Circus Jorge, part one

As the transcription of very important information to be included in part ten of “Polluting the Atmosphere with the Smoke of Antichrist” is not yet complete, I am taking this opportunity to compose a very brief commentary on the absolute madness associate with Circus Jorge in the Paul VI Audience Hall in the State of Vatican City.

First, the so-called synod of so-called “bishops” (admitting that most of the bishops of the various Eastern rites are true bishops) is an exercise in complete absurdity as Catholic doctrine is non-negotiable. Catholic doctrine is never the subject of “discussion” and “debate.

Second, even though various revolutionaries, starting with Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself, who are assembled in the hideous, monstrous and all-around ugly and vile Paul the VI Audience Hall claim that “doctrine” is not up for debate, the opposite is true. After all, none other an “Pope Francis” himself has repeatedly urged an “openness” to the “Holy Spirit,” which is not-so-subtle code language for finding a “merciful” way to misinterpret the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law in order to sooth the consciences of those living in sin. Bergoglio has made this “openness” an integral part of his whole false “pontificated,” and has done so twice thus far in the space of the past two days alone:

The Synod, as we know, is a journey undertaken together in the spirit of collegiality and synodality, on which participants bravely adopt parrhesia, pastoral zeal and doctrinal wisdom, frankness, and always keep before our eyes the good of the Church, of families and the suprema lex, the Salus animarum.

I should mention that the Synod is neither a convention, nor a parlor, nor a parliament or senate, where people make deals and reach compromises. The Synod is rather an Ecclesial expression, i.e., the Church that journeys together to read reality with the eyes of faith and with the heart of God; it is the Church that interrogates herself with regard to her fidelity to the deposit of faith, which does not represent for the Church a museum to view, nor even something merely to safeguard, but is a living source from which the Church shall drink, to satisfy the thirst of, and illuminate, the deposit of life.

The Synod moves necessarily within the bosom of the Church and of the holy people of God, to which we belong in the quality of shepherds – which is to say, as servants. The Synod also is a protected space in which the Church experiences the action of the Holy Spirit. In the Synod, the Spirit speaks by means of every person’s tongue, who lets himself be guided by the God who always surprises, the God who reveals himself to little ones, who hides from the knowing and intelligent; the God who created the law and the Sabbath for man and not vice versa; by the God, who leaves the 99 sheep to look for the one lost sheep; the God who is always greater than our logic and our calculations.

Let us remember, however, that the Synod will be a space for the action of the Holy Spirit only if we participants vest ourselves with apostolic courage, evangelical humility and trusting prayer: with that apostolic courage, which refuses to be intimidated in the face of the temptations of the world – temptations that tend to extinguish the light of truth in the hearts of men, replacing it with small and temporary lights; nor even before the petrification of some hearts, which, despite good intentions, drive people away from God; apostolic courage to bring life and not to make of our Christian life a museum of memories; evangelical humility that knows how to empty itself of conventions and prejudices in order to listen to brother bishops and be filled with God – humility that leads neither to finger-pointing nor to judging others, but to hands outstretched to help people up without ever feeling oneself superior to them.

Confident prayer that trusts in God is the action of the heart when it opens to God, when our humors are silenced in order to listen to the gentle voice of God, which speaks in silence. Without listening to God, all our words are only words that are meet no need and serve no end. Without letting ourselves be guided the Spirit, all our decisions will be but decorations that, instead of exalting the Gospel, cover it and hide it.

Dear brothers, as I have said, the Synod is not a parliament in which to reach a consensus or a common accord there is recourse to negotiation, to deal-making, or to compromise: indeed, the only method of the Synod is to open up to the Holy Spirit with apostolic courage, with evangelical humility and confident, trusting prayer, that it might be He, who guides us, enlightens us and makes us put before our eyes, with our personal opinions, but with faith in God, fidelity to the Magisterium, the good of the Church and the Salus animarum.

In fine, I would like to thank: His Eminence Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod; His Excellency, Archbishop Fabio Fabene, Undersecretary; and with them I thank the Rapporteur, His Eminence Cardinal Peter Erdő and the Special Secretary, His Excellency Archbishop Bruno Forte; the Presidents-delegate, writers, consultors, translators and all those who worked with true fidelity and total dedication to the Church. Thank you so much! (full text of remarks at Synod opening.)

“Pope Francis” believes that the Sacred Deposit of Faith does not consist of a “museum of memories” that must be safeguarded by what he thinks is the Catholic Church. No, the Sacred Deposit of Faith is a starting point from which to “reference” the concrete situations in which people live today. One cannot contend that he intends to maintain the doctrine of the indissolubility of a ratified and consummated marriage by looking for ways to circumvent it as one blasphemously contends the effort to do so is the work of the “Holy Spirit” and is proof of the “God who surprises.” This is the work of evil spirits, not the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. Jorge’s “god” is not the true God of Divine Revelation. He is immutable. So are His doctrines. Anyone who thinks that this kind of heretical, blasphemous denial of the very nature of God and His Revelation is going to “defend doctrine” is either insane or just completely intellectually dishonest. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is not a Catholic. He is not a member of the Catholic Church.

“Pope Francis” compounds his heresy on a daily basis, doing so this morning, Tuesday, October 6, 2015, the Feast of Saint Bruno, as he held his session of Ding Dong School at the Casa Santa Marta.

Drawing inspiration from the first reading of the Book of Jonah, the Pope pointed out that Jonah is initially resistant to God's will, but eventually learns that he must obey the Lord.

Remarking on the fact that the city of Nineveh converts thanks to Jonah’s preaching, Pope Francis said “it really was a miracle, because in this case he abandons his stubbornness, his rigidity, to obey the will of God, and he did what the Lord commanded him."

And afterwards, the Pope said, after the conversion of Nineveh, Jonah “who was not a man who was docile to the Spirit of God, was angry". The Pope said he even rebuked the Lord.

So, Pope Francis observed, the story of Jonah and Nineveh unfolds in three chapters: the first "is Jonah’s resistance to the mission the Lord entrusts him with"; the second "is his obedience” and the ensuing miracle; in the third chapter, "there is resistance to God’s mercy".

The Pope went on to say that Jesus too was misunderstood because of his mercy.

He recalled that Jesus lived with the Doctors of the Law who did not understand why he did not let the adulteress be stoned, they did not understand why he dined with publicans and sinners, “they did not understand. They did not understand mercy”.

Pope Francis said that the Psalm that we prayed today tells us to "wait for the Lord because with the Lord there is mercy, and redemption."

"Where the Lord is - Francis concluded - there is mercy”. And, he added, as Ambrose said: “Where his ministers are there is rigidity. The rigidity that defies mission, which challenges mercy ":

"As we approach the Year of Mercy, let us pray the Lord to help us understand his heart, to understand what 'mercy' means, what it means when He says: 'I want mercy, not sacrifice!'” he said. (God wants his ministers to be merciful.)

Bergoglio omitted any reference to penance and sorrow, didn’t he?

God’s mercy was extended to the people of the city of Nineve because they repented. Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s concept of “mercy” is predicated on nothing other than making people feel “included” and welcomed,” thus reaffirming them in their sins and leading them all headlong into hell with him. He can talk about the supreme law of the church is the salvation of souls all he wants. His actual beliefs are formed by the adversary’s supreme law of ruining souls for all eternity in hellfire and to realize the pain of being separated from their First Cause and Last End Who is the object of the adversary’s hatred.

[1] And the word of the Lord came to Jonas the second time, saying: [2] Arise, and go to Ninive the great city: and preach in it the preaching that I bid thee. [3] And Jonas arose, and went to Ninive, according to the word of the Lord: now Ninive was a great city of three days' journey. [4] And Jonas began to enter into the city one day' s journey: and he cried, and said: Yet forty days, and Ninive shall be destroyed. [5] And the men of Ninive believed in God: and they proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least.

[6] And the word came to the king of Ninive; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. [7] And he caused it to be proclaimed and published in Ninive from the mouth of the king and of his princes, saying: Let neither men nor beasts, oxen nor sheep, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water. [8] And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands. [9] Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish? [10] And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. (Jonas 3: 1-10.)

Bergoglio omitted any reference to penance and sorrow, didn’t he?

It is furthermore the case that “Pope Francis” once again distorted the compassion that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ extended to his friend Saint Mary Magdalene when she was caught in the act of adultery, omitting Our Lord’s injunction to “go, and sin no more”:

[1] And Jesus went unto mount Olivet. [2] And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them. [3] And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, [4] And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. [5] Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

[6] And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. [7] When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [8] And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. [9] But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. [10] Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

[11] Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more. [12]

Modernists always twist and otherwise distort the meaning of Sacred Scripture while consigning Sacred Tradition to a “relic” in a “museum” that be made “living” so as to suit the alleged “needs of the times.

Writing in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, Pope Saint Pius X noted:

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.)

The methodology of the Modernists never varies. It is always same. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has simply stripped away most of the pretense of Catholicism in order to “surprise” Catholics with propositions that the Talmudists and their allies in Protestantism and Freemasonry have been advancing for nearly five hundred years, admitting that the Talmudists had something of a head-start on the Protestants by advancing their agenda during certain phases of the Renaissance in the Fifteenth Century. The packaging is different from time to time. The basic diabolical propositions, however, remain the same. So does the methodology used to advance these propositions.

To wit, Bergoglio about the importance of the indissolubility of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in a “homily” he delivered on Sunday, October 4, 2015, the Nineteenth Sunday after Pentecost and the Commemoration of Saint Francis of Assisi, after having undermined it by means of his “streamlined” process of obtaining conciliar decrees of marital nullity. After all, what serious, believing Catholic can believe that paying a medical assassin to execute an innocent preborn child is “proof” that a marital bond between a husband and a wife did not exist? This is not “mercy.” This is not even sound conciliar “canon law.” This is simply an effort to say one thing to deceive the masses by appearing to “preserve” Catholic teaching while undermining in the most bold manner imaginable.

Ah, but this is very much to the point, you see, as nothing is stable in land of absurdity that is now featuring The Circus Jorge at the Aula Paolo Sicko within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River.” The two daily press briefings presided over by “Fathers” Federico Lombardi, S.J., and Thomas Rosica, C.S.B., have made this abundantly clear:

Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J., director of the Holy See Press Office, was accompanied by Cardinal Péter Erdö from Hungary - who is the synod rapporteur; Cardinal André Vingt-Trois from France - one of the president delegates; and Italian Archbishop Bruno Forte - who is special secretary to the Synod. In his remarks Fr. Lombardi said that each day there would be Synod Fathers present at the press conference as guests.

Fr. Lombardi explained the order of the morning’s session which began with prayer and the singing of the Veni Creator Spiritus. Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, general secretary of the synod, welcomed everyone before Pope Francis gave his opening address to the Synod Fathers. After the morning coffee break, Cardinal Péter Erdö gave the introductory address entitled “The Vocation of the Family in the Church and Contemporary World.”

Cardinal Vingt-Trois said that his first impression of the Synod was that there is “a wide diversity of participants, geographically, which includes members form the Latin and Oriental Churches but all are hinged around the Pope.” He said that the Holy Father had reiterated what he had said before; he wants to tackle issues in an “open-minded way through prayer, meditation and dialogue.”

Cardinal Erdö explained that his introductory address had followed the structure of Instrumentum Laboris. “I tried to systematise all the data which was received from the Church around the world, including families and individuals who wrote to us, following the themes already in Instrumentum Laboris.”

Archbishop Forte, in his remarks, said that the aim of the Synod was to “propose the gospel of the family” but also to “echo the hopes and pains of families around the world today.” He emphasised the need for “openness to the Holy Spirit as well as prayer and humility before God.”

The prelates answered some questions after their short inputs. They were asked if they feel under pressure form the media. Archbishop Forte responded saying that last year some media had a “bi-polar interpretation” of what was happening at the Synod but that this was “not the perception inside the Synod.” He said “We are here to listen to the problems people have, we are more united than the media assumes. There are divergent views, which are ok, but this does not mean division. I feel we are on a marvellous spiritual pathway with God.”

Cardinal Vingt-Trois explained how, in Paris, people were invited to create “synod teams.” He said that these teams found there were divergent opinions among them and they “could be expressed without breaking communion.”

The prelates emphasised that the Synod was a pastoral one. “It will not lead to doctrinal changes, because it is about pastoral attention, pastoral care. We are about resonating pastorally,” Forte said.

Cardinal Erdö said that there was an active interest in the Synod because of the issues that were raised last year. He said that the Synod Fathers hope to develop the Church’s understanding of family by listening to each other and paying special attention to tradition. “Development is not unlimited; we have to look at tradition.” (Synod on the Family: Press Briefing Day 1.)

(Vatican Radio) Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J. opened the daily press conference by explaining what had happened in the morning session. He said that the general secretary of the Synod, Cardinal Baldisseri, had explained “certain processes of the methodology” and its new elements. Lombardi said that Pope Francis also thought it was important for him to make a contribution and so he too said a few words.

“The Holy Father thought it important to say that what we are doing here must be seen as a continuation of last year,” Lombardi said. Pope Francis said that the group work, which the Synod Fathers begins on Tuesday afternoon, is going to be very important. The Pope reminded the Fathers that “Catholic doctrine on marriage was not called into question in the previous sitting of the Synod” and that “the Synod is not about one single issue – Eucharist for the divorced and remarried – but many issues and we must take them all into account.”

Fr. Lombardi listed different themes which arose in the contributions made during the session. He highlighted a number of them which included the passing on of the faith inter-generationally, migration, domestic violence, war, poverty, and polygamy.

Basilian Fr. Thomas Rosica, who is the English-speaking Media Attaché of the Holy See, said the comments made by the Synod Fathers were brief. Each is only allowed to speak for three minutes which “helps foster clarity.” He said that some interventions suggested there had been an over-emphasis on the problems the family faces and that one of the Fathers suggested that we acknowledge the “beauty and joy” of family life. “Some of the interventions suggested we should be more inclusionary in our language, especially in the Jubilee Year of Mercy. Gay persons are our sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, neighbours and colleagues,” Rosica said.

“There was also a suggestion that the third form of penance, general absolution, be used widely in the Year of Mercy,” said Rosica. He pointed out and clarified that these were suggestions which “might be considered by the Fathers.”

At the end of the briefing, the panel was asked if the question of the admission of divorced and remarried Catholics to the Eucharist was still open to discussion. Archbishop Maria Celli, President of the Pontifical Council of Social Communication, said that the issue was open. “It is open on a pastoral level but remember what the Pope said about doctrine,” he said. Asked if the reception of the Eucharist by divorced and remarried persons was a “doctrine or a discipline” Archbishop Paul-Andre Durocher of Gatineau, Quebec, replied saying that different people may see this differently and that it was part of the work of the Synod to discuss this.

Archbishop Durocher went on to say that the bishops were all united in acknowledging that there is a gap between contemporary culture and church teaching. Archbishop Celli said that it was important for the church to find ways of entering into dialogue with the world. “We need to speak about what the Church teaches but must also avoid a ghetto mentality.”

Fr. Lombardi was asked if Pope Francis was going to participate in a small group. He said that the Pope did not normally attend small groups but that he was a Pope of surprises so “he may also surprise us!” (Synod on the Family: Press Briefing Day 2.)

Some "conservative" and "traditionally-minded" Catholics thought that a "victory" fought by the "good, moderate revolutionaries" (sort of like Glinda, the "Good Witch of the North" in the hideous anti-Catholic mockery of religion, The Wizard of Oz, I suppose) had been won last year at the "extraordinay synod of 'bishops' on the family" by having those three paragraphs struck from the final report (the relatio) of the synod. As noted just above, however, Bergoglio, who had said at the end of last year's circus that there remained a year for "the church to mature" prior to the current circus that got underway three days ago now, personally inserted those three paragraphs remain in the final report, albeit in slightly modified form so as to make the "maturation" process that much easier to accept in the conciliar "tradition" of "gradualness" that is all too frequently not very gradual.

Before a few brief comments are offered are some of the points made by the revolutionaries who spoke in the Vatican spin room the past few days, it is important to note that one of those revolutionaries, Bruno Forte, is among many in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, including his own mentor, the now-retired Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who does not believe that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ actually rose bodily from the dead on His own power on Easter Sunday:

Another example of this alarming situation, which threatens to make the Pope’s disciplinary laxity seem strictly conservative by comparison, is the little-noticed story of how Bruno Forte, a priest of the Archdiocese of Naples, was suddenly made a bishop five months ago.

Forte, who last year was brought to the Vatican to preach a Lenten retreat to an already incapacitated Pope, is rumored to be Cardinal Ratzinger’s replacement as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. How this happened is anybody’s guess. The rumor has caused a great deal of consternation for one simple reason: Forte is a flaming neo-modernist. As noted in the Winter 2005 issue of The Latin Mass in a report by its Italian correspondent, Alessandro Zangrando, Forte was a pupil of none other than the infamous Cardinal Walter Kasper. (In yet another sign of things falling apart at the top, immediately after Kasper’s own elevation to the rank of cardinal he publicly declared to the press that the Old Covenant remains in force and is salvific for the Jews, and that Protestants are under no obligation to convert and become Catholics.)

Worse still, Zangrando, a respected journalist not given to reckless claims, relates that Forte’s 1994 essay Gesu di Nazaret, storia di Dio, Dio della storia (Jesus of Nazareth, history of God, God of history) reveals Forte as nothing less than “the standard-bearer of theories so radical as to the point of putting in doubt even the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. The empty tomb, he argues, is a legend tied into the Jewish-Christian ritual performed at the place of Jesus’ burial. It is a myth inherited by the Christians from Jesus’ early disciples. Therefore, the empty tomb, along with other details surrounding the resurrection, is nothing but a ‘proof’ made up by the community. In other words, Forte is trying to change the resurrection of Christ into a myth, into a kind of fairy tale that cannot be proven.”

Forte’s elevation to bishop was rather mysterious. Zangrando notes that Forte’s name did not appear in any list of possible candidates submitted to the Italian Nunciature, and even his ordinary, Cardinal Michele Giordano, Archbishop of Naples, “was reportedly against that appointment.” But, “in an apparent attempt at putting to rest a growing controversy” over Forte’s candidacy, he was personally consecrated a bishop by none other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the very man Forte will succeed as head of the CDF, according to the rumors. Yes, “our only friend in the Vatican” has struck again. More and more it becomes apparent that this man is perhaps the most industrious ecclesial termite of the post-conciliar epoch, tearing down even as he makes busy with the appearance of building up. The longer Ratzinger “guards” Catholic doctrine, the more porous the barriers that protect it become.

Indeed, as I have pointed out more than once on these pages, it was Ratzinger who wrote in 1987 (in the second edition of his Principles of Catholic Theology) that the “demolition of bastions” in the Church is “a long-overdue task.” The Church, he declared, “must relinquish many of the things that have hitherto spelled security for her and that she has taken for granted. She must demolish longstanding bastions and trust solely the shield of faith.” Now it seems that with the bastions all but demolished, even the shield of faith is about to clatter to the ground.

There is no doubt the Holy Ghost will save the Church from extinction and bring about her restoration. In the end, no other result is possible.

Before this happens, however, the difference between extinction and non-extinction may come to be far smaller than even traditionalists might have supposed. On the other hand, the very next Pope could be another Saint Pius X, who will finally take arms against our enemies and impose immediate restorative measures we could scarcely have imagined. Who knows which way it will go? All we can do is continue our loyal opposition, pray for the advent of a kingly, militant pope, and hope that the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary will soon be upon us. (Ratzinger Consecrates Modernist Bishop)

Yes, yes, that was before Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger became “Pope Benedict XVI,” whereupon he became seen as the “restorer of tradition” because of Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, the old German “new theologian” told us repeatedly was issued to “pacify the spirits” of traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures, not to “restore” the Mass of Pope Saint Pius V as normative in what passes for the “Roman Rite” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Having reminded you about the nefarious nature of Bruno Forte’s denial of Our Lord’s bodily Resurrection from the dead on Easter Sunday, perhaps it is also good to remind you that he was the principal author of the following three paragraphs that were inserted by Jorge Mario Bergoglio into the final report of the 2014 “extraordinary synod of ‘bishops’ on the family” despite their having failed to receive the support of two-thirds of the “bishops” present:

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority. (Synod on Family: Midterm report presented, 2015 Synod announced.)

How do I know that heretic Bruno Forte was the author of the three paragraphs that were contained in last year’s “midterm report” but failed to gather the support of two-thirds of the “bishops” present before being inserted by heretic Jorge Mario Bergoglio into the final text?

Simple.

Very simple.

A press brief presided over by Spinmeister Lombardi on October 13, 2014, revealed this to be the case:

The Church does not believe that the term “family” can be used to refer both to a union between a man and a woman that is open to procreation and same-sex union. Having said this, it seems obvious to me that humans have different experiences have rights that must all be protected. The issue here therefore, is not equating the two in all senses, including in terminological terms. Naturally, this does not mean that we should rule out looking for a way to describe the rights of people living in same-sex unions. It is a question – I think – of being civilized and respecting people’s dignity.” This is according to Mgr. Bruno Forte, the Synod’s Special Secretary, who commented on the relatio post disceptationem, the summary of the Synod’s first week of discussions, presented today by Cardinal Peter Erdő. His comment was in response to a question on legislation that legally protects cohabiting gay couples and was made during the daily briefing with journalists.

The Hungarian cardinal who gave the floor to Mgr. Forte because, he said, “he who wrote the text must know what it is talking about,” added that “the subject came up in the free discussions too and some said it seems to have been missed out in these paragraphs, although at one point there is a clearer reference to the fact that there are also disordered forms of cohabitation” and the circuli minores – the language groups the bishops have been split into – “are to discuss the issue this week and “later on”. The groups will also be making amendments to the text presented today.

On this note, Mgr. Forte answered a question about whether the reference to the “seed of the Word” and “elements of sanctification and of truth” that are also to be “found outside” traditional marriage also applies to gay cohabitation and common-law marriages. “I think the document intends to find positive aspects wherever these are to be found and they do exist of course. Rejecting something is easy but recognizing and giving value to all that is positive, even when dealing with these kinds of experiences, I think is an exercise in intellectual honesty and spiritual charity.”

During the course of today’s briefing, Mgr. Forte defined the Synod’s quandary as “work in progress” and underlined that from the end of the Extraordinary Synod on 19 October to the start of the Ordinary Synod on 5 October 2015, bishops from all over the world will have “to listen to the laity” in their respective dioceses: “Sometimes our laity is more clerical than our priests and this will not do. What I say to laypersons is this: be protagonists! I expect the laypersons to be protagonists who search for real solutions with their head held high.” In answer to a question about why today’s relation lacked any reference to the term “natural law”, Mgr. Forte said: “we need to use a language that is easy to understand and although ‘natural law’ expresses a crucial idea, it is the kind of term most people would not understand.” A number of Synod Fathers evoked the spirit of the Second Vatican Council during the discussions which took place following the presentation of the relatio today. During the debate, Synod participants voiced their “criticisms” and “asked for further explanations” and “clarifications”, Erdő said. “Some Fathers,” Mgr. Forte added, said it was like listening to the spirit of the Gaudium et spes, the Church that looks kindly upon the world, making the expectations and the suffering of today’s men and women its own.” The Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Louis Antonio Tagle who is an expert on the history of the Council, recalled that the Synod would conclude with the ceremony for the beatification of Paul VI, the Pope who brought the Council to a close, portraying a Church that was “not self-absorbed but missionary; a Church that was able to listen and converse with the world.” Chilean cardinal Ricardo Ezzati Andrello also spoke during the briefing that was moderated by the Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi. (Guaranteeing the "rights" of sodomites is a matter of dignity.)

We can see very clearly that Jorge and his band of Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries believe that the “maturation” process has “evolved” to the point where they can talk about “preserving” Catholic doctrine while being “open” to the work of the “holy spirit,” which is really nothing new in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as the denial of the very nature of dogmatic truth, which is nothing other than a denial of the very nature of God Himself, is at the heart of the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes.”

As has been noted in several recent commentaries on this site, it is truly laughable for “conservatives” and “traditionally-minded” Catholics within the structures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to pray for the success of their “moderate” and “conservative” “bishops” in this year’s “synod of bishops” to “preserve” Catholic doctrine as each of these so-called “good guys” accepts wholesale attacks on the nature of dogmatic truth (“living tradition,” “the hermeneutic of continuity”) and on the nature of the Divine Constitution of the Church (the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality), to say nothing of their acceptance of and participation in violations of the First and Second Commandments by means of false ecumenism and “inter-religious prayer” services.

Perhaps even more tellingly, these supposed “defenders of Catholic doctrine” about the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and the family have helped to undermine the integrity of marriage and the family by supporting an inversion of the ends proper to marriage by subordinating the procreation and education of children to the “unitive” end of the good of the spouses and by promoting “natural family planning” and implementing all manner of programs that contain explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments. Some “defenders” of Catholic doctrine! The so-called “moderate” or “conservative” conciliar revolutionaries have drawn a George Herbert Walker Bush “this will not stand” line in the sand now after having embraced and promoted heretical propositions and participating personally in blasphemous sacrileges against the honor, glory and majesty of the Most Blessed Trinity.

Ah, such must be the absurdities in a false religious sect whose officials occupy the buildings of the Catholic Church without possessing the Catholic Faith, making them simply the latter-day equivalents of the Arians, the Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans and a whole variety of other heretics who stole the property of the Catholic Church have having abandoned the Faith. What makes the conciliar revolution so insidious is the fact that the its revolutionaries maintain the title of Catholic officials to confuse most people, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, into thinking that theirs is the Catholic Church. It is not.

Indeed, there is no “debate” or “diversity of views” in the Catholic Church on matters of the Sacred Deposit of Faith as they have been defined by Holy Mother Church. Pope Leo XIII made this clear in Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896. So did Pope Pius XI in Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943:

Agreement and union of minds is the necessary foundation of this perfect concord amongst men, from which concurrence of wills and similarity of action are the natural results. Wherefore, in His divine wisdom, He ordained in His Church Unity of Faith; a virtue which is the first of those bonds which unite man to God, and whence we receive the name of the faithful - "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. iv., 5). That is, as there is one Lord and one baptism, so should all Christians, without exception, have but one faith. And so the Apostle St. Paul not merely begs, but entreats and implores Christians to be all of the same mind, and to avoid difference of opinions: "I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms amongst you, and that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment" (I Cor. i., 10). Such passages certainly need no interpreter; they speak clearly enough for themselves. Besides, all who profess Christianity allow that there can be but one faith. It is of the greatest importance and indeed of absolute necessity, as to which many are deceived, that the nature and character of this unity should be recognized. And, as We have already stated, this is not to be ascertained by conjecture, but by the certain knowledge of what was done; that is by seeking for and ascertaining what kind of unity in faith has been commanded by Jesus Christ. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

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

One cannot claim to be “defending” Catholic doctrine while undermining it on a “pastoral” level as it is the duty of a Catholic bishop to defend Catholic doctrine in all circumstances, not find ways to circumvent it in the name of a false “mercy” to make unrepentant sinners feel “welcomed” and “loved.”

Let’s get down to the facts of the matter here: it is undoubtedly the case that some of the conciliar revolutionaries who are “friendly” to the sodomite agenda are in fact sodomites themselves. All of their “loving” talk about “pastoral” adaptations of Catholic doctrine is designed to salve their own consciences just as much as those of the people who they placating while driving many Catholics who are bewildered by these events into the waiting arms of Protestant evangelical or fundamentalist sects and, in the case of some, into rank unbelief.

As nothing is stable in any false religion (the counterfeit church of conciliarism is simply manifesting the perfection of the inherent degeneracy of its false doctrines just as much as has happened to the Anglican sect since its founding in 1534 by the lecherous drunkard named Henry Tudor—King Henry VIII), even the “discipline” of “Saint John Paul II” on the matter of general absolution, which “Father” Thomas Rosica said yesterday was a subject that had been raised by some “bishops” on Day 2 of the Circus Jorge, can become part of the “museum” of the “past” that must be ignored in light of supposedly “changed” circumstances.

Conscious of the misuse of general absolution in various places in Europe and in the United States of America, most notably in the Archdiocese of Chicago under Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin and then for far too long during the reign of the late Francis “Cardinal” George, O.M.I., Karol Joseph Wojtya/John Paul II issued an “apostolic motu proprio” on Low Sunday, April 7, 2002, to attempt to place an end to this misuse:

By the mercy of God, the Father who reconciles us to himself, the Word took flesh in the spotless womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary to save “his people from their sins” (Mt 1:21) and to open for them “the way of eternal salvation”. By identifying Jesus as “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29), Saint John the Baptist confirms this mission. In all his deeds and preaching, the Precursor issues a fervent and energetic summons to repentance and conversion, the sign of which is the baptism administered in the waters of the Jordan. Jesus himself underwent this penitential rite (cf. Mt 3:13-17), not because he had sinned, but because “he allows himself to be numbered among sinners; he is already `the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world' (Jn 1:29); already he is anticipating the `baptism' of his bloody death”

Salvation is therefore and above all redemption from sin, which hinders friendship with God, a liberation from the state of slavery in which man finds himself ever since he succumbed to the temptation of the Evil One and lost the freedom of the children of God (cf. Rom 8:21).

Christ entrusts to the Apostles the mission of proclaiming the Kingdom of God and preaching the Gospel of conversion (cf. Mk 16:15; Mt 28:18-20). On the evening of the day of his Resurrection, as the apostolic mission is about to begin, Jesus grants the Apostles, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the authority to reconcile repentant sinners with God and the Church: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (Jn 20:22-23).

Down through history in the constant practice of the Church, the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor 5:18), conferred through the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance, has always been seen as an essential and highly esteemed pastoral duty of the priestly ministry, performed in obedience to the command of Jesus. Through the centuries, the celebration of the Sacrament of Penance has developed in different forms, but it has always kept the same basic structure: it necessarily entails not only the action of the minister – only a Bishop or priest, who judges and absolves, tends and heals in the name of Christ – but also the actions of the penitent: contrition, confession and satisfaction.

I wrote in my Apostolic Letter Novo Millennio Ineunte: “I am asking for renewed pastoral courage in ensuring that the day-to-day teaching of Christian communities persuasively and effectively presents the practice of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. As you will recall, in 1984 I dealt with this subject in the Post-Synodal Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, which synthesized the results of a General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops devoted to this question. My invitation then was to make every effort to face the crisis of `the sense of sin' apparent in today's culture. But I was even more insistent in calling for a rediscovery of Christ as mysterium pietatis, the one in whom God shows us his compassionate heart and reconciles us fully with himself. It is this face of Christ that must be rediscovered through the Sacrament of Penance, which for the faithful is `the ordinary way of obtaining forgiveness and the remission of serious sins committed after Baptism'. When the Synod addressed the problem, the crisis of the Sacrament was there for all to see, especially in some parts of the world. The causes of the crisis have not disappeared in the brief span of time since then. But the Jubilee Year, which has been particularly marked by a return to the Sacrament of Penance, has given us an encouraging message, which should not be ignored: if many people, and among them also many young people, have benefited from approaching this Sacrament, it is probably necessary that Pastors should arm themselves with more confidence, creativity and perseverance in presenting it and leading people to appreciate it”

With these words, I intended, as I do now, to encourage my Brother Bishops and earnestly appeal to them – and, through them, to all priests – to undertake a vigorous revitalization of the Sacrament of Reconciliation. This is a requirement of genuine charity and true pastoral justice, and we should remember that the faithful, when they have the proper interior dispositions, have the right to receive personally the sacramental gift.

In order that the minister of the Sacrament may know the dispositions of penitents with a view to granting or withholding absolution and imposing a suitable penance, it is necessary that the faithful, as well as being aware of the sins they have committed, of being sorry for them and resolved not to fall into them again, should also confess their sins. In this sense, the Council of Trent declared that it is necessary “by divine decree to confess each and every mortal sin” The Church has always seen an essential link between the judgement entrusted to the priest in the Sacrament and the need for penitents to name their own sins, except where this is not possible. Since, therefore, the integral confession of serious sins is by divine decree a constitutive part of the Sacrament, it is in no way subject to the discretion of pastors (dispensation, interpretation, local customs, etc.). In the relevant disciplinary norms, the competent ecclesiastical authority merely indicates the criteria for distinguishing a real impossibility of confessing one's sins from other situations in which the impossibility is only apparent or can be surmounted.

In the present circumstances of the care of souls and responding to the concerned requests of many Brothers in the Episcopate, I consider it useful to recall some of the canonical laws in force regarding the celebration of this Sacrament and clarify certain aspects of them – in a spirit of communion with the responsibility proper to the entire Episcopate with a view to a better administration of the Sacrament. It is a question of ensuring an ever more faithful, and thus more fruitful, celebration of the gift entrusted to the Church by the Lord Jesus after his Resurrection (cf. Jn 20:19-23). This seems especially necessary, given that in some places there has been a tendency to abandon individual confession and wrongly to resort to “general” or “communal” absolution. In this case general absolution is no longer seen as an extraordinary means to be used in wholly exceptional situations. On the basis of an arbitrary extension of the conditions required for grave necessity, in practice there is a lessening of fidelity to the divine configuration of the Sacrament, and specifically regarding the need for individual confession, with consequent serious harm to the spiritual life of the faithful and to the holiness of the Church.

Thus, after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, and after hearing the views of venerable Brother Cardinals in charge of the dicasteries of the Roman Curia, and reaffirming Catholic doctrine on the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation as summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, conscious of my pastoral responsibility and fully aware of the need for this Sacrament and of its enduring efficacy, I decree the following:

1. Ordinaries are to remind all the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance that the universal law of the Church, applying Catholic doctrine in this area, has established that:

a) “Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation can be obtained in other ways”.

b) Therefore, “all those of whom it is required by virtue of their ministry in the care of souls are obliged to ensure that the confessions of the faithful entrusted to them are heard when they reasonably ask, and that they are given the opportunity to approach individual confession, on days and at times set down for their convenience”.

Moreover, all priests with faculties to administer the Sacrament of Penance are always to show themselves wholeheartedly disposed to administer it whenever the faithful make a reasonable request. An unwillingness to welcome the wounded sheep, and even to go out to them in order to bring them back into the fold, would be a sad sign of a lack of pastoral sensibility in those who, by priestly Ordination, must reflect the image of the Good Shepherd.

2. Local Ordinaries, and parish priests and rectors of churches and shrines, should periodically verify that the greatest possible provision is in fact being made for the faithful to confess their sins. It is particularly recommended that in places of worship confessors be visibly present at the advertized times, that these times be adapted to the real circumstances of penitents, and that confessions be especially available before Masses, and even during Mass if there are other priests available, in order to meet the needs of the faithful.

3. Since “the faithful are obliged to confess, according to kind and number, all grave sins committed after Baptism of which they are conscious after careful examination and which have not yet been directly remitted by the Church's power of the keys, nor acknowledged in individual confession” any practice which restricts confession to a generic accusation of sin or of only one or two sins judged to be more important is to be reproved. Indeed, in view of the fact that all the faithful are called to holiness, it is recommended that they confess venial sins also.

4. In the light of and within the framework of the above norms, the absolution of a number of penitents at once without previous confession, as envisaged by Can. 961 of the Code of Canon Law, is to be correctly understood and administered. Such absolution is in fact “exceptional in character” and “cannot be imparted in a general manner unless:

1. the danger of death is imminent and there is not time for the priest or priests to hear the confessions of the individual penitents;

2. a grave necessity exists, that is, when in light of the number of penitents a supply of confessors is not readily available to hear the confessions of individuals in an appropriate way within an appropriate time, so that the penitents would be deprived of sacramental grace or Holy Communion for a long time through no fault of their own; it is not considered sufficient necessity if confessors cannot be readily available only because of the great number of penitents, as can occur on the occasion of some great feast or pilgrimage”

With reference to the case of grave necessity, the following clarification is made:

a) It refers to situations which are objectively exceptional, such as can occur in mission territories or in isolated communities of the faithful, where the priest can visit only once or very few times a year, or when war or weather conditions or similar factors permit.

b) The two conditions set down in the Canon to determine grave necessity are inseparable. Therefore, it is never just a question of whether individuals can have their confession heard “in an appropriate way” and “within an appropriate time” because of the shortage of priests; this must be combined with the fact that penitents would otherwise be forced to remain deprived of sacramental grace “for a long time”, through no fault of their own. Therefore, account must be taken of the overall circumstances of the penitents and of the Diocese, in what refers to its pastoral organization and the possibility of the faithful having access to the Sacrament of Penance.

c) The first condition, the impossibility of hearing confessions “in an appropriate way” “within an appropriate time”, refers only to the time reasonably required for the elements of a valid and worthy celebration of the Sacrament. It is not a question here of a more extended pastoral conversation, which can be left to more favourable circumstances. The reasonable and appropriate time within which confessions can be heard will depend upon the real possibilities of the confessor or confessors, and of the penitents themselves.

d) The second condition calls for a prudential judgement in order to assess how long penitents can be deprived of sacramental grace for there to be a true impossibility as described in Can. 960, presuming that there is no imminent danger of death. Such a judgement is not prudential if it distorts the sense of physical or moral impossibility, as would be the case, for example, if it was thought that a period of less than a month means remaining “for a long time” in such a state of privation.

e) It is not acceptable to contrive or to allow the contrivance of situations of apparent grave necessity, resulting from not administering the Sacrament in the ordinary way through a failure to implement the above mentioned norms, and still less because of penitents' preference for general absolution, as if this were a normal option equivalent to the two ordinary forms set out in the Ritual.

f) The large number of penitents gathered on the occasion of a great feast or pilgrimage, or for reasons of tourism or because of today's increased mobility of people, does not in itself constitute sufficient necessity.

5. Judgement as to whether there exist the conditions required by Can. 961 §1, 2 is not a matter for the confessor but for “the diocesan Bishop who can determine cases of such necessity in the light of criteria agreed upon with other members of the Episcopal Conference^."These pastoral criteria must embody the pursuit of total fidelity, in the circumstances of their respective territories, to the fundamental criteria found in the universal discipline of the Church, which are themselves based upon the requirements deriving from the Sacrament of Penance itself as a divine institution.

6. Given the fundamental importance of full harmony among the Bishops' Conferences of the world in a matter so essential to the life of the Church, the various Conferences, observing Can. 455 § 2 of the Code of Canon Law, shall send as soon as possible to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments the text of the norms which they intend to issue or update in the light of this Motu Proprio on the application of Can. 961. This will help to foster an ever greater communion among the Bishops of the Church as they encourage the faithful everywhere to draw abundantly from the foun tains of divine mercy which flow unceasingly in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

In this perspective of communion it will also be appropriate for Diocesan Bishops to inform their respective Bishops' Conferences whether or not cases of grave necessity have occurred in their jurisdictions. It will then be the task of each Conference to inform the above-mentioned Congregation about the real situation in their regions and about any changes subsequently taking place.

7. As regards the personal disposition of penitents, it should be reiterated that:

a) “For the faithful to avail themselves

validly of sacramental absolution given to many at one time, it is required that they not only be suitably disposed but also at the same time intend to confess individually the serious sins which at present cannot be so confessed”

b) As far as possible, including cases of imminent danger of death, there should be a preliminary exhortation to the faithful “that each person take care to make an act of contrition”

c) It is clear that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution.

8. The obligation “to confess serious sins at least once a year” remains, and therefore “a person who has had serious sins remitted by general absolution is to approach individual confession as soon as there is an opportunity to do so before receiving another general absolution, unless a just cause intervenes”

9. Concerning the place and confessional for the celebration of the Sacrament, it should be remembered that:

a) “the proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or an oratory”, though it remains clear that pastoral reasons can justify celebrating the Sacrament in other places.

b) confessionals are regulated by the norms issued by the respective Episcopal Conferences, who shall ensure that confessionals are located “in an open area” and have “a fixed grille”, so as to permit the faithful and confessors themselves who may wish to make use of them to do so freely.

I decree that everything I have set down in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio shall have full and lasting force and be observed from this day forth, notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary. All that I have decreed in this Letter is, by its nature, valid for the venerable Oriental Catholic Churches in conformity with the respective Canons of their own Code.

Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 7 April, the Second Sunday of Easter, the Feast of Divine Mercy, in the year of our Lord 2002, the twenty-fourth of my Pontificate. (Motu Proprio Misericordia Dei.)

One will note that Wojtyla/John Paul II emphasized the fact “that penitents living in a habitual state of serious sin and who do not intend to change their situation cannot validly receive absolution,” which is precisely what Circus Jorge, 2015, intends to make more possible under the cover of “papal” legislation to change the conciliar code of canon law.

Live by the condemned Modernist proposition of the evolution of dogma under the aegis of “living tradition” and one will die by some future “pope’s” efforts to use “living tradition” to consign anything in the “past,” including the teaching and the law of a fellow antipope, in the name of “encountering” the world while “preserving” the Deposit of Faith.

Well, the hour is late.

There is no need for anyone to “sweat” the results of the circus that is in its third day of needless debate on matters that can never be debated.

It was on June 30, 2014, that I first predicted the outcome of Bergoglio’s revolution against Catholic doctrine on marriage and the family (see A New Sense for a New Faith, part two), which I adapted as follows nine months ago now for publication in No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio: So Close in Apostasy, So Far From Catholic Truth:

Thus it is that the “extraordinary synod on the family” that concluded on October 19, 2014, has set the stage for the following “developments of doctrine” in 2015 and the years to follow:

1. Following the practice of the heretical and schismatic Greek Orthodox, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics without a decree of nullity from the conciliar officials, not that it is worth anything, will be permitted to receive what is purported to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service on a case-by-case basis handled by means of the interior forum of the conciliar “reconciliation room.” In other words, everybody gets to stick their paws out to receive what they think is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

2. The nullity process itself will be “streamlined” even further, making it possible for “decisions” in a matter of months, if not sooner.

3. “Pastoral outreach” to “unmarried couples” will be enlarged and expanded.

4. The “internal forum” solution, which has been used for decades now by cooperative priests and presbyters, will be adopted to assuage the consciences of married couples who find it “too difficult” to avoid the use of contraceptives. “Education” in methods of “natural family planning” will be recommended as the way to “plan” the number of children a married couple desires to have. For the refutation of “natural family planning,” please see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change.

5. “Ministries” to those engaged in the commission of perverse sins against nature will be expanded and found more universally than they have been up until to now, confined in some dioceses to a few well-known dens of iniquity (e.g. Saint Francis Xavier Church in New York, Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco, California, Saint Brigid’s Church in Westbury, New York, Saints Cyril and Methodius Church in Deer Park, New York, Saint Joan of Arc Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, among so many, many others). The children who are unfortunate to be in the care of unrepentant practitioners of perversity with be baptized and welcomed into conciliar schools, thereby mainstreaming acceptance of perverse behavior and overthrowing any lingering concept of a detestation of personal sin that might be lurking in the hearts of Catholics who are as of yet attached to the conciliar structures.

Yes, this is only one man’s assessment of the most likely outcome that will be announced at some point after the end of the conciliar “synod of bishops” on Sunday, October 25, 2015, the Feast of Christ the King in the Catholic Church. The “streamlining” of the nullity process is now a fait’ accompli. Can the others be far behind? I do not think so.

Sister Mary of Saint Peter, a consecrated Carmelite religious sister who lived in Nineteenth Century France and to whom Our Lord Himself gave the mission to spread devotion to His Holy Face, explained that she prayed as follows when seeking to make reparation for blasphemy and to convert blasphemers and heretics:

I have entered the arena to battle with the enemies of God, and since I am engaged in this war under the banner of obedience, if I may so express myself, my soul is at peace. Fighting under this banner I feel safe, and I no longer fear the demon. Our Lord has given me the grace to launch an offensive warfare.

Today, after Holy Communion, He inspired me to be brave in the encounter, promising me that as a reward for my faithful conduct in these battles, He would give me a Cross of Honor, which would have the power of opening Heaven to me. He also promised me the gold of charity by which I understood that I would be granted all the graces needed to triumph patiently and lovingly over any obstacles that would come my way.

Have fought the enemies of God during these past three solemn feast days (The three days of Holy Week) and that with all my strength, I must explain that since I have uttered many imprecations against them, I am not somewhat saddened for having done so. I well know that the holy King David has done as much, as for example in his Psalm 108 (They have spoken against me with a lying tongue; and they have attacked me without cause. Let these my accusers be converted with shame and let them be wrapt with the mantle of their own confusion. From PSALM 108) yet I am not certain whether the same course is allowed me. Nevertheless, everything that I said during the prayer was inspired by our Lord, and should it turn out that I have been mistaken, I will, of course, do this no more. The following is the formula of my militant procedure.

I begin by placing my soul in our Lord's hands, after which I beg Him to use my soul as He would a bow, urging Him to bend it so that the arrows would fly directly towards his enemies.

After doing this I proceed to enter the battlefield, fortified with the Cross and the other instruments of our Lord's tortures as my weapons of war, leveling their infinite conquering power against the military entrenchments of the enemy, in the way He has taught me. Then I say:

“May God arise and let His enemies be scattered and let all those who hate Him flee before His Face!

"May the thrice Holy Name of God overthrow all of their plans!

“May the thrice Holy Name of the Living God split them up by disagreements!

“May the terrible Name of the God of Eternity stamp out all their godlessness!

Repeating other similar ejaculations, I continue to level these rounds of ammunition at God's enemies, and after I have beaten them down I add:

“Lord, I do not desire the death of the sinner, but I want him to be converted and to live. 'Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.'”

Feeling disturbed about uttering these imprecations, I sometimes worry but I must make it clear that never do I have the intention to wish evil to the enemy. I desire only to oppose their wickedness and their passions. In short, what I want is to kill not them but the “evil spirit” within them.

Such is the spiritual exercise which I perform without any mental effort and with great ease, because I simply allow myself to be led by the grace given me, but I fully believe that there is someone very anxious to alarm me, this being the general of the opposing side, the devil. (The Golden Arrow, pp. 206-208. There will be much more about the Holy Face devotion in part ten of “Polluting the Atmosphere with the Smoke of Antichrist.”)

Yes, let us make this prayer our very own:

“May God arise and let His enemies be scattered and let all those who hate Him flee before His Face!

“May the thrice Holy Name of God overthrow all of their plans!

“May the thrice Holy Name of the Living God split them up by disagreements!

May the terrible Name of the God of Eternity stamp out all their godlessness!

Today is the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin May. We must use the Holy Rosary well, praying that the proud revolutionaries who are gathering Paul VI Audience Hall this words are being typed will

be scattered and having all their plains overthrown by Christ the King and that they will be split up by their disagreements about a matter that should unite, not divide, believing Catholics.

Fortified by Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, may we not be distracted by the events in the conciliar Vatican at this time as “moderate” revolutionaries seek to do “battle” with each other, thereby demonstrating the absurdity of the false religion to which they adhere as we seek to make reparation for our own sins as the consecrated slaves of her Divine Son through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

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.

Pope Saint Mark, pray for us.

Pope Saint Mark I, pray for us.

Saints Sergius, Bacchus, Marcellus, and Apuleius, pray for us.

Saint Dominic de Guzman, pray for us.

Blessed Alan de la Roche, pray for us.

You are here

Circus Jorge, part one

Support Christ or Chaos