sin; every Christian ought to shine with the splendour of virtue so as to be pleasing to so great and so beneficent a guest; and first of all with chastity and holiness, for chaste and holy things befit the temple. (Pope Leo XIII, Divinum Illud Munus, May 9, 1897.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does not believe this because he is not a Catholic and the religious sect that he heads is not the Catholic Church. It is really that simple. He mocks chastity and holiness as he ropgates lies and falsehoods that do indeed representation the very operation of error prophesied by Saint Paul the Apostle in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians.

The currently presiding antipope loves error and hates those who seek to root it out, making him the antithesis of the following exhortation in defense of the integrity of the Sacred Deposit of Faith that was made by Pope Pius IX in his introduction to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith, Session III, Vatican Council, April 24, 1870:

3. Faith, declares the Apostle, is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen [17].

4. Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God's will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications of his revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.

2. Now this redemptive providence appears very clearly in unnumbered benefits, but most especially is it manifested in the advantages which have been secured for the Christian world by ecumenical councils, among which the Council of Trent requires special mention, celebrated though it was in evil days.

3. Thence came 1. a closer definition and more fruitful exposition of the holy dogmas of religion and 2. the condemnation and repression of errors; thence too, 3. the restoration and vigorous strengthening of ecclesiastical discipline, 4. the advancement of the clergy in zeal for learning and piety, 5. the founding of colleges for the training of the young for the service of religion; and finally 6. the renewal of the moral life of the Christian people by a more accurate instruction of the faithful, and a more frequent reception of the sacraments. What is more, thence also came 7. a closer union of the members with the visible head, and an increased vigor in the whole mystical body of Christ. Thence came 8. the multiplication of religious orders and other organizations of Christian piety; thence too 9. that determined and constant ardor for the spreading of Christ's kingdom abroad in the world, even at the cost of shedding one's blood.

4. While we recall with grateful hearts, as is only fitting, these and other outstanding gains, which the divine mercy has bestowed on the Church especially by means of the last ecumenical synod, we cannot subdue the bitter grief that we feel at most serious evils, which have largely arisen either because the authority of the sacred synod was held in contempt by all too many, or because its wise decrees were neglected.

5. Everybody knows that those heresies, condemned by the fathers of Trent, which rejected the divine magisterium of the Church and allowed religious questions to be a matter for the judgment of each individual, have gradually collapsed into a multiplicity of sects, either at variance or in agreement with one another; and by this means a good many people have had all faith in Christ destroyed.

6. Indeed even the Holy Bible itself, which they at one time claimed to be the sole source and judge of the Christian faith, is no longer held to be divine, but they begin to assimilate it to the inventions of myth.

7. Thereupon there came into being and spread far and wide throughout the world that doctrine of rationalism or naturalism,—utterly opposed to the Christian religion, since this is of supernatural origin,—which spares no effort to bring it about that Christ, who alone is our lord and savior, is shut out from the minds of people and the moral life of nations. Thus they would establish what they call the rule of simple reason or nature. The abandonment and rejection of the Christian religion, and the denial of God and his Christ, has plunged the minds of many into the abyss of pantheism, materialism and atheism, and the consequence is that they strive to destroy rational nature itself, to deny any criterion of what is right and just, and to overthrow the very foundations of human society.

8. With this impiety spreading in every direction, it has come about, alas, that many even among the children of the Catholic Church have strayed from the path of genuine piety, and as the truth was gradually diluted in them, their Catholic sensibility was weakened. Led away by diverse and strange teachings [4] and confusing nature and grace, human knowledge and divine faith, they are found to distort the genuine sense of the dogmas which Holy mother Church holds and teaches, and to endanger the integrity and genuineness of the faith.

9. At the sight of all this, how can the inmost being of the Church not suffer anguish? For just as God wills all people to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth [5], just as Christ came to save what was lost [6] and to gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad [7], so the Church, appointed by God to be mother and mistress of nations, recognizes her obligations to all and is always ready and anxious to raise the fallen, to steady those who stumble, to embrace those who return, and to strengthen the good and urge them on to what is better. Thus she can never cease from witnessing to the truth of God which heals all [8 ] and from declaring it, for she knows that these words were directed to her: My spirit which is upon you, and my words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth from this time forth and for evermore.[9]

10. And so we, following in the footsteps of our predecessors, in accordance with our supreme apostolic office, have never left off teaching and defending Catholic truth and condemning erroneous doctrines. But now it is our purpose to profess and declare from this chair of Peter before all eyes the saving teaching of Christ, and, by the power given us by God, to reject and condemn the contrary errors. This we shall do with the bishops of the whole world as our co-assessors and fellow-judges, gathered here as they are in the Holy Spirit by our authority in this ecumenical council, and relying on the word of God in Scripture and tradition as we have received it, religiously preserved and authentically expounded by the Catholic Church. (Pope Pius IX, Introduction, Dogmatic Constitution on the Faith, Session III, Vatican Council, April 24, 1870.)

For "Pope Francis" to be correct, of course, God the Holy Ghost had to be wrong at the [First] Vatican Council. It is he, Bergoglio, who is wrong, and those who follow him and contend publicly that he is a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter make of the papacy, whose powers were defined in Session IV of the [First] Vatican Council, July 18, 1870, an office that carries no guarantee of anything other than an infallibility that is circumscribed by self-appointed gatekeepers (see The Pitfalls of False Logic and More Catholic Than the Pope?).

Those who misrepresent the nature of the papacy and the extend of its powers have yet to acknowledge, no less recokon with, the late Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton's denunciation of their own cheap, sophistic tricks:

It is definitely the business of the writer in the field of sacred theology to benefit the Church by what he writes.  It is likewise the duty of the teacher of this science to help the Church by his teaching.  The man who uses the shoddy tricks of minimism to oppose or to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down in his "Acta" is, in the last analysis, stultifying his position as a theologian. (The doctrinal Authority of Papal allocutions.)

Are there any further questions about the binding nature of what a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter places in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis?

Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton denounced "the shoddy tricks of minimism to ignore the doctrinal decisions made by the Sovereign Pontiff and set down his his 'Acta'."

Those who seek to "resist" the decisions of a true pope once they are published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis are simply propagating a falsehood that had been condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794.

The same shoddy tricks of minimism that were being used by the likes of Father John Courtney Murray, S.J., and the "new theologians," including Father Joseph Ratzinger, in the 1950s that prompted Pope Pius XII to issue Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, have been employed for the past forty years or more by those seeking to claim the absolutely nonexistent ability to ignore and/or refute the teaching of men they have recognized to be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter. I know. I contributed to that literature for a while. I was wrong. So are those who continue to persist in their willful, stubborn rejection of the binding nature of all that is contained in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church even though if not declared infallible in a solemn manner.

Unfortunately for those who believe this, the One responsible for the formulation of dogma is the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, under Whose infallible protection popes teach the truths of the Catholic at all times, yes, even when not proclaiming something solemnly ex cathedra. Catholics are bound to obey everything proposed by a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter without any degree of dissent, reservation or qualification. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton proved that this is so in his scholary treatises cited above.

A reading included in Matins today, the Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost (Mass of the Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany) and the Four Crowned Martyrs, includes a a commentary by Saint Augustine of Hippo on Our Lord's parable of the wheat and the cockle that heretics such as Bergoglio who have no communion with the Catholic Church are cockle just as much as the the weeds of sin that grow up in our own souls:

When the Shepherds of the Church wax careless, and since the Apostles sleep the sleep of death, cometh the devil, and soweth them whom the Lord calleth a seed of evil-doers. Now, are these seed of evil-doers the heretics, or Catholics of bad lives? It is possible to call even the heretics a seed of evil-doers because they have sprung up from the seed of the Gospel, and been begotten in the Name of Christ, though afterwards they have turned after crooked ways and lying doctrines.

But whereas it is written that they were sown in the midst of the wheat, we ought haply to understand that they are of one communion with the righteous. Nevertheless, forasmuch as the Lord saith, The field is the world, (and not, the Church,) we may well understand that the seed of evil doers are the heretics, since in this world they are mingled together with the good, not in one common Communion, but only under one common name of Christian. But they which are of one faith with the good seed, and yet are themselves worthless, may more fitly be likened to straw than to tares, since the straw springeth from one soil and one root with the good ear. (As found in Matins, Divine Office, Mass of the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany for the Twenty-fourth Sunday after Pentecost)

Many shepherds grew lax after the death of Pope Saint Pius X on August 20, 1914. This period of laxity was especially pronounced in the Western world after World War II as Catholics made more and more accomodations with the world and its falsehoods. The ground was thus harvested with the cockle of worldiness that prepared most Catholics to accept the "doctrines," liturgy and pastoral practices of conciliarism with relief and enthusiasm.



All that the Argentine Apostate is doing at present is taking advantage of the overabundance of cockle sown by his predecessars in heresy to caricature and mock “dissenting” Catholics with a harshness that betrays him, the supposed “pope of mercy,” as a sanctimonious, revolutionary hypocrite who is at war with Christ the King and His Sacred Deposit of Faith as he reaffirms heretics, infidels and unrepentant sinners in beliefs and practices that will send them to hell along with him for all eternity.

May we have recourse to Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, as we offer up the difficulties of the present moment to Christ the King as His consecrated slaves through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, remembering the Poor Souls of the Church Suffering in Purgatory every day, especially during this month of November.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the 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.

The Four Crowned Martyrs, pray for us.