The Green Jorge Arrives in Africa

Although the work of transcribing text for a commentary on a development in the counterfeit church of conciliarism that speaks volumes about the extent of power exercise over this false religious sect by the ancient enemies of Christ the King is nearing its completion, thus permitting the finalization of commentary for posting, I did want to take a brief moment or two at a late hour to note the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the man who poses as “Pope Francis,” has arrived in the Republic of Kenya to proselytize in behalf of his false gospel of pantheism.

Without further ado, therefore, permit me to provide you with the very telling text of the speech he gave to the leaders of Kenya, a country that is rife with corruption and graft, yesterday, Wednesday, November 25, 2015, the Feast of Saint Catherine of Alexandria:

Mr President,

Honourable Government and Civil Leaders,

Distinguished Members of the Diplomatic Corps,

My Brother Bishops,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am most grateful for your warm welcome on this, my first visit to Africa.  I thank you, Mr President, for your kind words in the name of the Kenyan people, and I look forward to my stay among you.  Kenya is a young and vibrant nation, a richly diverse society which plays a significant role in the region.  In many ways your experience of shaping a democracy is one shared by many other African nations.  Like Kenya, they too are working to build, on the solid foundations of mutual respect, dialogue and cooperation, a multiethnic society which is truly harmonious, just and inclusive.

Yours too is a nation of young people.  In these days, I look forward to meeting many of them, speaking with them, and encouraging their hopes and aspirations for the future.  The young are any nation’s most valuable resource.  To protect them, to invest in them and to offer them a helping hand, is the best way we can ensure a future worthy of the wisdom and spiritual values dear to their elders, values which are the very heart and soul of a people.

Kenya has been blessed not only with immense beauty, in its mountains, rivers and lakes, its forests, savannahs and semi-deserts, but also by an abundance of natural resources.  The Kenyan people have a strong appreciation of these God-given treasures and are known for a culture of conservation which does you honour.  The grave environmental crisis facing our world demands an ever greater sensitivity to the relationship between human beings and nature.  We have a responsibility to pass on the beauty of nature in its integrity to future generations, and an obligation to exercise a just stewardship of the gifts we have received.  These values are deeply rooted in the African soul.  In a world which continues to exploit rather than protect our common home, they must inspire the efforts of national leaders to promote responsible models of economic development.

In effect, there is a clear link between the protection of nature and the building of a just and equitable social order.  There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature, without a renewal of humanity itself (cf. Laudato Si’, 118).  To the extent that our societies experience divisions, whether ethnic, religious or economic, all men and women of good will are called to work for reconciliation and peace, forgiveness and healing.  In the work of building a sound democratic order, strengthening cohesion and integration, tolerance and respect for others, the pursuit of the common good must be a primary goal.  Experience shows that violence, conflict and terrorism feed on fear, mistrust, and the despair born of poverty and frustration.  Ultimately, the struggle against these enemies of peace and prosperity must be carried on by men and women who fearlessly believe in, and bear honest witness to, the great spiritual and political values which inspired the birth of the nation.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the advancement and preservation of these great values is entrusted in a special way to you, the leaders of your country’s political, cultural and economic life.  This is a great responsibility, a true calling, in the service of the entire Kenyan people.  The Gospel tells us that from those to whom much has been given, much will be demanded (Lk 12:48).  In that spirit, I encourage you to work with integrity and transparency for the common good, and to foster a spirit of solidarity at every level of society.  I ask you in particular to show genuine concern for the needs of the poor, the aspirations of the young, and a just distribution of the natural and human resources with which the Creator has blessed your country.  I assure you of the continued efforts of the Catholic community, through its educational and charitable works, to offer its specific contribution in these areas.

Dear friends, I am told that here in Kenya it is a tradition for young schoolchildren to plant trees for posterity.  May this eloquent sign of hope in the future, and trust in the growth which God gives, sustain all of you in your efforts to cultivate a society of solidarity, justice and peace on the soil of this country and throughout the great African continent.  I thank you once more for your warm welcome, and upon you and your families, and all the beloved Kenyan people, I invoke the Lord’s abundant blessings.

Mungu abariki Kenya!          

God bless Kenya! (Jorge addresses Kenya's leaders.)

Where is the precedent for such “papal” pantheism?

Anti-sedevacantists like to point out that there is no precedent for a very long papal vacancy, a point that was demolished by the late Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D. (whose one hundredth anniversary of birth was on November 12, 2015):

November 30, 2002

Dear Correspondent:

You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first pope, has “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”

You, understandably,  wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.

The important thing here to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the papacy Our Lord established.

Did Our Lord intend that there should be a pope on the Chair of Peter every single  moment  of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the papacy existence?

You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of popes.  You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no pope, occupying the Chair of Peter.  That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a pope died.  This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first pope.

But you also know that the death of a pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of popes after Peter.

You understand now that “no pope” does not mean “no papacy.”  A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a pope  does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair.  A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.” 

Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that, the moment one pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.

Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each pope.

That interruption of succession of popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.

Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new pope was to be elected.  And He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”

Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a pope.

So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of popes after St. Peter has come to an end.

  What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution.  Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome.

Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the papacy.  But He willed not do so, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.

We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight.  But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.

If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope.  God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.

God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.

Nothing is impossible with God. Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

March 25, 2003

Where is the precedent for such “papal” pantheism?

Anti-sedevacantists like to point out that there is no precedent for a very long papal vacancy, a point that was demolished by the late Father Martin Stepanich, O.F.M., S.T.D. (whose one hundredth anniversary of birth was on November 12, 2015):

November 30, 2002

Dear Correspondent:

You quote the passage from Vatican Council I, Session IV, which states clearly that St. Peter, the first pope, has “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church…”

You, understandably,  wonder how it could be that there are still “perpetual successors” of St. Peter if the men who have claimed to be popes in our times have been in reality public heretics, who therefore could not, as heretics, be the true successors of St. Peter.

The important thing here to understand just what kind of “perpetual succession” in the papacy Our Lord established.

Did Our Lord intend that there should be a pope on the Chair of Peter every single  moment  of the Church’s existence and every single moment of the papacy existence?

You will immediately realize that, no, Our Lord very obviously did not establish that kind of “perpetual succession” of popes.  You know that, all through the centuries of the Church’s existence, popes have been dying and that there then followed an interval, after the death of each pope, when there was no “perpetual successor,” no pope, occupying the Chair of Peter.  That Chair became vacant for a while whenever a pope died.  This has happened more than 260 times since the death of the first pope.

But you also know that the death of a pope did not mean the end of the “perpetual succession” of popes after Peter.

You understand now that “no pope” does not mean “no papacy.”  A vacant Chair of Peter after the death of a pope  does not mean a permanent vacancy of that Chair.  A temporary vacancy of the Chair of Peter does not mean the end of the “perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church.” 

Even though Our Lord, had He so willed it, could have seen to it that, the moment one pope died, another man would automatically succeed him as pope, He nevertheless did not do it that way.

Our Lord did it the way we have always known it to be, that is, He allowed for an interval, or interruption, of undesignated duration, to follow upon the death of each pope.

That interruption of succession of popes has, most of the time, lasted several weeks, or a month or so, but there have been times when the interruption lasted longer than that, considerably longer.

Our Lord did not specify just how long that interruption was allowed to last before a new pope was to be elected.  And He did not declare that, if the delay in electing a new pope lasted too long, the “perpetual succession” was then terminated, so that it would then have to be said that “the papacy is no more.”

Nor did the Church ever specify the length or duration of the vacancy of the Chair of Peter to be allowed after the death of a pope.

So it is clear that the present vacancy of the Chair of Peter, brought on by public heresy, despite the fact that it has lasted some 40 years or so, does not mean that the “perpetual succession” of popes after St. Peter has come to an end.

What we must realize here is that the papacy, and with it the “perpetual succession” of popes is a Divine institution, not a human institution.  Therefore, man cannot put an end to the papacy, no matter how long God may allow heresy to prevail at the papal headquarters in Rome.

Only God could, if He so willed, terminate the papacy.  But He willed not do so, because He has made His will known to His Church that there will be “perpetual successors” in the papal primacy that was first entrusted to St. Peter.

We naturally feel distressed that the vacancy of the Chair of Peter has lasted so long, and we are unable to see the end of that vacancy in sight.  But we do realize that the restoration of the Catholic Faith, and with it the return of a true Catholic Pope to the Papal Chair, will come when God wills it and in the way He wills it.

If it seems to us, as of now, that there are no qualified, genuinely Catholic electors, who could elect a new and truly Catholic Pope.  God can, for example, bring about the conversion of enough Cardinals to the traditional Catholic Faith, who would then proceed to elect a new Catholic Pope.

God can intervene in whatever way it may please Him, in order to restore everything as He originally willed it to be in His Holy Church.

Nothing is impossible with God. Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D.

March 25, 2003

Dear Faithful Catholic:

Your letter of February 21, 2003, tells me about “doubting Thomases”  who say that they “just can’t believe” that the Chair of Peter could have been vacant for as much as 40 years, or even for only 25 years, without the “perpetual succession” of popes being thereby permanently broken.

Those “doubting Thomases” presumably grant that the “perpetual succession” of popes remains unbroken during the relatively short intervals that follow upon the deaths of popes, and you indicate that, at least for a while, they have even understood – to their credit – that a public and unrepentant heretic cannot possibly be a true Catholic Pope and that the Chair of St. Peter must necessarily become vacant if it is taken over by such a public heretic.

But, as you sadly say, those “doubting Thomases” changed their views after they read the Declaration of Ecumenical Council Vatican I (1870) which you quoted from Denzinger in your letter of November 8, 2002.  Vatican I declared that “the Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the Universal Church…”

Notice carefully that Vatican I says nothing more than that St. Peter shall have “perpetual successors” in the primacy, which obviously means that the “perpetual succession” of popes will last until the end of time.

Vatican I says nothing about how long Peter’s Chair may be vacant before the “perpetual succession” of popes would supposedly come to a final end.  Yet the “doubting Thomases” imagine they see in the Vatican I declaration something which just  isn’t there.  They presume to think that “perpetual successors in the primacy” means that there can never be an extra long vacancy of Peter’s Chair, but only those short vacancies that we have always known to occur after the deaths of popes.  But that isn’t the teaching of Vatican I.  It is the mistaken “teaching” of “doubting Thomases.”

Curiously enough, the “doubting Thomases” never suggest just how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair would be needed to put a supposedly final end to the “perpetual succession” of popes.  Their imagination has gotten  them into an impossible  situation.  They “just can’t believe” that the vacancy of Peter’s Chair could last for 25 or 40 years or more, while, at the same time, they “just can’t believe” that a public heretic could possibly be a true Catholic Pope.  At one and the same time, they do have a Pope, yet they do not have a Pope.  They have a heretic “Pope,” but they do not have a true Catholic Pope.

Not being able to convince the “doubting Thomases” that they are all wrong and badly confused, you have hoped that some unknown “Church teaching” could be found in some book that would make the “doubting Thomases” see the light.

But you don’t need any additional “Church teaching” besides what you have already quoted from Vatican I.  You can plainly see that Vatican I did not say anything about how long a vacancy of Peter’s Chair may be.  You also know that Our Lord never said that the vacancy of the Papal Chair may last only so long and no longer.

Most important of all, never forget that men cannot put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, no matter how long public heretics may occupy Peter’s Chair.  The Catholic Papacy comes from God, not from man.  To put an end to the “perpetual succession” of popes, you would first have to put an end to God Himself. Father Martin Stépanich, O.F.M., S.T.D. An Objection to Sedevacantism: 'Perpetual Successors' to Peter (For another Father Stepanich letter, one that summarizes the sedevacantist case so very clearly, see: Father Stepanich Letter on Sedevacantism.)

Father Martin Stepanich explained why a super-long vacancy in the papacy does not constitute a contradiction of the doctrine of perpetual successors as enunciated by the [First] Vatican Council in Pastor Aeternus, July 18, 1870.

Nothing but apostasy explains how a putative “pope” can speak in the manner of a pantheist as have the conciliar “popes,” although none more so than the currently presiding antipope, the Argentine Apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is not in the least concerned with the sanctification and salvation of souls, upon which rests the conditions necessary for a truly just social order that subordinates the pursuit of the common temporal good in light of man’s Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost for all eternity in Heaven.

Bergoglio believes that the whole of social order depends upon protecting the environment, thus showing himself to be in complete opposition to the following oft-quoted passage from the writing of Silvio Cardinal Antoniano in the Sixteenth Century that was cited by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes ts own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil soto the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with iciety. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, as quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

The false “pope’s” love of “toleration,” “reconciliation” and “justice” based upon a love of the environment as the sine qua non of “believers” and his belief that “good will” alone is all that is needed to “improve” the temporal lot of men and their nations was condemned as Masonic by Pope Leo XIII in Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892, and mocked by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

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

We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one's personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism.  (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

The world is rushing rapidly in the direction of a world war after decades of a global war of terrorism upon the innocent preborn and after centuries of a global war against the Social Reign of Christ the King.

The very thing that caused Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to suffer in His Sacred Humanity during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross and that caused His Most Blessed Mother’s to suffer as those swords of sorrow were plunged into her Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, sin, is being protected under cover of civil law and celebrated in every part of so-called popular culture.

What is Jorge Mario Bergoglio concerned about in the midst of this descent into the abyss?

The Kenyan tradition of planting trees for solidarity, justice and reconciliation.

We can only pity those who believe that such a man as Jorge Mario Bergoglio can be a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter as a church that can be headed by a man who speaks constantly as a naturalist and religious indifferentist cannot be the true Church founded by Our Lord upon the Rock of Peter, the Pope, as she enjoys perpetual immunity from error and heresy.

The fantasies of the sick, pantheistic mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio cry out for contempt and mockery as the worldwide belief that he is “Pope Francis” has brought mockery, contempt and s scorn upon the very nature of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church and the extent of the infallibility that she enjoys even in her universal ordinary magisterium. A true pope must be obeyed and honored, points made clearly by Popes Leo XIII, Saint Pius X and by Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton:

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path . . . .

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. He has the charge of the universal welfare of the Church, to which is subordinate any particular need, and all others who are subject to this order must second the action of the supreme director and serve the end which he has in view. Since the Church is one and her head is one, so, too, her government is one, and all must conform to this.

When these principles are forgotten there is noticed among Catholics a diminution of respect, of veneration, and of confidence in the one given them for a guide; then there is a loosening of that bond of love and submission which ought to bind all the faithful to their pastors, the faithful and the pastors to the Supreme Pastor, the bond in which is principally to be found security and common salvation.

In the same way, by forgetting or neglecting these principles, the door is opened wide to divisions and dissensions among Catholics, to the grave detriment of union which is the distinctive mark of the faithful of Christ, and which, in every age, but particularly today by reason of the combined forces of the enemy, should be of supreme and universal interest, in favor of which every feeling of personal preference or individual advantage ought to be laid aside.

That obligation, if it is generally incumbent on all, is, you may indeed say, especially pressing upon journalists. If they have not been imbued with the docile and submissive spirit so necessary to each Catholic, they would assist in spreading more widely those deplorable matters and in making them more burdensome. The task pertaining to them in all the things that concern religion and that are closely connected to the action of the Church in human society is this: to be subject completely in mind and will, just as all the other faithful are, to their own bishops and to the Roman Pontiff; to follow and make known their teachings; to be fully and willingly subservient to their influence; and to reverence their precepts and assure that they are respected. He who would act otherwise in such a way that he would serve the aims and interests of those whose spirit and intentions We have reproved in this letter would fail the noble mission he has undertaken. So doing, in vain would he boast of attending to the good of the Church and helping her cause, no less than someone who would strive to weaken or diminish Catholic truth, or indeed someone who would show himself to be her overly fearful friend. (Pope Leo XIII, Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885.)

Not only must those be held to fail in their duty who openly and brazenly repudiate the authority of their leaders, but those, too, who give evidence of a hostile and contrary disposition by their clever tergiversations and their oblique and devious dealings. The true and sincere virtue of obedience is not satisfied with words; it consists above all in submission of mind and heart.

But since We are here dealing with the lapse of a newspaper, it is absolutely necessary for Us once more to enjoin upon the editors of Catholic journals to respect as sacred laws the teaching and the ordinances mentioned above and never to deviate from them. Moreover, let them be well persuaded and let this be engraved in their minds, that if they dare to violate these prescriptions and abandon themselves to their personal appreciations, whether in prejudging questions which the Holy See has not yet pronounced on, or in wounding the authority of the Bishops by arrogating to themselves an authority which can never be theirs, let them be convinced that it is all in vain for them to pretend to keep the honor of the name of Catholic and to serve the interests of the very holy and very noble cause which they  have undertaken to defend and to render glorious.

Now, We, exceedingly desirous that any who have strayed return to soundness of mind and that deference to the sacred Bishops inhere deeply in the hearts of all men, in the Lord We bestow an Apostolic Blessing upon you, Venerable Brother, and to all your clergy and people, as a token of Our fatherly good will and charity. (Pope Leo XIII, Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. The complete text may be found at: Est Sane Molestum, December 17, 1888. See also  Pope Leo XIII Quashes Popular “Resist-And-Recognize Position.)

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.)

Thus, according to the clear teaching of the Humani generis, it is morally wrong for any individual subject to the Roman Pontiff to defend a thesis contradicting a teaching which the Pope, in his "Acta," has set forth as a part of Catholic doctrine.  It is, in other words, wrong to attack a teaching which, in a genuine doctrinal decision, the Sovereign Pontiff has taught officially as the visible head of the universal Church.  This holds true always an everywhere, even in those cases in which the Pope, in making his decision, did not exercise the plenitude of his apostolic teaching power by making an infallible doctrinal definition.

The Humani generis must not be taken to imply that a Catholic theologian has completed his obligation with respect to an authoritative doctrinal decision made by the Holy Father and presented in his published "Acta" when he has merely refrained from arguing or debating against it.  The Humani generis reminded its readers that "this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth for any theologian in matters of faith and morals."[9]  Furthermore, it insisted that the faithful are obligated to shun errors which more or less approach heresy, and "to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See."[10]  In other words, the Humani generis claimed the same internal assent for declarations of the magisterium on matters of faith and morals which previous documents of the Holy See had stressed.

We may well ask why the Humani generis went to the trouble of mentioning something as fundamental and rudimentary as the duty of abstaining from further debate on a point where the Roman Pontiff has already issued a doctrinal decision, and has communicated that decision to the Church universal by publishing it in his "Acta."  The reason is to be found in the context of the encyclical itself.  The Holy Father has told us something of the existing situation which called for the issuance of the "Humani generis."  This information is contained in the text of that document.  The following two sentences show us the sort of condition the Humani generis was written to meet and to remedy:

"And although this sacred magisterium ought to be the immediate and universal norm of truth on matters of faith and morals for any theologian, as the agency to which Christ the Lord has entrusted the entire deposit of faith - that is, the Sacred Scriptures and divine Tradition - to be guarded and defended and explained, still, the duty by which the faithful are obligated also to shun those errors which approach more or less to heresy, and therefore 'to follow the constitutions and decrees by which evil opinions of this sort have been proscribed and forbidden by the Holy See,' is sometimes ignored as if it did not exist.  What is said in encyclical letters of the Roman Pontiffs about the nature and constitution of the Church is habitually and deliberately neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they claim to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks."[11]

Six years ago, then, Pope Pius XII was faced with a situation in which some of the men who were privileged and obligated to teach the truths of sacred theology had perverted their position and their influence and had deliberately flouted the teachings of the Holy See about the nature and the constitution of the Catholic Church.  And, when he declared that it is wrong to debate a point already decided by the Holy Father after that decision has been published in his "Acta," he was taking cognizance of and condemning an existent practice.  There actually were individuals who were contradicting papal teachings.  They were so numerous and influential that they rendered the composition of the Humani generis necessary to counteract their activities.  These individuals were continuing to propose teachings repudiated by the Sovereign Pontiff in previous pronouncements.  The Holy Father, then, was compelled by these circumstances to call for the cessation of debate among theologians on subjects which had already been decided by pontifical decisions published in the "Acta."

The kind of theological teaching and writing against which the encyclical Humani generis was directed was definitely not remarkable for its scientific excellence.  It was, as a matter of fact, exceptionally poor from the scientific point of view.  The men who were responsible for it showed very clearly that they did not understand the basic nature and purpose of sacred theology.  For the true theologian the magisterium of the Church remains, as the Humani generis says, the immediate and universal norm of truth.  And the teaching set forth by Pope Pius IX in his Tuas libenter is as true today as it always has been.

But when we treat of that subjection by which all Catholic students of speculative sciences are obligated in conscience so that they bring new aids to the Church by their writings, the men of this assembly ought to realize that it is not enough for Catholic scholars to receive and venerate the above-mentioned dogmas of the Church, but [they ought also to realize] that they must submit to the doctrinal decisions issued by the Pontifical Congregations and also to those points of doctrine which are held by the common and constant agreement of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions which are so certain that, even though the opinions opposed to them cannot be called heretical, they still deserve some other theological censure.[12]

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.)

Those who want to ignore these plain teachings will have to rekons with Christ the King before die.

The liturgical year is winding down. We have three days, including today, to take stock of how well (or poorly) we have served Christ the King as the consecrated slaves of His Most Blessed Mother’s Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart.

Truth be told, our own sins and failings have contributed more to the worsening of the state of the world and of the Church Militant on earth than we might want to be admit to ourselves, which is why we make use of the coming season of Advent to prepare for the Feast of the Nativity of our Newborn King by means of a moderate amount of fasting and an abstention from the parties and celebrations that take place in the four weeks leading up to Christmas day.

As ever, we must rely upon Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary to resist and reject the false ways of the world and of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. The inter-related worlds of Modernity and Modernism are each preparing the way for the coming of Antichrist, and it will be Our Lady’s Most Holy Rosary, therefore, that will help us to continue in our rejection of all compromise with error and corruption in order to be appear respectable before men.

The Epistle of Saint James reminds us of our duties to defend the Faith as we give no quarter to human respect: 

[1] From whence are wars and contentions among you? Are they not hence, from your concupiscences, which war in your members? [2] You covet, and have not: you kill, and envy, and can not obtain. You contend and war, and you have not, because you ask not. [3] You ask, and receive not; because you ask amiss: that you may consume it on your concupiscences. [4] Adulterers, know you not that the friendship of this world is the enemy of God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God. [5] Or do you think that the scripture saith in vain: To envy doth the spirit covet which dwelleth in you? (James 4:1-4.)

With the holiness of Saint Sylvester the Abbot and the courage of Saint Peter of Alexandria, who opposed the Arians and suffered martyrdom as a result. The reading about his life found in Matins for today’s Divine Office speaks of Saint Peter’s heroic martyrdom:

This Peter succeeded that eminent Saint, Theonas, as Pope of Alexandria, (in the year of our Lord 300,) and the glory of his holiness and teaching hath enlightened not Egypt only, but the whole Church of God. The wondrous patience wherewith he bore the roughness of the times in the persecution under Maximian Galerius caused many greatly to increase in Christian graces. He was the first who cut off Arius, then a Deacon of Alexandria, from the Communion of the faithful, on account of his leaning to the Meletian schism. He was condemned to death by Maximian, and was in prison when there came to him the two Priests Achilles and Alexander to plead for Arius, but Peter told them that Jesus had appeared to him in the night clad in a rent garment, and when he asked what was thereby signified, had said unto him Arius hath torn My vesture, which is the Church. Also, he foretold to them that they should be Popes of Alexandria after him, and strictly commanded them never to receive Arius into Communion, because he knew him to be dead in the sight of God. That this was a true prophecy the event did shortly prove. At length, in the twelfth year of his papacy, upon the 26th day of November, in the year of salvation 311, his head was cut off, and he went hence to receive the crown of his testimony. (Matins, Divine Office, November 26.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio does the bidding of the enemies of Christ the King, before whom he bows incessantly.

We must do the bidding of Our Divine King and His Most Blessed Mother, who will indeed pray us now, and at the hour of our death if we approach as meek as children and with confidence in her ability to sway the very hand of God to convert sinners, starting with ourselves.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our death.  Amen.

Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Sorrows, 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.

Saint Sylvester the Abbot, pray for us.

Saint Peter of Alexandria, pray for us.