Boy, If Only Leo Knew, Huh?", part three

As has been noted on this site repeatedly in the past nineteen years, two months since I came to accept the fact that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not nor can ever be the Catholic Church despite occupying the buildings that belong to her and despite men who consider themselves to be her popes, bishops, and priests, the overriding question facing us not about this or that “pope” necessarily or what this “pope” says and does one day as opposed to the next but whether the church these “popes” claim to head is the Catholic Church or its counterfeit ape.

To be sure, each of the false claimants to the See of Saint Peter since October 28, 1958, had indeed defected from the Holy Faith in one or more ways long before they apparent “elections,” but it is also clear that, especially with the issuance of Lumen Gentium on November 21, 1964, wherein it was stated that the Church of Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church but that there also elements of “truth and sanctification” in “other ecclesial communities”:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. (Lumen Gentium, November 21, 1964.)

Despite all of the efforts made by defenders of all things conciliar to try to explain how the passage from Lumen Gentium above was not a contradiction of Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis, it is nevertheless the case that the late Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s “new ecclesiology” of “full communion” and “partial communion” received its official sanction in Lumen Gentium. The seeds were thus planted for a wider and more “generous” application of the “new ecclesiology that Ratzinger himself defended in an interview with the Frankfort Allgemeine newspaper on September 22, 2000, forty-seven days after the issuance of Dominus Iesus on August 6, 2000, the Feast of the Transfiguration of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Indeed, the then “Cardinal” Ratzinger boasted that Lumen Gentium recognized that there were other “churches” outside of the Catholic Church:

Q. On the other hand, Eberhard Jüngel sees something different there. The fact that in its time the Second Vatican Council did not state that the one and only Church of Christ is exclusively the Roman Catholic Church perplexes Jüngel. In the Constitution Lumen gentium, it says only that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him", not expressing any exclusivity with the Latin word "subsistit".

A. Unfortunately once again I cannot follow the reasoning of my esteemed colleague, Jüngel. I was there at the Second Vatican Council when the term "subsistit" was chosen and I can say I know it well. Regrettably one cannot go into details in an interview. In his Encyclical Pius XII said: the Roman Catholic Church "is" the one Church of Jesus Christ. This seems to express a complete identity, which is why there was no Church outside the Catholic community. However, this is not the case: according to Catholic teaching, which Pius XII obviously also shared, the local Churches of the Eastern Church separated from Rome are authentic local Churches; the communities that sprang from the Reformation are constituted differently, as I just said. In these the Church exists at the moment when the event takes place. . .

Q. In short, why cannot the "otherness" of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be compared to the diversity of ecclesial communities? Is Jüngel's not a fascinating and harmonious formula?

A. Among the ecclesial communities there are many disagreements, and what disagreements! The three "persons" constitute one God in an authentic and supreme unity. When the Council Fathers replaced the word "is" with the word "subsistit", they did so for a very precise reason. The concept expressed by "is" (to be) is far broader than that expressed by "to subsist". "To subsist" is a very precise way of being, that is, to be as a subject which exists in itself. Thus the Council Fathers meant to say that the being of the Church as such is a broader entity than the Roman Catholic Church, but within the latter it acquires, in an incomparable way, the character of a true and proper subject. (Answers to Main Objections Against Dominus Iesus.)

One can see that the then “Cardinal” Ratzinger had explained the Latin word subsistit had been chosen at the “Second” Vatican Council precisely because it signified that the “Church of Christ” was an entity larger than the Catholic Church herself.

Ratzinger was so bold as to project this heretical belief upon Pope Pius XII, who did not believe that the Eastern Orthodox churches were part of the one Church of Christ that is the Catholic Church, implying that there was a possibility that Papa Pacelli had gotten it wrong, that he might not have agreed with what Ratzinger contended was the “Catholic teaching” contained in Lumen Gentium. He even went so far as to assert that Protestant sects became part of the “Church of Christ” at the moment, which he called “the event,” of their being founded by this or that heretic. That is not what Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis and it is offensive to God, Who has never willed that any false religious sect be created, noting that He permits men to use their free wills to defy Him. However, Our Lord’s permissive will can never be confused with his ordained will.

Falsehoods are not willed by God. God hates all falsehoods, whether religious or philosophical. The belief that falsehoods are will positively by God into existence is boilerplate conciliar doctrine. One of its chief propagators was the late Father Walter Burghardt, S.J., who wrote that Protestant sects would not have existed and multiplied if it had been in violation of God’s will for this to occur. Never mind the fact that God has given man a free will to accept or to reject Him and the Sacred Deposit of Faith that He has revealed and entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. No, the likes of Walter Burghardt and those he influenced, such as Bergoglio, believe that the very existence of Protestant sects proves that they have the favor of God.

This very heresy has been preached in front of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Benedict XVI by the Capuchin friar who helped to “bless” “Cardinal” Bergoglio in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 2006 with the “assistance of various charismatic Protestant “ministers,” Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.FM., Cap.:

Yet, at the Vatican’s Good Friday Liturgy, 2002, the Preacher to the Papal Household, Capuchin Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, said the other religions “are not merely tolerated by God …. but positively willed by Him as an expression of the inexhaustible richness of His grace and His will for everyone to be saved.” (4) All quotes from Fr. Cantalamessa’s sermon are from the April 2, 2002 Catholic News Service report. (As found in John Vennari, From Pentecostalism to Apostasy by John Vennari)

“It is more important that men and women become holy,” Cantalamessa said, standing in the center of a magnificent basilica erected to celebrate the earthly might of Catholicism and the papacy, “than that they know the name of the one Savior.” (National Catholic Reporter, reporting on the same 2002 Good Friday “homily”)

The late Jorge Mario Bergoglio told us that he did not concern himself with doctrinal matters. He said, both publicly and "privately," that "knowing Jesus" is the only thing that matters, except in the case of Jews and Mohammedans and atheists, who do not necessarily have to "know Jesus" in order to be saved. Just "do good" and "we will meet you there," something that he said on more than one occasion during his twelve years, thirty-nine days as “Francis, the Talking Apostate.”

Catholicism or conciliarism. It’s one or the other. There is no middle ground. The Catholic Church cannot produce men in her official capacities who speak these things so promiscuously and without any word of correction for the sake of the honor and glory and majesty of God and for the good of the souls for whom Our Lord shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Can this change?

Of course not.

Victor Manuel Fernandez’s Fiducia Supplicans, December 18, 2023, therefore, was simply the manifestation of his fellow Argentine’s desire to make sodomites, lesbians, mutants, and others feel “included” even though their Mortal Sins exclude them from the life of Sanctifying Grace in their immortal souls and from eternal life in Heaven if they persist in these wretched sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance until the point of their deaths. All the document’s flowing words about the importance of blessings in stirring up graces within souls mean nothing as those who receive blessings must be willing to conform their lives to God’s laws.

Despite all the protestations to the contrary within the text of Fiducia Supplicans, the very fact that what purports to be the Catholic Church has seen fit to administer extra-liturgical, non-ritualized “blessings” to those who are said to be in “loving relationships” does indeed convey some kind of inherent “goodness” in that which is odious in the site of God as it perverts His love into an empty-headed concept of pure sentimentality.

Ferndandez’s protestations that Fiducia Supplicans did not convey equate “same-sex” relationships with the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony are about as absurd as the repeated statements made by the likes of Karol Joszef Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, and Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself that conciliarism’s embrace of false ecumenism and interreligious prayer services are not an embrace of religious indifferentism. The converse is true, of course, with respect to the “blessings” of practicing sodomites, mutants, et al., as it is true about the claims that false ecumenism is not religious indifferentism when it is precisely that.

Furthermore, if “blessings” were so important to “Pope Francis,” why did he not impart them to journalists shortly after his bogus election in 2013 nor to individuals gathered to greet him below the balcony of the United States Capitol building on Thursday, September 24, 2015, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom?

As if to show himself a complete pagan, Bergoglio stepped out on the balcony of the United States Capitol to greet the crowd that had gathered in the area below. Here is an account of what transpired when House Speaker John Boehner (R-West Chester, Ohio) led him out to the balcony:

In improvised remarks made from the balcony of the American Congress to huge crowds gathered in the National Mall in Washington, Pope Francis asked God to bless all the people of America, especially the children and their families. Speaking in his native Spanish, he asked the crowds to pray for him too, adding that “if there are among you any who do not believe or cannot pray, I ask you please to send good wishes my way”.

The Pope's impromptu greeting came after his address inside Congress to a joint meeting of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Before taking his leave of the cheering crowds lining the Mall, the Pope said in English “Thank you very much – and God bless America!” (Bergoglio gives impromptu greeting to crowds in Washington Mall.)

It is as though Jorge said, "Hey, baby, send me some good vibes." To quote a friend of ours, "What a jerk."

Obviously, none of us have it “made,” which is why we must accept all penances with joy as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits. (From Polluting the Atmosphere With the Smoke of Antichrist, part three.)

In plain English, of course, Fiducia Supplicans used doublespeak to clumsily suggest that those who have do no desires to reform their lives want God’s assistance to “live better lives” even while continuing to sin unrepentantly. The real fact of the matter is that the sodomites, lesbians, and mutants have long desired these “blessings” as they convey precisely what Victor Manuel Fernandez said that they did not: namely, “blessings” that connote God’s favor upon their lives.

Here is one of the efforts Fernandez made within the text of Fiducia Supplicans to absurdly claim that God can bestow his favor upon those who refuse to reform their lives by humbly confessing their sins and then to remove from their lives all associations that are sinful or present the near occasion of sin:

27. In the catechesis cited at the beginning of this Declaration, Pope Francis proposed a description of this kind of blessing that is offered to all without requiring anything. It is worth reading these words with an open heart, for they help us grasp the pastoral meaning of blessings offered without preconditions: “It is God who blesses. In the first pages of the Bible, there is a continual repetition of blessings. God blesses, but humans also give blessings, and soon it turns out that the blessing possesses a special power, which accompanies those who receive it throughout their lives, and disposes man’s heart to be changed by God. [...] So we are more important to God than all the sins we can commit because he is father, he is mother, he is pure love, he has blessed us forever. And he will never stop blessing us. It is a powerful experience to read these biblical texts of blessing in a prison or in a rehabilitation group. To make those people feel that they are still blessed, notwithstanding their serious mistakes, that their heavenly Father continues to will their good and to hope that they will ultimately open themselves to the good. Even if their closest relatives have abandoned them, because they now judge them to be irredeemable, God always sees them as his children.”[19] (Fiducia Supplicans, December 18, 2023.)

Blasphemy.

Heresy.

God is “mother?”

God hates sin.

God’s love for us is an act of His Holy Will, which is directed at the sanctification and salvation our immortal souls, and no one truly loves another if he does or says anything that contrary to the sanctification and salvation of his immortal soul. You and I know this, of course, but Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not believe that that sodomy excludes one from the Kingdom of God or hereafter.

God does not suborn sin.

God does not bless sin, and He does not bless those who are intent of living in Mortal Sin.

It is that simple.

Blessings do indeed convey approval and/or permission. Jorge Mario Bergoglio knew this, and so did Victor Manuel Fernandez. They tried to cloak their malice with a veneer of Catholicism, but we must always remember the following words of Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896, and of Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

The need of this divinely instituted means for the preservation of unity, about which we speak is urged by St. Paul in his epistle to the Ephesians. In this he first admonishes them to preserve with every care concord of minds: "Solicitous to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. iv., 3, et seq.). And as souls cannot be perfectly united in charity unless minds agree in faith, he wishes all to hold the same faith: "One Lord, one faith," and this so perfectly one as to prevent all danger of error: "that henceforth we be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive" (Eph. iv., 14): and this he teaches is to be observed, not for a time only - "but until we all meet in the unity of faith...unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ"). But, in what has Christ placed the primary principle, and the means of preserving this unity? In that - "He gave some Apostles - and other some pastors and doctors, for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ"." (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The Sacred Tribunal of Penance is where those who want to receive God’s favor must humbly accuse themselves and then promise to amend their lives and sin no more. Anyone who insists that God loves people the “way they are” are blasphemers as, though He wills the good of all men, He does not and cannot love sin and will never suborn it in the lives of the rational creatures for whom His Co-Equal, Co-Eternal Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem. It is that simple.

The retired “archbishop” of La Plata, Argentina, Hector Aguer, wrote the following about Fiducia Supplicans after it had been issued on December 18, 2023:

The Dicastery of the Doctrine of the Faith has become a Dicastery of confusion. This is precisely what the Argentinean Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández promotes. Not only the confusion of the faithful, but also of world opinion.

Now he is once again giving occasion for debate with the publication of the declaration Fiducia supplicans, on the blessing of homosexual couples and of heterosexual marriages who live in an irregular situation. It is scandalous that this statement contradicts what two years ago the Dicastery affirmed with the signature of Cardinal Luis Ladaria. In that statement it was said that a homosexual couple cannot be blessed because God cannot bless sin. That is the truth. Every blessing implies God’s complacency in the person, or the object blessed.

As it could not be otherwise, Fiducia supplicans multiplies excuses and explanations that simply reveal a clear accusation. The style is the style of dissimulation proper to Pope Francis: things are said half-heartedly in order to be fully understood against Tradition.

In the introduction it is said that one can understand the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples because the blessing cannot be preceded by a prior moral analysis. A repeated pretext is that the Church must be more “inclusive,” and the criterion for this identification is sociological, or social psychological, as developed because of the pressure of the world: of fashion, and of the imposition of models according to alleged “new rights.” The Church is inclusive by nature, since it was formed thanks to Christ’s command to the Apostles: to address all nations. And the history of the Church shows that from the beginning all peoples have been incorporated into it. This declaration constitutes a true scandal which, decorated by pretexts, contrasts the secular doctrine on marriage.

Fiducia supplicans lets us see where chapter eight of the exhortation Amoris laetitia was pointing, where it was discreetly said that people living in these irregular situations can sometimes receive the sacraments. It was a beginning that is now revealed in its full dimension. But this is a consequence of Pope Francis’ method, which is dissimulation. This is how the current pontificate on many issues proposes a new position that “corrects” the doctrine of the Church and the unalterable Tradition of the same.

In conclusion: Fiducia supplicans should not be obeyed. And it is perfectly correct to deny blessings to homosexual “marriages,” and to marriages living in an irregular situation. (Archbishop Aguer: Francis' document Fiducia Supplicans must not be obeyed.)

This an excellent statement but it was so focused on Fiducia Supplicans that it did not recognize the entire conciliar enterprise is one of confusion, distraction, and dissimulation as one conciliar “pope” after another has claimed to be upholding doctrine and Tradition while redefining, undermining, or deconstructing them into insignificance.

Ah, “archbishop” Aguer’s call to disobedience, though, represented a de facto rejection of his fellow Argentinian’s claim to the papacy as, to call to mind the words of Pope Saint Pius X:

And how must the Pope be loved? Non verbo neque lingua, sed opere et veritate. [Not in word, nor in tongue, but in deed, and in truth - 1 Jn iii, 18] When one loves a person, one tries to adhere in everything to his thoughts, to fulfill his will, to perform his wishes. And if Our Lord Jesus Christ said of Himself, “si quis diligit me, sermonem meum servabit,” [if any one love me, he will keep my word - Jn xiv, 23] therefore, in order to demonstrate our love for the Pope, it is necessary to obey him.

Therefore, when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority; we do not set above the authority of the Pope that of other persons, however learned, who dissent from the Pope, who, even though learned, are not holy, because whoever is holy cannot dissent from the Pope.

This is the cry of a heart filled with pain, that with deep sadness I express, not for your sake, dear brothers, but to deplore, with you, the conduct of so many priests, who not only allow themselves to debate and criticize the wishes of the Pope, but are not embarrassed to reach shameless and blatant disobedience, with so much scandal for the good and with so great damage to souls. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope!” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)

Whoever is holy cannot dissent from the pope.

This means that those who dissented from “Pope Francis” in the belief that he was a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter are not holy, or that “Pope Francis” was no pope at all as it would never have been necessary to have opposed him and/or to have dissented from his false teachings if he had been such.

This is all quite relevant as Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV has appointed new members to the conciliar “Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life”, which includes those communities whose presbyters stage the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition. Two of these new appointees explicitly support Fiducia Supplicans and other, Arthur Roche, was the Argentine Apostate’s strong-armed enforcer of Traditiones Custodes, July 16, 2021:

Pope Leo XIV today appointed members to the Vatican office overseeing religious orders and the Latin Mass communities, including some cardinals who have opposed the traditional Mass and supported blessings for same-sex couples.

As outlined in the Holy See Press Office bulletin on June 24, Leo XIV appointed 19 new members to the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (DICLSAL).

The new members include five cardinals, five bishops, four priests, four religious woman and one lay woman.

Among the cardinals are certain notable figures, such as:

Cardinal Arthur Roche: prefect of the Dicastery for Divine Worship under Pope Francis who led the late pontiff’s charge against the traditional Mass and enforced restrictions on it.
Cardinal Cristóbal López Romero: Archbishop of Rabat who has supported blessings for same-sex couples in light of Fiducia Supplicans, adding that synodality is a “prophetic sign” for the world and that opponents of its decisions are “morally obligated to support” them.
Cardinal Giorgio Marengo: the second youngest cardinal and the Apostolic Prefect of Ulaanbaatar, the Catholic territory encompassing Mongolia numbering around 1,000 Catholics.
Cardinal Pierbattista Pizzaballa: Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, famous for offering himself as a hostage exchange in 2023 and considered papabile in the May 2025 conclave.
Cardinal Jaime Spengler: Archbishop of Porto Alegre and president of the National Conference of Bishops of Brazil along with the Latin American Episcopal Council (CELAM). Spengler has given mixed messages about his support for the highly controversial Amazon rite while also supporting Fiducia Supplicans’ blessings for same-sex couples.

Other non-cardinalatial appointments to the dicastery include male and female religious superiors, along with Luisa Muston, a lay woman who leads the secular institute called the Missionaries of the Infirm “Christ the Hope.”

It is quite normal for cardinals to be appointed to various offices of the Roman Curia, particularly so for those who are already working in the Curia or who have occasion to be in Rome more frequently.

On May 9, Pope Leo already requested all Curia leaders, members, and secretaries to remain temporarily in place until further notice, meaning that a notable number of cardinals are already members of the dicastery.

But the names nevertheless always contain significance and can highlight preferences identified by the reigning Pontiff for particular Roman offices.

Pizzaballa is perceived as a conservative member of the College of Cardinals, as is Marengo, while others named by the Pope today would align more with liberal or “moderate” sectors on varying issues.

Roche is already prominent and well known for his opposition to the traditional Mass.

After Fiducia Supplicans and the furor over blessing same-sex couples, Romero deviated from the Africa-wide rejection of the document led by Cardinal Fridolin Ambongo, and later defended his position on the text when asked by this correspondent.

The document became one of the most hotly contested of Pope Francis’ pontificate, with many theologians and prelates calling on Pope Leo to issue a formal clarification of the text.

Spengler has also defended the text. In a 2023 interview, he commented that that Church “can’t deny” blessings on same-sex couples, adding that the Church must “meet every authentically human need.”

More uniquely, Spengler has been linked to the controversial “Amazon rite” of the liturgy. Created a cardinal in December, Spengler told LifeSiteNews in October that married deacons and priests may be a help for regions with few priests, adding that the Amazon rite and indigenous inculturation of the liturgy is taking place in Brazil.

He confirmed that the local Amazonian bishops were “speaking of the possibility of a specific rite for the Amazon region – this is a fact.” However he also sought to link back to the universal Church, noting that “on the other hand there is also something that says the following guidance: today in the Latin Church we have the Roman rite and the Roman rite must be inculturated in the different realities.”

Speaking to The Pillar around the consistory in December, Spengler downplayed the idea of an Amazon rite or of female deacons and married clergy. Such questions, he said, “require further study.”

Continuing, he stated:

I always like to say that there is a single rite in the [Latin] Church: The Roman rite and this rite needs to be and is called to be adapted to the different cultural realities. Creating the conditions for this adaptation requires, I believe, the best means for us to find the necessary means for inculturation to happen harmoniously. It’s not a question of bringing in a rite from outside to make reality adapt to it. Moreover, how many cultures are there in that reality?

Increasingly prominent Vatican office

For a long time, the DICLSAL has flown somewhat under the radar, apart for those keen to stay abreast of Vatican affairs. But under Pope Francis, it became increasingly prominent, especially due to the document Cor Orans and Vultum Dei Quaerere, which ushered in tighter Vatican control over religious life and has been widely – though often quietly – used against convents and religious orders noted for being too traditional for the liking of Roman officials.

In addition to restricting already existing groups, a 2022 Rescript via the dicastery prevented diocesan bishops from autonomously establishing any groups of the faithful looking to become religious institutes or societies in a move which was described as an attempt to prevent any new traditional communities from being formed.

Not least in the reasons for the dicastery’s newfound prominence is the highly controversial appointment by Pope Francis of a religious woman – Sister Simona Brambilla, M.C. – as the prefect, rather than a cardinal, earlier this year. In order to attempt to satisfy the canonical requirement necessary when signing documents or wielding authority, Cardinal Ángel Fernández Artime SDB was made the pro-prefect.

Since Pope Francis’ Latin Mass restrictions contained within Traditionis Custodes, Sr. Brambilla’s dicastery has key responsibility for overseeing the orders that celebrate the traditional Mass such as the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), Institute of Christ the King Soverign Priest (CKSP), and Institute of the Good Shepherd (IBP).

The FSSP is currently undergoing an Apostolic Visitation from the dicastery after having a meeting in 2022 with Pope Francis, who confirmed their constitutions and that they are exempt from the “general provisions” of Traditionis Custodes.

The arrival of a staunch anti-traditionalist figure such as Cardinal Roche to the dicastery will be key to observe what impact such an appointment has for the future of these traditional communities. It was only last year that Cardinal Gerhard Müller remarked that “a senior representative” from Roche’s office was dismayed to hear of the popularity of the Latin Mass Chartres pilgrimage, solely due to the traditional Mass being celebrated.

As of the past few weeks, the dicastery now has a female religious serving as secretary, a move welcomed by activists as a sign of continued female leadership in the Church under Leo. (Pope Leo appoints Cardinal Roche, same-sex 'blessing' supporters to Dicastery for Consecrated Life.)

Boy, if only Leo knew, huh?

Well, as I pointed out in part two of what will likely be an ongoing series of commentaries, relax. Leo knows what he is doing, and the fact that he appointed at least two supporters of Fiducia Supplicans to the “Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life” means that he does not consider such support to be a disqualification for serving in such a capacity.

Perhaps it is unnecessary to do so, but it should be pointed out that many of the major religious communities within the counterfeit church of conciliarism are strongholds of sodomy or lesbianism. As such, therefore, “Pope Leo XIV’s” new appointees are likely to give the leadership of the “Latin Mass communities” a very hard time about how “welcoming” and how committed to “diversity” they are, up to and including whether they will adhere to Fiducia Supplicans, which is part of “Pope Francis’s” official magisterial teaching and from which no Catholic has any right to dissent.

Who says so?

Well, the esteemed Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, who was the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review from 1943 to 1963, wrote as follows about the obedience Catholics owe to a pope’s insertion of his teaching into his Acta Apostolicae Sedis:

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'."

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 fifty years or more have been used during that same time frame with ever-increasing boldness 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.

Alas, the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not the Catholic Church as no true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would ever cause a document to be inserted into Acta Apostolicae Sedis that is contrary to Catholic Faith and Morals, which Fiducia Supplicans certainly is, but this something that does seem to matter to Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV, who chose the men that he did to serve on the conciliar sect’s “Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life” very carefully.

Boy, if only Leo knew, huh?

We turn today, the Feast of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, to this Heart of all hearts that we pierced with a lance because of our own sins, our own infidelities, our own lukewarmness, our own pride, and ingratitude. To truly love the Sacred Heart of Jesus, of course, we must beg His Most Blessed Mother to send us the graces He won for us so that we can reform our lives and live as He has taught us, not as we desire. We will win great favor from Heaven if we humbly unite ourselves to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, remembering that, as Pope Pius XI noted, the Sacred Heart of Jesus is the remedy for a truly cruel age and that Our Lady’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart is our sure shelter in these times of Modernity in the world and Modernism within the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

May the Sorrowful Mysteries of Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary we pray today help us to be ever grateful to what her Divine Son’s Most Sacred Heart suffered to redeem us but yet, because of Its ineffable fountain of mercy, beckons us with Love as It beats us with that Love in every tabernacle where Our Lord is truly present in the Most Blessed Sacrament.

Cor Jesu Sacratissimum, miserere nobis.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Our Lady of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus, 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.

You are here

Boy, If Only Leo Knew, Huh?", part three

Support Christ or Chaos