Attack Dogmatic Truth, Open The Doors Wide for George Soros

Truth, both supernatural and natural, must be our own guide in this passing, mortal, vale of tears.

We live in a time, though, when most people alive, including many of our own relatives, friends, acquaintances, coworkers and those we may encounter during the course of our daily activities, reject the notion of truth of any kind, believing that everything is “relative” to the ever-changing circumstances in which men find themselves and the “good intentions” of people who face “difficult” decisions.

Indeed, most people alive today repeat, even if inchoately, the rhetorical question of Pontius Pilate that this Roman procurator asked of Truth Himself, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in The Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ:

Pilate therefore went into the hall again, and called Jesus, and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews? Jesus answered: Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or have others told it thee of me? Pilate answered: Am I a Jew? Thy own nation, and the chief priests, have delivered thee up to me: what hast thou done?

Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence. Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice. Pilate saith to him: What is truth? And when he said this, he went out again to the Jews, and saith to them: I find no cause in him. But you have a custom that I should release one unto you at the pasch: will you, therefore, that I release unto you the king of the Jews? Then cried they all again, saying: Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber. (John 18: 37-40.)

Archbishop Alban Goodier explained the meaning of this encounter between the Roman politician and the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity as follows in The Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ:

So, by another question, Pilate thought to recover the position he had lost. Whether Jesus were king or not, He had enemies clamouring for His blood; whether He were a king or not, He must have done something to provoke this hatred and bitterness. But Jesus, the Hunter of souls, was so easily to be turned aside. Pilate himself had come to Him and asked Him for ‘the things that were to his peace’, and he should not because of a single refusal be rejected. With the love of the Good Shepherd risking all for one lost sheep, while out in the street the wolves were howling, He would press His appeal more home. Pilate had shown that whatever befell he would be a Roman; Jesus would assure him that from His kingship and His kingdom the Roman would not fear. These would bring no danger to the Empire, no danger to himself; the follower of Christ the King would be no less loyal to Tiberius the Emperor. Were it not so, were Christ a rival of Tiberius, the Emperor. Were it not so, were Christ a rival of Tiberius, the battle between them would not last long: ‘Jesus answered” My kingdom is not of this world. If my in kingdom were of this world My servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews, but now my kingdom is not from hence.”

Pilate, in his fancied strength which in reality was weakness, had already offered one face proffered by the Man whom he feared to reverence; he now rejected another. Gradually, the darkness was closing around him; for he chose to ‘love the darkness rather than the light.’ From a doubter who nevertheless suspected where the truth lay, he was fast degenerating into a mere skeptic. He harked back to his former question. Jesus had drawn him away into depths he was unwilling to fathom; Pilate would save himself from being led further:  ‘Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then?’

This time would Jesus would reply clearly and without cavil. He had declared it before when the question had been put merely as an accusation; He would declare it again, that Pilate might understand it in the added light he had received. For still would Jesus fight for the soul of Pilate. He had already appealed to him that he should listen to the voice that spoke within him, that he should be true to himself. He had assured him, further, that to follow the light and accept Him would imply no disloyalty to an earthy chief; he could still be a Roman and yet believe. He would now urge His cause from another angle, the angle from which the heart of a Roman might be most surely reached. For the Roman honoured the nobility of character; the grandeur of Rome herself cast a shadow on all her citizens; and nobility of character is nowhere more manifest than when it pursues a noble cause. Jesus would make this last appeal, to the finest things in Pilate; though twice He would not be the first to yield. We can see the beaten figure rise to full stature, expressing kingship in every gesture despite the bonds and the foulness, as ‘Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am king. For this was I born and for this I came into the world: That I should give testimony to the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice.’

For a third time Jesus had appealed to the natural honesty of Pilate. From the very nature of His words we may judge what was the character of the Roman Governor; for here as everywhere Jesus adapted Himself to the one to whom He spoke. Jesus who had always shown Himself equal to all, to the simplest and the most subtle in the land, was no less the equal of the Roman. He saw in Pilate one who before all else would be what the world would call, then as now, a gentleman; with a high sense of honour, as men would measure honour, with a desire to be what men would call just and true, strong in the virtues that would make him stand well with his fellow-men, but on that very account stricken with a fatal weakness. Because other men were his standard, because other men were his judges, nothing must be suffered to make him fall in men’s eyes; on the one hand no dishonourable act as they would understand it, on the other not even Truth itself, if it spoke in language different from that which was spoken in his circle. When that came to him, when the voice of Truth threatened to put him out of harmony with the world that was his ideal, then the voice of Truth must be silenced. And that was never difficult. If Truth cannot be contradicted, she can usually be questioned; if she canot be denied, she can at least be made matter of controversy; above all if a question is asked and we do not wait for an answer.

Such was Pilate, eager to stand well before men, and for that ideal willing to sacrifice the one thing that was for his peace. He listened to this King of truth; he felt again the impulse for higher things within him. But as twice before he had failed, so now he escaped by the subterfuge common on to his kind. Truth? ‘Pilate saith to him: What is truth?’ and without waiting for a reply he rose from his seat of justice, passed the King by, and went forth again to the din of the crowd outside. How many are those who, through the ages, have imitated Pilate! It is an easy way to kill conscience, an answer escape form the call to all that is noblest, but in the very act we prove that we are cowards. Thus, in another way, is conscience apt to make cowards of us all. (Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J., The Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Authorized American Edition published by the Daughters of Saint Paul, pp. 248-251.)

Incredible assaults against Truth Himself—Truth Incarnate, Truth Crucified and Resurrected, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ are taking place in the world at this time. Most Catholics are utterly silent, if not oblivious, to these attacks, diverted as they are by the bread and circuses of our times. Some Catholics who see the evils of the times refrain from opposing them vocally for fear of being rejected by friends and relatives and/or suffering some kind of injury to their financial well-being and career success or their ability to “influence” others about this or that point. There is always some kind of excuse. There is always some kind of willful blindness that is somewhat akin to holding one’s eyes shut in order to see what is front of them. It is the same now as it was below Pontius Pilate’s portico on Good Friday as the mob rejected Truth Himself, Who had come to make Himself known as the “Way, the Truth, and the Life.”  

As Archbishop Goodier had noted in earlier passage of The Passion and Death of Our Lord Jesus Christ, truth aggravates those who are opposed have set their minds upon rejecting it. Those who remind others of truths that they do not want to accept must be dealt with summarily. This is what the civil authorities are doing at this time. This is what many journalists, especially some of the younger ones, have been doing all of their careers. This is what is being done in public and conciliar schools, in colleges, universities and professional schools. This is what is being done by the medical industry as most of its practitioners suborn the chemical and surgical execution of innocent preborn children and the use of “palliatives” to expedite the deaths of terminally or chronically ill patients while also supporting the vivisection of living human beings in the name of “giving the gift of life” after they have been declared as “brain dead.” And, of course, this is what has been done by the authorities of the counterfeit church of conciliarism for fifty-eight years, eight months now.

All Truth Will Fall Once the Immutability of Dogmatic Truth Is Undermined 

To be sure, truth has been under attack in a systematic way since the time of the Renaissance, certain elements of which gave rebirth to the old moral relativism of the Sophists of Athens in the Fifth Century Before Christ. This was noted in the 1930s by philosopher Simone Weil:

"It is as though we had returned to the age of Protagoras and the Sophists, the age when the art of persuasion--whose modern equivalent is advertising slogans, publicity, propaganda meetings, the press, the cinema, and radio--took the place of thought and controlled the fate of cities and accomplished coups d'etat. So the ninth book of Plato's Republic looks like a description of contemporary events." (Simone Weil, quoted in Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order.)

This even truer today than it was eighty years ago.

Alas, the work of the neo-Sophists of the Renaissance could not have been as triumphant as it has been had it not been for Martin Luther’s revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through the Catholic Church that was aided and abetted by Talmudists to make possible the reign of “man” that is nothing other than the reign of the adversary himself.  

Pope Leo XIII explained that it was indeed the theological relativism of the Protestant Revolution in the Sixteenth Century that made possible the triumph of philosophical, political and moral relativism in the centuries thereafter:

But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

The conciliar attack on the nature of dogmatic truth, which leads to the undermining of a belief in all natural truths, is one of the central themes that I have addressed in the past eleven years, two months since coming to accept the true state of the Church Militant in this time of apostasy and betrayal concerns. This attack on the nature of dogmatic truth is nothing other than an attack upon then nature of God Himself, Who is without any shadow of change or alteration.

Yet it is that the conciliar revolutionares, imbued with the Modernist heresy of dogmatic evolutionism, have used various euphemisms to mask the fact that they are indeed dogmatic evolutionists. “Saint John Paul II,” for example, masqueraded the Modernist principle of dogmatic evolutionism by referring to as “living tradition,” meaning that everything in Sacred Deposit of Faith was open to reinterpretation and “adaptation” as the circumstances require:

5. Today the Church rejoices at the renewed confirmation of the prophet Joel's words which we have just heard: "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh" (Acts 2:17). You, present here, are the tangible proof of this "outpouring" of the Spirit. Each movement is different from the others, but they are all united in the same communion and for the same mission. Some charisms given by the Spirit burst in like an impetuous wind, which seizes people and carries them to new ways of missionary commitment to the radical service of the Gospel, by ceaselessly proclaiming the truths of faith, accepting the living stream of tradition as a gift and instilling in each person an ardent desire for holiness.

Today, I would like to cry out to all of you gathered here in St Peter's Square and to all Christians: Open yourselves docilely to the gifts of the Spirit! Accept gratefully and obediently the charisms which the Spirit never ceases to bestow on us! Do not forget that every charism is given for the common good, that is, for the benefit of the whole Church.  (Meeting with ecclesial movements and new communities.)

is not therefore a matter of inventing a "new programme". The programme already exists: it is the plan found in the Gospel and in the living Tradition, it is the same as ever. Ultimately, it has its centre in Christ himself, who is to be known, loved and imitated, so that in him we may live the life of the Trinity, and with him transform history until its fulfilment in the heavenly Jerusalem. This is a programme which does not change with shifts of times and cultures, even though it takes account of time and culture for the sake of true dialogue and effective communication. This programme for all times is our programme for the Third Millennium.

But it must be translated into pastoral initiatives adapted to the circumstances of each community. The Jubilee has given us the extraordinary opportunity to travel together for a number of years on a journey common to the whole Church, a catechetical journey on the theme of the Trinity, accompanied by precise pastoral undertakings designed to ensure that the Jubilee would be a fruitful event. I am grateful for the sincere and widespread acceptance of what I proposed in my Apostolic Letter Tertio Millennio Adveniente. But now it is no longer an immediate goal that we face, but the larger and more demanding challenge of normal pastoral activity. With its universal and indispensable provisions, the programme of the Gospel must continue to take root, as it has always done, in the life of the Church everywhere. It is in the local churches that the specific features of a detailed pastoral plan can be identified — goals and methods, formation and enrichment of the people involved, the search for the necessary resources — which will enable the proclamation of Christ to reach people, mould communities, and have a deep and incisive influence in bringing Gospel values to bear in society and culture.

I therefore earnestly exhort the Pastors of the particular Churches, with the help of all sectors of God's People, confidently to plan the stages of the journey ahead, harmonizing the choices of each diocesan community with those of neighbouring Churches and of the universal Church. (Apostolic LetteNovo Millennio Ineunte.)

It should be noted furthermore that Karol Joseph Wojtyla/John Paul II note specifically in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had placed the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (more commonly known as the Society of Saint Pius X) into schism with what is purported to be the Catholic Church by consecrating four priests as bishops without a “papal” mandate and for refusing to accept what the “canonized pope” said was “the living character of tradition”:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

5. Faced with the situation that has arisen I deem it my duty to inform all the Catholic faithful of some aspects which this sad event has highlighted.

a) The outcome of the movement promoted by Mons. Lefebvre can and must be, for all the Catholic faithful, a motive for sincere reflection concerning their own fidelity to the Church's Tradition, authentically interpreted by the ecclesiastical Magisterium, ordinary and extraordinary, especially in the Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II. From this reflection all should draw a renewed and efficacious conviction of the necessity of strengthening still more their fidelity by rejecting erroneous interpretations and arbitrary and unauthorized applications in matters of doctrine, liturgy and discipline.

To the bishops especially it pertains, by reason of their pastoral mission, to exercise the important duty of a clear-sighted vigilance full of charity and firmness, so that this fidelity may be everywhere safeguarded.(7)

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended "harmony" which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

b) Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council's continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church. (Karol Wojytla/John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, July 2, 1988.)

Wojtyla/John Paul II was absolutely correct to state that the teaching of the universal magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be contrary to Tradition. Some in the Society of Saint Pius X have posited a nonexistent conflict between the “authoritative magisterium” and the “governing magisterium.” There is no such distinction as no such division in the magisterium exists. It is a fabrication. The universal ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot teach error, something that was reviewed most recently in Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton Calls Out Tricks of Shoddy Minimism.

Unfortunately, for “Saint John Paul II,” however, his very argument in favor of the continuity between the “Second” Vatican Council and the Tradition of the Catholic Church is based upon an admission that that false council’s texts might be too obscure to understand properly “especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.” Holy Mother Church teaches clearly. There is nothing “new” in her teaching. The “Polish Pope” was trying to have it both ways by referring to the “living character of Tradition” to call the Society of Saint Pius X to obedience while at the same time unwittingly admitting that that there are “new” points of doctrine that need to be “understood.” This is not from the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, Who is immutable.

What was a "living tradition" for Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II mutated into Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who had championed dogmatic evolutionism by means of his Hegelian reasoning over the course of thirty-four years prior to doing so as in capacity as the fifth in the current line of antipopes on December 22, 2005, when he gave it the name of "the heremeutic of continuity":

1971: "In theses 10-12, the difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure point of the dispute. 

The identity of the Christian substance as such, the Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and the content of its meaning changes." (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)

1990: "The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time

(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation," published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia," in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

Secondly, it was necessary to give a new definition to the relationship between the Church and the modern State that would make room impartially for citizens of various religions and ideologies, merely assuming responsibility for an orderly and tolerant coexistence among them and for the freedom to practise their own religion.

Thirdly, linked more generally to this was the problem of religious tolerance - a question that required a new definition of the relationship between the Christian faith and the world religions. In particular, before the recent crimes of the Nazi regime and, in general, with a retrospective look at a long and difficult history, it was necessary to evaluate and define in a new way the relationship between the Church and the faith of Israel.

These are all subjects of great importance - they were the great themes of the second part of the Council - on which it is impossible to reflect more broadly in this context. It is clear that in all these sectors, which all together form a single problem, some kind of discontinuity might emerge. Indeed, a discontinuity had been revealed but in which, after the various distinctions between concrete historical situations and their requirements had been made, the continuity of principles proved not to have been abandoned. It is easy to miss this fact at a first glance.

It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itselfIt was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.  

On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change.

Basic decisions, therefore, continue to be well-grounded, whereas the way they are applied to new contexts can change. Thus, for example, if religious freedom were to be considered an expression of the human inability to discover the truth and thus become a canonization of relativism, then this social and historical necessity is raised inappropriately to the metaphysical level and thus stripped of its true meaning. Consequently, it cannot be accepted by those who believe that the human person is capable of knowing the truth about God and, on the basis of the inner dignity of the truth, is bound to this knowledge.

It is quite different, on the other hand, to perceive religious freedom as a need that derives from human coexistence, or indeed, as an intrinsic consequence of the truth that cannot be externally imposed but that the person must adopt only through the process of conviction.

The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its own an essential principle of the modern State with the Decree on Religious Freedom,has recovered the deepest patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself (cf. Mt 22: 21), as well as with the Church of the martyrs of all time. The ancient Church naturally prayed for the emperors and political leaders out of duty (cf. I Tm 2: 2); but while she prayed for the emperors, she refused to worship them and thereby clearly rejected the religion of the State.

The martyrs of the early Church died for their faith in that God who was revealed in Jesus Christ, and for this very reason they also died for freedom of conscience and the freedom to profess one's own faith - a profession that no State can impose but which, instead, can only be claimed with God's grace in freedom of conscience. A missionary Church known for proclaiming her message to all peoples must necessarily work for the freedom of the faith. She desires to transmit the gift of the truth that exists for one and all. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)

What was that Pope Pius XII wrote in Humani Generis about how the "new theologians" deny that the true meaning of doctrines may be known and understood with metaphysical certitude?

Let me remind you:

34. It is not surprising that these new opinions endanger the two philosophical sciences which by their very nature are closely connected with the doctrine of faith, that is, theodicy and ethics; they hold that the function of these two sciences is not to prove with certitude anything about God or any other transcendental being, but rather to show that the truths which faith teaches about a personal God and about His precepts, are perfectly consistent with the necessities of life and are therefore to be accepted by all, in order to avoid despair and to attain eternal salvation. All these opinions and affirmations are openly contrary to the documents of Our Predecessors Leo XIII and Pius X, and cannot be reconciled with the decrees of the Vatican Council. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all, even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the Teaching Authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions. (Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis, August 12, 1950.)

For the likes of men such as the conciliar revolutionaries to be correct, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity not only hid the true meaning of doctrines for over nineteen hundred years, He permitted true popes and the Fathers of Holy Mother Church's twenty true general councils to condemn propositions that have, we are supposed to believe, only recently been "discovered" as having been true. Blasphemous and heretical,

To believe, for example, that one can “write to Rome” to correct this or that error and expect results is to fail to realize that those who deny the very nature of dogmatic truth have no interest in defending truth of any kind, whether supernatural or natural. This is an incontestable fact. Those who fail to recognize this fact will live their lives in frustration and be steeped in the belief that the Catholic Church, she who is the spotless, mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is both erroneous and offensive to God.

Agents of the Adversary in “Pontifical” Academies

Having demonstrated themselves to be enemies of the very nature of dogmatic truth, the conciliar revolutionaries in recent years have become much bolder in their attacks upon moral truth, which began with the “Second” Vatican Council’s inversion of the ends proper to the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that is now enshrined in the its code of canon law (see Appendix A below for a comparison of the 1983 code with that of 1917 Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church; Appendix B contains Pope Pius XII’s condemnation of those who would invert the ends of Holy Matrimony). These hideous servants of the devil have accepted the shibboleths of junk science and sociology to such an extent that they many of them can no longer admit that there is such a thing as the Natural Law, something that is only logical as it is easy to deny the existence of knowability of the natural moral law when one denies the knowability and the immutability of Divine Revelation.

To wit, consider the fact a no-goodnik associated with none other than the atheistic George Soros, Professor Joachim von Braun, has been appointed by “Pope Francis” to be the new president of the “Pontifical” Academy for the Sciences:

(Vatican Radio)  Pope Francis appointed Professor Joachim von Braun as the new President of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Wednesday.

Professor von Braun is Ordinary Professor of Economics and Technological Change, as well as Director of the Center for Development Research at the University of Bonn in Germany.

He told Vatican Radio's Mario Galgano his goal as head of the Academy will be to seek solutions for inequality and the destruction of the environment.

Professor von Braun said the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has a unique role to play in the world of science because it is a "global academy" and not linked to any specific nation.

He said the 80 members composing the Academy are from different countries and religious backgrounds and many hold Nobel Prizes for their contribution to science.

This, he said, means the Academy "has become a very influential body in the world of science".

Professor von Braun said the Academy focuses on "the big issues with which humanity is confronted". 

"I find it particularly important that we find solutions to the two major problems of inequality - lack of justice, hunger, and poverty - on the one hand and the destruction of the environment and nature."

He said that, because these two themes are interrelated, "academicians from diverse science backgrounds can view these problems in new ways and offer solutions to overcome them." (Jorge Appoints Fellow Pantheist to the "Pontifical" Academy of Science.)

Yes, are the really “big” issues with which “humanity” is concerned, not universal apostasy, moral relativism, the daily slaughter of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means and certainly not perverse acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments

Joachim von Braun, you see, is a believer in “sustainable development,” which is handy euphemism for statist control of private property and for the depopulation of the earth of those inconvenient creatures known as human beings. Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been relentless in his support for the goals of “sustainable development,” which is one of the tools that George Soros has used to infiltrate the social agencies of the counterfeit church of conciliarism (the so-called Catholic Campaign for Human Development and Catholic Charities, which exist to implement Alinsky-style “community organizing” in the name of helping the poor), and he has told us of this support very clearly:

Pope Francis criticized the destruction of forests in order to plant soy in an interview with an Argentine radio station on Saturday, reinforcing his message that the environment should take precedence over financial gain.

"It hurts me in my soul when I see deforestation to plant soy," said the pope in an interview with two priests at Radio Parroquial Virgen del Carmen in Campo Gallo, a tiny parish radio station in the poor northern province of Santiago del Estero in his native Argentina.

"It will take thousands of years to recover. Look after the woods and water."

Argentina is the world's largest supplier of soymeal and soyoil, and much of its vast pampas that were once given over to cattle ranches now grow the plant, used for animal feed and in foodstuffs, with China the leading importer.

In neighboring Brazil, also a major soy supplier, environmentalists claim that its cultivation has led to the destruction of rainforest.

The head of the 1.2 billion member Catholic Church has caused controversy before by weighing into debates on the environment and condemning speculation in food commodities.

He visited South America last month and gave passionate speeches in which he censured capitalism, championed the rights of the poor, andwarned of irreversible damage to the planet.

In an encyclical dedicated to the environment in June, Francis, the first pope from a developing nation, advocated a change of lifestyle in rich countries and demanded swift action to save the planet from environmental ruin. (Apostate laments destruction of forests to plant soy.)

Bergoglio continued this theme in an address he delivered on Wednesday, September 16, 2015, the Feast of Saints Cornelius and Cyprian and the Commemoration of Ember Wednesday in September and the Commemoration of Saints Euphemia, Lucy, and Gemianus, to European Union “environment ministers”:

Thank you very much for having called this meeting which gives me the opportunity to share with you, if only briefly, some thoughts also in view of important international events in the coming months: the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals at the end of this month and the Cop 21 Summit in Paris.

I would like to focus on three principles. First of all, the principle of solidarity, a word that is sometimes forgotten and others abused in a sterile manner. We know that those who are most vulnerable to environmental degradation are the poor; they are the ones who suffer its most serious consequences. Thus, solidarity means the implementation of effective tools that are able to fight environmental degradation and poverty at the same time. There are many positive experiences in this regard. For example the development and transfer of appropriate technologies that are able to make the best possible use of the human, natural and socio-economic resources that are most readily available at a local level, in order to ensure their long-term sustainability.

Second, the principle of justice. In the "Laudato si’" encyclical I spoke of "ecological debt", especially between North and South connected to trade imbalances with consequences in the context of ecology, as well as the disproportionate use of natural resources historically exploited  by some countries. We must honor this debt. These nations are called upon to contribute to solving this debt by setting a good example: limiting in a big way  consumption of non-renewable energy; providing resources to countries in need for the promotion of policies and programmes for sustainable development; adopting appropriate systems for the management of forests, transportation, waste; seriously addressing the grave problem of food waste; favouring a circular model of economy; encouraging new attitudes and lifestyles.

Thirdly, the principle of participation, which requires the involvement of all stakeholders, even of those who often remain at the margins of decision-making. We live, in fact, in a very interesting historical time: on the one hand science and technology give us unprecedented power; on the other, a proper use of this power requires that we adopt a more integral and inclusive vision. This demands that we open the door to dialogue, a dialogue that is inspired by a vision which is rooted in that of integral ecology, the very subject of the “Laudato si’" encyclical.  This is obviously a big cultural, spiritual and educational challenge. Solidarity, justice and participation for the respect of our dignity and for respect of creation.

Dear Ministers, the Cop21 summit is fast approaching and there is still a long way to go to achieve a result that is capable of bringing together the many positive stimuli that have been offered as a contribution to this important process. I strongly encourage you to intensify your work, along with that of your colleagues, so that in Paris the desired result is achieved. On my part and on the part of Holy See there will be no lack of support for an adequate response to the cry of the Earth and to the cry of the poor. Thank you.  (Antipope urges EU Environment Ministers to work hard in view of SDGs.)

Jorge Mario Bergolio never urges anyone to work hard for the salvation of souls. Moreover, he has quite deliberately chosen people who are enemies of both the eternal and temporal good of men to key positions in the “pontifical” academies as they reflect his own Judeo-Masonic naturalism, which emphasizes a pantheistic worship of the environment and a Marxist-view of the world’s economy. Joachim von Braun is just such a person, which is why Bergoglio chose him to head the “Pontifical” Academy for the Sciences.

Indeed, one of the organizations von Braun once headed, the International Science Foundation, received its seed money directly from none other than George Soros:

MacArthur provides some $1.5 million annually in science-related grants for researchers working in the former Soviet Union, including support for their travel to scientific meetings abroad. MacArthur also makes grants to formerly Soviet scientific institutions for environmental projects. I cannot mention the Soviet Union without noting the International Science Foundation (ISF), endowed by financier George Soros. The ISF's principal aim is to preserve scientific excellence in the former Soviet states and in the Baltic countries. It has 10 offices throughout these regions. Soros pledged to contribute $100 million over a 2-year period to this effort. Although there was some initial criticism of the foundation's methods for making grants to individual scientists, the fact is that George Soros began the flow of grant money when other foundations and Western governments were still considering what to do. ISF has recently announced it will assist other organizations, at no charge, in making contributions to science and technology in the former Soviet Union and the Baltic states. Future ISF activities apparently depend considerably on whether Western governments and the governments of the former Soviet states are willing to provide matching funds. (NAP. Chapter 8.)

Joachim von Braun has longstanding ties to George Soros, something that was made clear eight years ago in a Newsmax article on how Soros was buying up agricultural land in order to have a major say in the world’s food supply:

Falling commodity prices aren't bringing prices for farmland down with them. Even as the price of grain goes down, the cost of the land it's grown on keeps going up, leading George Soros and other guru investors to bet big on agricultural land.

The fundamentals are easy to understand: Over the next 40 years the population of the world is projected to grow from 6 billion to 9 billion, hugely increasing the strain on arable farmland worldwide.

The spiking grain prices that caused food shortages and rioting in dozens of countries in spring of 2008 fell some 50 percent by December. Yet even after the correction, grain prices remain above their 20-year average, and food stocks around the world are still near 40-year lows.

Land is scarce and will become scarcer as the world has to double food output to satisfy increased demand by 2050," Joachim von Braun, director general at the International Food Policy Research Institute, told Fortune Magazine.

"With limited land and water resources, this will automatically lead to increased valuations of productive land. And it goes hand in hand with water. Water scarcity will probably increase even more than land."

"I'm convinced that farmland is going to be one of the best investments of our time," says commodities guru Jim Rogers.

Eventually, Rogers notes, food prices will rise enough that the market probably will be flooded with supply through development of new land or technology or both, and the bull market will end.

“But that's a long ways away yet," Rogers says. (Soros Buys Up Farmland)

Men such as Joachim von Braun do not believe that God’s Providence can provide enough food for feed the people on the face of the earth. Those who have endorsed the United Nations "Sustainable Development Goals 2030” completely support access to what is called “reproductive health.” Here is the proof:

Preventing unintended pregnancies and reducing adolescent childbearing through universal access to sexual and reproductive health care is crucial to the health and well-being of women, children and adolescents. In 2017, 78 per cent of women of reproductive age (15 to 49 years of age) worldwide who were married or in union had their need for family planning satisfied with modern methods, up from 75 per cent in 2000. Progress has been substantial in the least developed countries, with a rise of 18 percentage points from 2000 to 2017. (Sustainable Development Goals.)

Although Joachim von Braun has been careful not to write anything about abortion, it is enough that he is a tool of George Soros to work with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliar revolutionaries to use a concern for the “planet” as the cover for propagating moral casuistry about the binding precepts of the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments.

Bergoglio, of course, has expressed his own support for the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals 2030” on many occasions, including when addressing that Judeo-Masonic body on Friday, September 25, 2015:

The dramatic reality this whole situation of exclusion and inequality, with its evident effects, has led me, in union with the entire Christian people and many others, to take stock of my grave responsibility in this regard and to speak out, together with all those who are seeking urgently-needed and effective solutions. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the World Summit, which opens today, is an important sign of hope. I am similarly confident that the Paris Conference on Climatic Change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.

Solemn commitments, however, are not enough, although they are certainly a necessary step toward solutions. The classic definition of justice which I mentioned earlier contains as one of its essential elements a constant and perpetual will: Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius sum cuique tribuendi. Our world demands of all government leaders a will which is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment and thus putting an end as quickly as possible to the phenomenon of social and economic exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human trafficking, the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the drug and weapons trade, terrorism and international organized crime. Such is the magnitude of these situations and their toll in innocent lives, that we must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism which would assuage our consciences. We need to ensure that our institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these scourges.

The number and complexity of the problems require that we possess technical instruments of verification. But this involves two risks. We can rest content with the bureaucratic exercise of drawing up long lists of good proposals – goals, objectives and statistics – or we can think that a single theoretical and aprioristic solution will provide an answer to all the challenges. It must never be forgotten that political and economic activity is only effective when it is understood as a prudential activity, guided by a perennial concept of justice and constantly conscious of the fact that, above and beyond our plans and programmes, we are dealing with real men and women who live, struggle and suffer, and are often forced to live in great poverty, deprived of all rights.

To enable these real men and women to escape from extreme poverty, we must allow them to be dignified agents of their own destiny. Integral human development and the full exercise of human dignity cannot be imposed. They must be built up and allowed to unfold for each individual, for every family, in communion with others, and in a right relationship with all those areas in which human social life develops – friends, communities, towns and cities, schools, businesses and unions, provinces, nations, etc. This presupposes and requires the right to education – also for girls (excluded in certain places) – which is ensured first and foremost by respecting and reinforcing the primary right of the family to educate its children, as well as the right of churches and social groups to support and assist families in the education of their children. Education conceived in this way is the basis for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for reclaiming the environment. (Bergoglio Addresses Fellow Masons at the United Lodge on the East Side of Manhattan, Septembr 25, 2015.) 

Bergoglio, it should be noted did state in his address to the United Nations that the protection of the environment must respect a “moral written law written into human nature itself, one which includes the natural difference between man and woman (cf. Laudato Si’, 155), and absolute respect for life in all its stages and dimensions” in the same speech twenty-one months ago, but his words and actions have made it clear he is willing to “bend” that moral law according to a moral casuistry that is premised on how people behave, not how they ought to behave. (See Appendix B for a reprise of Pope Pius XII’s warning about this moral relativism that he gave to the Thirtieth General Congregation of the Society of Jesus on September 14, 1957.)

Moreove, the president of the “Pontifical” Academy for the Social Sciences, Professor Margaret Archer, vehemently defended that academy’s “reorientation,” shall we say, under “Pope” Francis when it came under attack by pro-life leaders in Italy two years ago:

June 3, 2015 ( -- The president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (PASS), appointed by Pope Francis in 2014, has slammed an American pro-life organization after it raised concerns about two leading abortion and population control proponents being given a prominent platform at the Vatican’s recent conference on climate change.

“I am appointed by the Pope and responsible directly to him. I’m afraid that leaves you and your cohort out in the cold,” Professor Margaret Archer wrotein a response to an article by Stefano Gennarini, director of the Centre for Legal Studies at the Centre for Family and Human Rights Institute (C-Fam), in which he raised criticism about the Vatican’s invitation to the abortion proponents.

Gennarini, in a May 29 article on First Things, wrote about how he asked the chancellor of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (PAS), Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, to explain why the Vatican gave a platform to the world’s foremost proponents of abortion and population control Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs.

But Sorondo’s attempt to assure Gennarini that Ki-moon’s and Sachs’ position on abortion and population control were not part of the conference raised even more concerns.

“Yes. We had these discussions, and as you can see, the draft SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) don’t even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights,” Sorondo said in a May 18 communication to Gennarini.

Pro-life leaders from around the world have shown time-and-again that phrases such as ‘family planning,’ ‘sexual and reproductive health,’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are euphemisms for contraception, sterilization, and abortion. 

Gennarini said Sorondo’s response was not only “surprising” but amounted to him “openly defy[ing] the position the Holy See has held on these terms for over thirty years because of their association with abortion.”

“The views expressed by Sánchez Sorondo are especially perplexing in light of the cooperation of PAS with Sachs and Ban Ki-moon specifically on ‘climate change’ and ‘sustainable development.’ When the logic of these theories is carried out to their full extent they inevitably collide with the Church’s teaching on abortion and population control,” Gennarini wrote in his First Things piece.

Archer, who is also a sociologist at the University of Warwick, called Gennarini’s concerns “distorted” in her response, which was published on the Vatican-run website 

“The nature of your questions raises some very serious questions about your understanding of Catholic Social Doctrine,” she said.

Archer, who admitted to inviting the abortion proponents to the conference, accused Gennarini of having as his “sole concern […] human dignity confined to the period between conception and live-birth.”

“Why are you so totally uninterested in vicious practices, such as human trafficking that are an offence to the human dignity and right to life that you purport to defend?” she asked.

Archer went on to accuse Gennarini of “hate,” before boasting of her “duty and privilege of advising the Church on matters of Social Doctrine and its application.”

At one point she asks Gennarini if he has a “higher moral standard than the Pope?”

“Or is your own minimalistic version of the Creed, consisting of the single item: ‘We believe in the ethical depravity of abortion’ considered to be an improvement?” (Vatican official to pro- life leader: ‘ You and Cohort [are] Out in the Cold'.)

So much for Jorge’s “compassion.” One must remember that revolutionaries preach “love and justice” as they ooze oodles and oodles about “diversity” while using the most blunt, cold-blooded hard-hearted means imaginable to force everyone who disagrees with them into submission or to send them to the outer darkness of rejection, ridicule and condemnation. To use the language of the adversary in the name of "saving the planet" while seeking to mock one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance is itself the work of the adversary, which is what the One World Ecumenical Church of Conciliarism has always been about since its very birth with the "election" of "Saint John XXIII" on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude.

Thus it is that Joachim von Braun does not have to have to a “paper trail” on contraception and abortion. He is but a paid stooge of George Soros, who is but one of the chief instruments the adversary is using at this time to prepare the way for the coming of Antichrist, and this truly egregious funder of organized riots and supporter of every manner of statism and moral evil under the sun. And it is no accident that two confederates of Soros who believe in “palliative care” have been appointed to the “Pontifical” Academy for Life:

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, President of the Academy, commented on the appointments, saying that "with these appointments Pope Francis has formed a College of academics of the highest professional standing that will offer to the Catholic Church and to the whole world a deep and wise vision in the service of human life, especially life that is weakest and most defenseless. The Academicians named by the Holy Father come from 27 countries around the world and are outstanding in diverse fields of human knowledge. Among them are a number of non-Catholics, either belonging to other religions and non-believers, a sign that the protection and promotion of human life knows no divisions and can be assured only through common endeavor.” With respect to the appointment of Honorary Members, Archbishop Paglia noted that, "They represent the history of the Academy and a passion for human life for which we must all be grateful; it is thanks to the earlier work of so many illustrious men and women that today, with the appointment of new Academicians, our institution continues its service to life with renewed energy."

The Governing Council of the Academy, which will be appointed by the Holy See pursuant to the Statutes and the Regulations of the Academy, will appoint Corresponding Members and Young Researchers (a new membership category created in the Statutes promulgated by Pope Francis in 2016), and thus fill out the membership of the Academy.

The Ordinary Assembly of the Academy, scheduled for October 5-7 in the Vatican, will be opened by Pope Francis, and will constitute the official launch of the renewed Academy.

The following is the list of Ordinary and Honorary Members appointed by Pope Francis.

The Holy Father has appointed as Ordinary Members for a five-year term [a partial listing follows]:

● Professor Nigel BIGGAR, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, and Director of the McDonald Centre for Theology, Ethics, and Public Life, at the University of Oxford (Great Britain);

● Kathleen M. FOLEY, M.D., Neurologist, Director of the Department of Neurology at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the New York Hospital (United States);

●Professor Daniel SULMASY, Professor of Bioethics at Georgetown University, Washington, DC (United States); (Bergoglio Nominates One Pro-Abort and Two Soros Cronies to Serve in the "Pontifical" Academy for Life.)

It is instructive to look at these three new “ordinary members” as one, Nigel Biggar supports the direct intentional taking of innocent human life in the womb, and the other two, support the dispatching of human beings when “medical professionals” deem that it is necessary to put them on a “path” to “ease” them on a path to death according to a “plan” designed by the “team” assigned to their cases, which, of course “consults” (pressures) family members to agree to do what is “best.”

First, consider the case of Nigel Biggar:

ROME, Italy, June 16, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life defended Pope Francis' appointment of a new Academy member who is pro-abortion and has expressed qualified support for euthanasia. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia has, moreover, accused Catholic media of “sensationalism” for highlighting the pro-abortion pick.

When a Twitter user pointed out to Paglia that English Catholic media outlets were focusing on the pro-abortion appointee, he suggested Catholic media was falling victim to “sensationalism.” 

“[W]e pray that Catholics and Catholic media not fall victim to sensationalism,” he tweeted. “Love for life must mean love for each other.”

University of Oxford Professor Nigel Biggar, who was appointed to the Academy for a five-year term, stated in a 2011 dialogue with pro-infanticide ethicist Peter Singer that a preborn baby is “not … the same kind of thing as an adult or a mature human being” and therefore does not deserve “quite the same treatment.”

I would be inclined to draw the line for abortion at 18 weeks after conception, which is roughly about the earliest time when there is some evidence of brain activity, and therefore of consciousness,” he said as reported by Standpoint magazine.

Then, one year later, when he was the keynote speaker for an event at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, he said "it is not true that all abortion is equivalent to murder."

When LifeSiteNews asked Biggar if his appointment to the Academy indicated that the Church under Francis is shifting gears on abortion, he said that as someone who is not Roman Catholic, he did not think it appropriate to comment on the Church's position.

"I am very sorry to disappoint you, but the issue of abortion is one on which I have views, but it is not one that I have thought about for a very long time," he said. 

"I believe that the reason for my recent appointment lies in my sustained work on the issues of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. On those issues, my conclusions are consonant with the Church's," he added.

But Biggar’s position on euthanasia is not, in fact, consonant with Catholic teaching. 

In a review of Biggar's 2004 book titled Aiming to Kill: The Ethics of Suicide and Euthanasia, reviewer David Jones wrote for the periodical New Blackfriars that Biggar would allow some people to be euthanized who were so damaged that they could be excluded from being called “human.”  

“If someone’s brain is irreparably damaged so that he or she cannot think, then according to Biggar we should conclude that he or she is no longer a human ‘person’ and no longer part of the human community. Biggar even describes such individuals as ‘irretrievably inaccessible to human care’ so that it means nothing to protect them from being killed nor therefore (and this is my deduction) to visit, clothe or feed them,” wrote Jones. 

Christopher Ferrara, author and head of the American Catholic Lawyer’s Association, said an appointment of a pro-abortion member to the Vatican’s highest pro-life institution means that Pope Francis, “as incredible as it may seem, is programmatically committed to accommodating … the toleration of abortion in the life of the Church.”

“[He has] demolished John Paul II’s Pontifical Academy for Life by sacking every one of its members and having its new president, the ‘pro-gay’ Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (of obscene mural fame), draw up new statutes for the Academy,” he wrote, adding: “Bear in mind that Pope [Francis] has abolished the pro-life oath formerly taken by members of the Academy.”

Former Academy member Judie Brown, president of American Life League, said the Academy under Pope Francis’ leadership has lost its way. 

“Pope Francis has created a revised version of the sainted Pope John Paul II’s vision that is not only scary, but also in many ways ugly to behold,” she wrote.  

While there are many positive appointments to the Academy, such as Cardinal Willem Eijk, Georgetown ethicist John Keown, and Knights of Columbus Supreme Knight Carl Anderson, there are many former members, high-caliber pro-lifers, who were not invited back. Many of these were specifically chosen by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for their pro-life-and-family credentials as well as their fidelity to Catholic teaching. 

Some of those not invited back include Australian philosopher John Finnis, German philosopher Robert Spaemann, Professor Luke Gormally of England, and Austrian Professor Josef Maria Seifert. Many of those not invited back had previously been openly critical of the direction the Academy was being pushed in recent years. (Pro-Abort to Head "Pontifical" Academy for Life.)

What the well-intentioned, incredulous author of the report does not understand is that everything about the counterfeit church of conciliarism is ugly, and that includes Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II’s aforementioned warfare against the nature of dogmatic truth and his incessant acts of obeisance to false religions, false places of worship and the idols and symbals of false religion. Those who do not see this are forever expressing “outrage” at what are simply the logical consequences of endorsing dogmatic evolutionism and of making a mockery of the First, Second, and Third Commandments.

It is really as simple as this: attacks the immutable nature of God and His Divine Revelation lead inevitably to attacks upon each of the Ten Commandments, including the Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Commandments.

“Saint John Paul II,” of course, always used the conciliarspeak of “human dignity” and “human rights” to condemn abortion, almost never referring to the binding precepts of the Fifth Commandment in his addresses and allocutions, although he did refer to “Thou shalt not” in Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995, without specifically stating that this injunction was found in the Fifth Commandment. One of the reasons the fourth in the current line of antipopes did not do so might have from an “ecumenical” desire to get Protestants, who enumerate the Commandments differently, to read his encyclical, which was revolutionary not only in the language of conciliarspeak utilized but also for its attack on the liceity of the death penalty in most cases. To attack the liceity of capital punishment when it is administered by a duly constituted authority after the administration of due process of the law is to attack the Natural Law itself.

All that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is doing is to take full advantage of “Saint John Paul II’s” living tradition by fully embracing “brain death” and “palliative care” as positions of the “Pontifical” Academy for Life. After all, why should any conciliar “pope,” including Bergoglio, having any more respect for the teaching of Karol Josef Wojtyla/John Paul II than the latter had, say for Pope Saint Pius X’s Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, or The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910, or for Pope Pius XI’s defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, and his condemnation of false ecumenism in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928?

That is, having relentlessly attacked the very nature of dogmatic truth by their own idiosyncratic versions of dogmatic evolutionism to reject the immutable teaching of the Catholic Church, the conciliar “popes” have made it possible for their successors to jettison anything about their own “teaching” that does not sit their fancies. There is nothing stable, nothing immutable about anything in the counterfeit church of conciliarism as error of its very pernicious nature will mutate in ways that those who propagate it can neither foresee or predict.

Modernism is unstable in se, something that Pope Saint Pius X noted very clearly in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1910:

It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.' Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith, barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

The appointments of the likes of Joachim von Braun as the president of the “Pontifical” Academy for the Sciences and Nigel Biggar as the president of the “Pontifical” Academy for Life are simply the result of a belief in the mutability of doctrine, which is nothing other than a belief in the mutability of God Himself. When one believes such a thing, you see, that which is opposed to true science and/or is opposed to the protection of innocent human life can be called “Catholic” merely because it is stated as being so even though it violates the principle of non-contradiction.

The “Pontifical” Academy for Life is thus on a pathway, if you will, of giving official “papal” approbation” to the medical industry’s manufactured, profit-making myth of “brain death” and “palliative care,” which involves taking measures to directly and intentionally kill living human beings under the aegis of “compassion” and “death with dignity” and “quality of life,” as simply part of a “holistic” approach to life issues that correspond to the late Joseph “Cardinal” Bernardin’s “consistent ethic of life.”

Bernardin’s “seamless garment” was meant to provide cover to pro-abortion politicians in the organized crime family of the false opposite of the naturalist “left” who nonetheless were said to be “pro-life” because they support “social justice” for the poor by means of statist income redistribution programs and special rights for illegal immigrants and who opposed even the concept of the just war. Cover is now being given to those in the death care industry to vivisect some human beings to kill off others whose “quality of life” has deteriorated and/or are chronically or terminally ill, something that was documented in Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry five weeks ago now.

Chronicling the Adversary's Global Takeover of the Healthcare Industry relied heavily upon the research of Dr. Elizabeth Wickham that had been placed into summary form by a person who had listened to one of her talks in the 1990s and it was in a recent e-mail, which I received from a third party, that Dr. Wickham discussed the direct ties that the two of the new appointees to the “Pontifical” Academy of Life, Kathleen Foley and Daniel Sulmasy, have with George Soros and his full support for “palliative care." Inded, Dr. Foley and Brother Sulmasy are "Soros Scholars":

It is good to be back with you. Some of you may already know that the completely remade membership at the Pontifical Academy for Life has raised controversy because it includes Prof Nigel Biggar, but did you know that the new list of PAV members includes two individuals who have been leaders of the stealth euthanasia movement for decades? They are part of the original academic cohort of Soros Scholars who promote passive euthanasia by withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining treatment or by overdose of pain medication hiding behind the principle of double effect. They have been using the new specialty of palliative medicine to execute their goals.

In the 90s George Soros' Open Society Institute added impetus to the healthcare infrastructure changes begun by the Robert Wood Johnson foundation in the 80s. Soros put Kathleen Foley, MD in charge of his Soros Scholars and named Franciscan Brother Daniel Sulmasy to be one of his funded-leaders for change in academic institutions. They are both on the list of new PAV members!                                           .

How is this possible?  One would think that all who promote passive euthanasia should be disqualified from membership on the Pontifical Academy for Life.  The Catholic Church teaches unconditional protection for all human life -- from its beginning and to its end.   What do the Foley/Sulmasy appointments signal?  That the Church has not been doing its homework? That the Church is a willing accomplice of the advocates for backdoor euthanasia?  Whatever the reason, the appointment of these two individuals will most surely take the influence of the death controllers to a whole new level.

An interjection at this point to note that Dr. Wickham does not understand that none of this can come from the Catholic Church, she who is the spotlessly immaculate mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom. Appendix C contains incontrovertible proof that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to be the author of error of any kind or for its true popes to err in matters of the Holy Faith. On the latter point, however, I would simply refer the unconvinced to Saint Robert Bellarmine's Defense of Popes Said to Have Erred in Faith.

Dr. Wickham's e-mail also provided further documentation of the origins of the atheist Soros's commitment to "palliative care" and some of the work that one of his scholars, Kathleen Foley, has done to advance it:

In the rest of this email I offer thoughts on why Dr. Foley should not be acceptable to Archbishop Paglia and his committee.

George Soros describes why he became a funder and the importance of the Faculty Scholars Program in his efforts to change our culture.

"These personal experiences with the deaths of my parents are some of the reasons I established the Project on Death in America to promote a better understanding of the experiences of dying and bereavement and by doing so help transform the culture surrounding death. Through its Faculty Scholars Program and Grants Programthe project supports initiatives in research, scholarship, the humanities, and the arts, as well as innovations in the provision of care, public education, professional education, and public policy."  (Open Foundation Foundation.)

Dr. Foley's relationship with Soros is very visible.  Listen to what Myra Christopher says about her as she introduces Foley's presentation The Politics of Palliative Care in August, 2010  at the Center for Practical Bioethics in Kansas City (Kathleen Foley on Palliative Care on Bioethics TV.)

Dr. Foley speaks to a very important audience.  In the 90s the Center for Practical Bioethics (then the Midwest Bioethics Center) received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to lead a national program called Community-State Partnerships (C-SPs)  building on the pre-existing state bioethics groups. They worked to change state guidelines on withholding/withdrawing life-sustaining procedures and pain management to make them more compatible with passive euthanasia. 

Dr. Foley says she opposes physician assisted suicide, but her statement to the British House of Lords in January, 2005 about their proposed physician assisted suicide (PAS) Bill reveals that she does not believe PAS is inherently wrong. She testified that more time is needed to condition people's thinking about hastening death and that the right time for legalization of physician assisted suicide may be 10, 20, or even 30 years away.

She said:

“ [physician-assisted suicide] would make the physician the agent of death. It medicalises killing really at a time when our resources for care are limited, when physicians in their daily practice are under enormous pressures in your country and in my own, and perhaps it will take 10, 20 or 30 years for all of these issues to be resolved and for care to be provided to all, and perhaps at that point in time this legalisation might be reconsidered, but at this point in time it is I do not think economically feasible or socially or politically appropriate to do so…” (Publications). 

Dr. Foley is a board member and former president of the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Medicine (IAHPM), 2005-2007 and is the medical director of the International Palliative Care Initiative of Soros' Open Society Public Health Program.  Her membership on the Pontifical Academy for Life will be the green light for spreading the international culture of death. (End of e-mail authored by Dr. Elizabeth Wickham and forwarded to me by a third party.)

Actually, this is not as incomprehensible as some, including Dr. Wickham, might be prone to believe. This all makes perfect sense when one considers that the president of the "Pontifical" Academy for Life," "Archbishop" Vincenzo Paglia, has told us very openly that a "new church" arose from the "Second" Vatican Council, a comment that he made to support the "beatification" of the late Oscar Romero, whom Paglia contended two years ago was murdered by those who "wanted to strike the Church that flowed from the 'Second' Vatican Council":

“He was killed at the altar,” Archbishop Paglia said, instead of when he was an easier target at home or on the street. “Through him, they wanted to strike the Church that flowed from the Second Vatican Council." (Romero To Be "Beatified" Soon.)

Whether or not he realized it, “Archbishop” Vincenzo Paglia made quite a statement by stating that his church is one that flowed from the “Second” Vatican Council and not the Wounded Side of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as Blood and Water flowed forth out from the cardiac sac surrounding His Most Sacred Heart. As a conciliar presbyter noted to me in an e-mail in 2004, the “Second” Vatican Council represented what he termed was an “ecclesiogensis,” that is, the springing forth of a new church that had little to do with the one that preceded it.

This is indeed quite correct. What has flowed forth from the “Second” Vatican Council and the “magisterium” of the conciliar “popes” has been nothing other than a polluted stream of apostasy that originated from the poisoned wells of Modernity and Modernism. Countless hundreds of millions of people have been poisoned by it enough to have had their minds poisoned against any mention of the “old faith,” especially as expressed and protected in the Immemorial Mass of Tradition.

Paglia has also been one of Bergoglio's chief accomplices in the promotion of the treatment of "irregular situations" (namely, the "situations" of those living in what are, objectively speaking, states of Mortal Sin), including those steeped in unnatural vice. This is what he said in 2013 about finding a way for the false conciliar sect to be more "open" to "helping" those who practice sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance:

VATICAN CITY (RNS) A high-ranking Vatican official on Monday (Feb. 4) voiced support for giving unmarried couples some kind of legal protection even as he reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, also said the church should do more to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in countries where homosexuality is illegal.

In his first Vatican press conference since his appointment as the Catholic Church’s “minister” for family, Paglia conceded that there are several kinds of “cohabitation forms that do not constitute a family,” and that their number is growing.

Paglia suggested that nations could find “private law solutions” to help individuals who live in non-matrimonial relations, “to prevent injustice and make their life easier.”

Nevertheless, Paglia was adamant in reaffirming society’s duty to preserve the unique value of marriage.

“The church must defend the truth, and the truth is that a marriage is only between a man and a woman,” he said. Other kinds of “affections” cannot be the foundation for a “public structure” such as marriage.

“We cannot surrender to a sick egalitarianism that abolishes every difference,” he warned, and run the risk of society becoming a new “Babel.”

France is in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage despite fierce opposition from the Catholic Church; a similar fight is brewing in Britain with the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches sharply opposed to the move.

In a September 2012 document on gay marriage, French bishops recognized the value of France’s current civil unions law, which grants heterosexual and homosexual couples some benefits, such as tax breaks.

In November, voters approved gay marriage in Maine, Maryland and Washington state, and the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments this spring over federal and state bans on gay marriage.

Responding to journalists’ questions, Paglia also strongly condemned discrimination against gay people, who he said “have the same dignity as all of God’s children.”

“In the world there are 20 or 25 countries where homosexuality is a crime,” he said. “I would like the church to fight against all this.” (Vatican signals options for protecting gay couples.)

Well, Paglia's future "pope," Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has done precisely what he, Paglia, desired by universalizing the de facto "toleration" of sodomy in many precincts of the conciliar structures (parishes, dioceses, schools, catechetical programs, universities, colleges, seminaries, professional schools, religious communities of men and women). Indeed, the Argentine Apostate used Amoris Laetitia, March 19, 2016, to do precisely what Vincenzo Paglia desired. See J

In other words, Pope Saint Pius V was wrong when he wrote the following:

That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature . . . be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31). So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law. 

Therefore, wishing to pursue with the greatest rigor that which we have decreed since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss. (Pope Saint Pius V, Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568)

Pope Pius XI must have wrong when he condemned legal recognition of what he termed a "new species of union" between men and women engaged in natural vice that is, of course, as applicable to those engaged in unnatural vice:

50. How grievously all these err and how shamelessly they leave the ways of honesty is already evident from what we have set forth here regarding the origin and nature of wedlock, its purposes and the good inherent in it. The evil of this teaching is plainly seen from the consequences which its advocates deduce from it, namely, that the laws, institutions and customs by which wedlock is governed, since they take their origin solely from the will of man, are subject entirely to him, hence can and must be founded, changed and abrogated according to human caprice and the shifting circumstances of human affairs; that the generative power which is grounded in nature itself is more sacred and has wider range than matrimony -- hence it may be exercised both outside as well as within the confines of wedlock, and though the purpose of matrimony be set aside, as though to suggest that the license of a base fornicating woman should enjoy the same rights as the chaste motherhood of a lawfully wedded wife.

51. Armed with these principles, some men go so far as to concoct new species of unions, suited, as they say, to the present temper of men and the times, which various new forms of matrimony they presume to label "temporary," "experimental," and "companionate." These offer all the indulgence of matrimony and its rights without, however, the indissoluble bond, and without offspring, unless later the parties alter their cohabitation into a matrimony in the full sense of the law.

52. Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern "culture" in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

Perhaps more to the point, God Himself must have been wrong to have destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gommorha:

And when the men rose up from thence, they turned their eyes towards Sodom: and Abraham walked with them, bringing them on the way. And the Lord said: Can I hide from Abraham what I am about to do: Seeing he shall become a great and mighty nation, and in him all the nations of the earth shall be blessed? For I know that he will command his children, and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord, and do judgment and justice: that for Abraham's sake the Lord may bring to effect all the things he hath spoken unto him. And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous.

I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know. And they turned themselves from thence, and went their way to Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord. And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked? If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein? Far be it from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment.

And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake. And Abraham answered, and said: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes. What if there be five less than fifty just persons? wilt thou for five and forty destroy the whole city? And he said: I will not destroy it, if I find five and forty. And again he said to him: But if forty be found there, what wilt thou do? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of forty. Lord, saith he, be not angry, I beseech thee, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found there? He answered: I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty. I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten. And the Lord departed, after he had left speaking to Abraham: and Abraham returned to his place. (Genesis 16: 16-33)

And he said to him: Behold also in this, I have heard thy prayers, not to destroy the city for which thou hast spoken. Make haste and be saved there, because I cannot do any thing till thou go in thither. Therefore the name of that city was called Segor. The sun was risen upon the earth, and Lot entered into Segor. And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven. And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.

And his wife looking behind her, was turned into a statue of salt. And Abraham got up early in the morning and in the place where he had stood before with the Lord, He looked towards Sodom and Gomorrha, and the whole land of that country: and he saw the ashes rise up from the earth as the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 19: 21-28.)

Vincenzo Paglia is not an anomaly of conciliarism. He is a product and spokesman for it. He believes what his "pope" believes, which is why he has such influnece in the conciliar Vatican.

Enough of this. 

We must adhere to the truth, and truth is that the counterfeit church of conciliarism is not and can never be the Catholic Church.

Many of you have been told by your relatives and friends that you are "outside of the Church" for refusing to accept the legitimacy of the conciliar officials. Look at the evidence as to who is outside of the Catholic Church, and it is not those who reject the legitimacy of the spiritual robber barons of conciliarism.

Yet it is that many in the "recognize but resist" movement continue to attack sedevacantism as a canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church, no less that it applies in these incredible times of apostasy and betrayal, even though a conciliar "cardinal," Mario Francesco Pompedda, who headed the Occupy Vatican Movement's Apostolic Signatura for seven years, said eight years ago that sedevacantism is indeed part of the Church's canonical doctrine:

It is true that the canonical doctrine states that the see would be vacant in the case of heresy. ... But in regard to all else, I think what is applicable is what judgment regulates human acts. And the act of will, namely a resignation or capacity to govern or not govern, is a human act. (Cardinal Says Pope Could Govern Even If Unable to Speak, Zenit, February 8, 2005; see also see also Gregorius's The Chair is Still Empty.)

Unlike what many traditionally-minded Catholics have heard from the theologians of the Society of Saint Pius X, however, Pompedda was intellectually honest enough to admit that sedevacantism is indeed a part of the canonical doctrine of the Catholic Church. Only a handful of Catholics, priests and laity alike, accepted this doctrine and recognized that it applied in our circumstances in the immediate aftermath of the "Second" Vatican Council. I was not one of them.

To claim that we cannot know what is "heretical," as some priests/presbyters and members of the laity attached to the stuctures of the counterfeit church of conciliarism contend with great vehemence, is to endorse a form of the Kantian belief that it is impossible to know what is true. This is false, something that Mr. Michael Creighton pointed out nine years ago when replying to an anti-sedevacantist article on the Tradition in Action website:

Errors Found Among the Laity of the Society of Saint Pius X

1)  We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]

2)  The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]

3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]

4)  The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].

5)  The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].

6)  Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)

7)  Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.

When I [Michael Creighton] point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel. Please see Appendix D below for Mr. Creighton's full compendium of the errors of the Society of Saint Pius X.

We must abide in truth, and truth is not unknowable.

Truth is.

Truth exists, and truth exists independently of human acceptance of it and in spite of the bad and perhaps even scandalaous witness that those embrace and profess it may demonstrate at times.

We separate ourselves from the conciliarists because they offend God by defecting from the Faith, starting with their rejection of the nature of dogmatic truth and their making complex what it is: the knowledge of Him that He has deposited in Holy Mother Church.

Here is a stark truth: Attack the nature of dogmatic truth, open the doors wide to the likes of George Soros as those who are responsible for the slaughter of souls of Catholics and non-Catholics alike, will wind up allying themselves with those who human beings in the name of "compassion."

Although there are those who tell us that we should "stay and fight" in once Catholic parishes that now in the hands of apostates (or their enablers who refuse to speak out against them), we must recognize that offenses against the doctrines of the Faith and offenses against the moral order are never the foundations upon which God will choose to restore His Holy Church. Truth in the moral order is as black and white as truth in the doctrinal realm. Conciliarism consists of its very nature in a rejection of various parts of the Catholic Faith, and it is this rejection that leads in turn to the same sort of despair and hopelessness in the souls of so many men now as existed at the time before the First Coming of Our Lord at His Incarnation and, nine months later, His Nativity.

We do not need to conduct a "search" for the "true meaning" of the doctrines contained the Sacred Deposit of Faith. We accept what has been handed down to us as docile children of Holy Mother Church.

We must hate heresy. Hate it.


Because God hates heresy and everything to do with it, a point that will be made yet again in part two of this series tomorrow.

The only way to deal with the Antichrists in the world, men and women who have a set of "values," if you will, to which they are absolutely committed without any compromise or exception whatsoever, and their enablers in the counterfeit church of conciliarism is to adhere and to profess openly the truths of the Social Reign of Christ the King without fear of the consequences. We are not likely to see "results" in our lifetimes. That does not matter. The only thing that matters is that we persevere in a State of Sanctifying Grace as a member of the Catholic Church until the point of our dying breath while simply planting the seeds for the conversion of conversion of men and their nations to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order.

Conscious of our need to make reparation for our sins as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, may the Rosaries we pray each day to console the good God in this time of apostasy and betrayal help to plant a few seeds for the Triumph of the same Immaculate Heart of Mary when a true pope is restored to the Throne of Saint Peter and fulfills her Fatima Peace Plan consecrates Russia, thus ceasing the spread of the errors we see so manifest before us today, with all of the world's bishops to this very heart out of which the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus was formed and with which it beats as one.

May each Rosary we pray help to effect this miracle that the devil fears and for which we must be uncompromising in working to achieve as soldiers in the Army of Christ so that we will not be crushed by the weight of the errors of Russia, which are the errors of Modernity and Modernism, now and, quite possibly, for all eternity.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Our Lady of Fatima, 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 James the Greater, 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 Irenaeus, pray for us.

Appendix A

Compare and Contrast:

The Catholic Church's Code of Canon Law on the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony Compared With The Conciliar Church's

856. The primary object of marriage is the procreation and education of offspring; the secondary purpose is mutual assistance and the remedy of concupiscence. (This can be found on page 205 of the following link, which is the 1917 Code of Canon Law in English:  1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law.)

Here is what the conciliar revolutionaries teach:

Can.  1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized. (Canon 1055.1.)

Appendix B

Pope Pius XII's Condemnation of the Personalist View of Marriage That Was Later Endorsed by Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger, and Bergoglio

Certain publications concerning the purposes of matrimony, and their interrelationship and order, have come forth within these last years which either assert that the primary purpose of matrimony is not the generation of offspring, or that the secondary purposes are not subordinate to the primary purpose, but are independent of it.

In these works, different primary purposes of marriage are designated by other writers, as for example: the complement and personal perfection of the spouses through a complete mutual participation in life and action; mutual love and union of spouses to be nurtured and perfected the psychic and bodily surrender of one’s own person; and many other such things.

In the same writings a sense is sometimes attributed to words in the current documents of the Church (as for example, primary, secondary purpose), which does not agree with these words according to the common usage by theologians.

This revolutionary way of thinking and speaking aims to foster errors and uncertainties, to avoid which the Eminent and Very Fathers of this supreme Sacred Congregation, charged with the guarding of faith and morals, in a plenary session on Wednesday, the 29th of March, 1944, when the question was proposed to them: “Whether the opinion of certain writers can be admitted, who either deny that the primary purpose of matrimony is the generation of children and raising offspring, or teach that the secondary purposes are not essentially subordinate to the primary purpose, but are equally first and independent,” have decreed that the answer must be: In the negative. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, No. 2295, pp. 624-625.)

Pope Pius XII amplified this condemnation when he delivered his Address to Italian Midwives on the Nature of their Profession, October 29, 1951:

"Personal values" and the need to respect such are a theme which, over the last twenty years or so, has been considered more and more by writers. In many of their works, even the specifically sexual act has its place assigned, that of serving the "person" of the married couple. The proper and most profound sense of the exercise of conjugal rights would consist in this, that the union of bodies is the expression and the realization of personal and affective union.

Articles, chapters, entire books, conferences, especially dealing with the "technique" of love, are composed to spread these ideas, to illustrate them with advice to the newly married as a guide in matrimony, in order that they may not neglect, through stupidity or a false sense of shame or unfounded scruples, that which God, Who also created natural inclinations, offers them. If from their complete reciprocal gift of husband and wife there results a new life, it is a result which remains outside, or, at the most, on the border of "personal values"; a result which is not denied, but neither is it desired as the center of marital relations.

According to these theories, your dedication for the welfare of the still hidden life in the womb of the mother, and your assisting its happy birth, would only have but a minor and secondary importance.

Now, if this relative evaluation were merely to place the emphasis on the personal values of husband and wife rather than on that of the offspring, it would be possible, strictly speaking, to put such a problem aside. But, however, it is a matter of a grave inversion of the order of values and of the ends imposed by the Creator Himself. We find Ourselves faced with the propagation of a number of ideas and sentiments directly opposed to the clarity, profundity, and seriousness of Christian thought. Here, once again, the need for your apostolate. It may happen that you receive the confidences of the mother and wife and are questioned on the more secret desires and intimacies of married life. How, then, will you be able, aware of your mission, to give weight to truth and right order in the appreciation and action of the married couple, if you yourselves are not furnished with the strength of character needed to uphold what you know to be true and just?

The primary end of marriage

Now, the truth is that matrimony, as an institution of nature, in virtue of the Creator's will, has not as a primary and intimate end the personal perfection of the married couple but the procreation and upbringing of a new life. The other ends, inasmuch as they are intended by nature, are not equally primary, much less superior to the primary end, but are essentially subordinated to it. This is true of every marriage, even if no offspring result, just as of every eye it can be said that it is destined and formed to see, even if, in abnormal cases arising from special internal or external conditions, it will never be possible to achieve visual perception.

It was precisely to end the uncertainties and deviations which threatened to diffuse errors regarding the scale of values of the purposes of matrimony and of their reciprocal relations, that a few years ago (March 10, 1944), We Ourselves drew up a declaration on the order of those ends, pointing out what the very internal structure of the natural disposition reveals. We showed what has been handed down by Christian tradition, what the Supreme Pontiffs have repeatedly taught, and what was then in due measure promulgated by the Code of Canon Law. Not long afterwards, to correct opposing opinions, the Holy See, by a public decree, proclaimed that it could not admit the opinion of some recent authors who denied that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and education of the offspring, or teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary end, but are on an equal footing and independent of it.

Would this lead, perhaps, to Our denying or diminishing what is good and just in personal values resulting from matrimony and its realization? Certainly not, because the Creator has designed that for the procreation of a new life human beings made of flesh and blood, gifted with soul and heart, shall be called upon as men and not as animals deprived of reason to be the authors of their posterity. It is for this end that the Lord desires the union of husband and wife. Indeed, the Holy Scripture says of God that He created man to His image and He created him male and female, and willed—as is repeatedly affirmed in Holy Writ—that "a man shall leave mother and father, and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh".

All this is therefore true and desired by God. But, on the other hand, it must not be divorced completely from the primary function of matrimony—the procreation of offspring. Not only the common work of external life, but even all personal enrichment—spiritual and intellectual—all that in married love as such is most spiritual and profound, has been placed by the will of the Creator and of nature at the service of posterity. The perfect married life, of its very nature, also signifies the total devotion of parents to the well-being of their children, and married love in its power and tenderness is itself a condition of the sincerest care of the offspring and the guarantee of its realization.

To reduce the common life of husband and wife and the conjugal act to a mere organic function for the transmission of seed would be but to convert the domestic hearth, the family sanctuary, into a biological laboratory. Therefore, in Our allocution of September 29, 1949, to the International Congress of Catholic Doctors, We expressly excluded artificial insemination in marriage. The conjugal act, in its natural structure, is a personal action, a simultaneous and immediate cooperation of husband and wife, which by the very nature of the agents and the propriety of the act, is the expression of the reciprocal gift, which, according to Holy Writ, effects the union "in one flesh".

That is much more than the union of two genes, which can be effected even by artificial means, that is, without the natural action of husband and wife. The conjugal act, ordained and desired by nature, is a personal cooperation, to which husband and wife, when contracting marriage, exchange the right.

Therefore, when this act in its natural form is from the beginning perpetually impossible, the object of the matrimonial contract is essentially vitiated. This is what we said on that occasion: "Let it not be forgotten: only the procreation of a new life according to the will and the design of the Creator carries with it in a stupendous degree of perfection the intended ends. It is at the same time in conformity with the spiritual and bodily nature and the dignity of the married couple, in conformity with the happy and normal development of the child".

Advise the fiancée or the young married woman who comes to seek your advice about the values of matrimonial life that these personal values, both in the sphere of the body and the senses and in the sphere of the spirit, are truly genuine, but that the Creator has placed them not in the first, but in the second degree of the scale of values. (Pope Pius XII, Address to Midwives on the Nature of Their Profession, October 29, 1951.)

Appendix C

The Immunity of the Catholic Church from Error, Novelty, and Heresy

These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be anathematized. (Constantinople III).

These and many other serious things, which at present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthfulIn these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep. Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort united against the common enemies.

Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho: "nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself to be a part of the Church . . . .

But for the other painful causes We are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they are driven by a passion for promotingnovelties and sedition everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)

7. It is with no less deceit, venerable brothers, that other enemies of divine revelation, with reckless and sacrilegious effrontery, want to import the doctrine of human progress into the Catholic religion. They extol it with the highest praise, as if religion itself were not of God but the work of men, or a philosophical discovery which can be perfected by human means. The charge which Tertullian justly made against the philosophers of his own time "who brought forward a Stoic and a Platonic and a Dialectical Christianity" can very aptly apply to those men who rave so pitiably. Our holy religion was not invented by human reason, but was most mercifully revealed by God; therefore, one can quite easily understand that religion itself acquires all its power from the authority of God who made the revelation, and that it can never be arrived at or perfected by human reason. In order not to be deceived and go astray in a matter of such great importance, human reason should indeed carefully investigate the fact of divine revelation. Having done this, one would be definitely convinced that God has spoken and therefore would show Him rational obedience, as the Apostle very wisely teaches. For who can possibly not know that all faith should be given to the words of God and that it is in the fullest agreement with reason itself to accept and strongly support doctrines which it has determined to have been revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived? (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)

In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate. It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the commands which  it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ(Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men, and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.) 

There are some, indeed, who recognize and affirm that Protestantism, as they call it, has rejected, with a great lack of consideration, certain articles of faith and some external ceremonies, which are, in fact, pleasing and useful, and which the Roman Church still retains. They soon, however, go on to say that that Church also has erred, and corrupted the original religion by adding and proposing for belief certain doctrines which are not only alien to the Gospel, but even repugnant to it. Among the chief of these they number that which concerns the primacy of jurisdiction, which was granted to Peter and to his successors in the See of Rome. Among them there indeed are some, though few, who grant to the Roman Pontiff a primacy of honor or even a certain jurisdiction or power, but this, however, they consider not to arise from the divine law but from the consent of the faithful. Others again, even go so far as to wish the Pontiff Himself to preside over their motley, so to say, assemblies. But, all the same, although many non-Catholics may be found who loudly preach fraternal communion in Christ Jesus, yet you will find none at all to whom it ever occurs to submit to and obey the Vicar of Jesus Christ either in His capacity as a teacher or as a governor. Meanwhile they affirm that they would willingly treat with the Church of Rome, but on equal terms, that is as equals with an equal: but even if they could so act. it does not seem open to doubt that any pact into which they might enter would not compel them to turn from those opinions which are still the reason why they err and stray from the one fold of Christ(Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

There can be no doubt in anything pertaining to the Catholic Faith as Pope Pius XI has assured us that the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church 'was constituted on earth in order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men."

Indeed, Pope Pius XI also reminded us that the Catholic Church enjoys a perpetual immunity from error and heresy:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

Errors and the Catholic Church?


Appendix D

Mr. Michael Creighton's Compendium of Errors of the Society of Saint Pius X

To briefly enumerate some of the problems in the SSPX, they are:

1  A rejection of the of the ordinary magisterium (Vatican I; Session III - Dz1792) which must be divinely revealed. For instance Paul VI claimed that the new mass and Vatican II were his “Supreme Ordinary Magisterium” and John Paul II promulgated his catechism which contains heresies and errors in Fide Depositum by his “apostolic authority” as “the sure norm of faith and doctrine” and bound everyone by saying who believes what was contained therein is in “ecclesial communion”, that is in the Church.

2  A rejection of the divinely revealed teaching expressed in Vatican I , Session IV, that the faith of Peter [the Pope] cannot fail. Three ancient councils are quoted to support this claim. (2nd Lyons, 4th Constantinople & Florence). Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio teaches the same in the negative sense of this definition.

3  A distortion of canon law opposed to virtually all the canonists of the Church prior to Vatican II which tell us a heretical pope ipso facto loses his office by the operation of the law itself and without any declaration. This is expressed in Canon 188.4 which deals with the divine law and footnotes Pope Paul IV’s bull, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio. The SSPX pretends that sections of the code on penalties somehow apply to the pope which flatly contradicted by the law itself. The SSPX pretends that jurisdiction remains in force when the code clearly says jurisdiction is lost and only ‘acts’ of jurisdiction are declared valid until the person is found out (canons 2264-2265). This is simply to protect the faithful from invalid sacraments, not to help heretics retain office and destroy the Church. Charisms of the office, unlike indelible sacraments, require real jurisdiction. The SSPX pretends that penalties of the censure of ipso facto excommunication cannot apply to cardinals since it reserved to Holy See (canon 2227). This is another fabrication since the law does not refer to automatic (latae sententiae) penalties but only to penalties in which a competent judge is needed to inflict or declare penalties on offenders. Therefore it only refers to condemnatory and declaratory sentences but not automatic sentences. To say that ipso facto does not mean what it says is also condemned by Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei.

4  The SSPX holds a form of the Gallican heresy that falsely proposes a council can depose a true pope. This was already tried by the Council of Basle and just as history condemned those schismatics, so it will condemn your Lordship. This belief also denies canon 1556 “The First See is Judged by no one.” This of course means in a juridical sense of judgment, not remaining blind to apostasy, heresy and crime which automatically takes effect.

5  The SSPX denies the visible Church must manifest the Catholic faith. They claim that somehow these men who teach heresy can’t know truth. This is notion has been condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2. It is also condemned by canon 16 of the 1917 code of canon law. Clearly LaSalette has been fulfilled. Rome is the seat of anti-Christ & the Church is eclipsed. Clearly, our Lords words to Sr. Lucy at Rianjo in 1931 have come to pass. His “Ministers [Popes] have followed the kings of France into misfortune”.

6  The SSPX reject every doctor of the Church and every Church father who are unanimous in stating a heretic ipso facto is outside the Church and therefore cannot possess jurisdiction & pretends that is only their opinion when St. Robert states “... it is proven, with arguments from authority and from reason, that the manifest heretic is ipso facto deposed.” The authority he refers to is the magisterium of the Church, not his own opinion.

7  Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis is misinterpreted by the SSPX to validly elect a heretic to office against the divine law. A public heretic cannot be a cardinal because he automatically loses his office. This decree only refers to cardinals and hence it does not apply to ex-cardinals who automatically lost their offices because they had publicly defected from the Catholic faith. The cardinals mentioned in this decree who have been excommunicated are still Catholic and still cardinals; hence their excommunication does not cause them to become non-Catholics and lose their offices, as does excommunication for heresy and public defection from the Catholic faith. This is what the Church used to call a minor excommunication. All post 1945 canonists concur that Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis does not remove ipso facto excommunication: Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Serapius Iragui (1959), A. Vermeersch - I. Creusen (1949), Udalricus Beste (1946) teach that a pope or cardinal or bishop who becomes a public heretic automatically loses his office and a public heretic cannot legally or validly obtain an office. Even supposing this papal statement could apply to non-Catholics (heretics), Pope Pius XII goes on to say “at other times they [the censures] are to remain in vigor.” Does this mean the Pope intends that a notorious heretic will take office and then immediately lose his office? It is an absurd conclusion, hence we must respect the interpretation of the Church in her canonists.

Errors/Heresies typical of an SSPX chapel attendees & priests:

1)  We are free to reject rites promulgated by the Church. [Condemned by Trent Session VII, Canon XIII/Vatican I, Session II]

2)  The Pope can’t be trusted to make judgments on faith and morals. We have to sift what is Catholic. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session IV, Chapter III.]

3) We are free to reject or accept ordinary magisterial teachings from a pope since they can be in error. This rejection may include either the conciliar ‘popes’ when teach heresy or the pre-conciliar popes in order to justify the validity of the conciliar popes jurisdiction, sacraments, etc [Condemned by Vatican I (Dz1792)/Satis Cognitum #15 of Leo XIII]

4)  The Kantian doctrine of unknowability of reality. We can’t know what is heresy, therefore we can’t judge. [Condemned by Vatican I, Session III, Chapter 2: On Revelation, Jn7:24].

5)  The faith of the Pope can fail. Frequently this is expressed as “we work for” or “we pray for the Popes conversion to the Catholic faith”. [condemned by Vatican I and at least 3 earlier councils mentioned above].

6)  Universal salvation, ecumenism, religious liberty, validity of the Old Covenant, etc. can be interpreted in a Catholic sense. [Condemned by every saint, every doctor of the Church and every Pope who comments on such issues; for instance Pope Eugene IV (Cantate Domino – Council of Florence)

7)  Contraries can be true. [Hegelian doctrine against Thomistic Philosophy]. If these positions appear to be contradictory, they are.

When I [Michael Creighton] point out these positions are against the Faith, frequently the Hegelian doctrine is employed by those in attendance at the SSPX chapel.