Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson to Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!

Part Two

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although attention will be turned in due course to the  remaining parts of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's interview with Andrea Tornielli of Vatican Insider that have been selected for a bit of brief commentary, several developments occurred yesterday, Monday, December 16, 2013, the Feast of Saint Eusebius and the Commemoration of Gaudete Sunday, while I was catching up on duties-of-state in a state of sheer catatonia from the late hours of the previous two nights.

Then again, the devil never rests, which  may be one of the reasons that the false "pontiff," who is doing the adversary's bidding whether or not he knows it, seems to be thrive of his frenetic activity and the ceaseless flapping of his gums. This little figure of Antichrist, who turned seventy-seven years of age yesterday, Tuesday, December 17, 2013, an Advent ferial day, wreaks a path of utter destruction and chaos everywhere he turns.

As has been noted frequently on this site in the past nine months now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is nothing other than dime store, garden variety Jesuit revolutionary who came to age in the 1970s during his mid-thirties. He belongs to the same sort of revolutionary Jesuits who persecuted those within the Society of Jesus who were considered "conservative." These revolutionaries who received their ideological formation and marching orders from the Society's Father General at the time, Father Pedro Arrupe, S.J., are now men of Bergoglio's age, and they are rejoicing now after having endured what they believed to have been thirty-five years of "retrogression" under the supposedly "conservative" Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratinger/Benedict XVI.

All one really needs to now about Jorge Mario Bergoglio's revolutionary agenda that returns conciliarism in an undisguised manner to those not-so-thrilling days of yesteryear is to read this description of Pedro Arrupe's commitment to "structural change" as found on the website of the Arrupe Scholars Program at John Carroll University in University Heights, Ohio:

 

The compassion evoked by this experience developed over time into a conviction that ministry to the oppressed and suffering peoples must not remain on the personal level alone. It was necessary also to promote structural changes in the world to alleviate the sources of oppression and violence. Thus, Arrupe was a pioneer in urging the combination of pastoral concern, biblical reflection, and social analysis.

Specifically, Arrupe lead the Jesuits through their landmark Thirty Second Congregation, a meeting of representatives from all over the Jesuit world, held from December 1974 to March 1975. He was instrumental in promoting that famous “fourth decree,” which defined the modern mission of the Jesuits in terms of “faith that does justice.” In the words of this decree, “Our faith in Jesus Christ and our mission to proclaim the Gospel demand of us a commitment to promote justice and enter into solidarity with the voiceless and the powerless.”

Arrupe was aware that the Jesuits would suffer consequences for this new understanding of their mission, and he urged them to be prepared for criticism and even persecution. His concern was prophetic. Within three years, five Jesuits had laid down their lives in the pursuit of justice, and criticism was quick to follow. The Jesuits were accused of substituting politics for the gospel, and Arrupe was personally charged with leading the Society astray. (Rev. Pedro Arrupe, S.J. | Arrupe Scholars Program)

You have just read a word-for-word description of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's revolutionary agenda, which comes directly from the warped Modernist and Marxist mind of Father Pedro Arrupe, S.J., who was considered a "prophet" by the young Jesuits, including the lay Jesuit Bergoglio. The false "pontiff's" entire agenda is summarized very well in those three paragraphs.

In a way, therefore, Jorge Mario Bergoglio considers himself himself to be a latter-day Arrupian "prophet," a man who is calling for revolutionary change in the structures of what he believes to be the Catholic Church and in the world, a man who is indeed "humbly" committed to "solidarity with the voiceless and the powerless."

The currently reigning universal public face of apostasy has a very long memory. He has been busy settling scores with conciliar officials within the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River have been responsible for persecuting him during his time of "archbishop" of Buenos Aires, Argentina, and for "restraining" supposedly legitimate theological development and ecclesiastical restructuring and reform.

It is thus no accident that Jorge Mario Bergoglio sees himself today as the "prophetic" "Pope Francis," a man who is being criticized by "restorationists" for daring to go where no conciliar "pontiff" has gone before him, something that he made very clear in the "homily" that he gave on Monday, December 16, 2013, at the Casa Santa Marta:

(Vatican Radio) A church without prophets falls into the trap of clericalism. These were the words of Pope Francis during his homily at Mass on Monday morning in the Vatican’s Casa Santa Marta.

Commenting on the day’s readings, Pope Francis said a prophet is someone who listens to the words of God, who reads the spirit of the times, and who knows how to move forward towards the future. True prophets, the Pope said, hold within themselves three different moments: past, present, and future. They keep the promise of God alive, they see the suffering of their people, and they bring us the strength to look ahead.

God looks after his people, the Pope continued, by giving them prophets in the hardest times, in the midst of their worst suffering. But when there is no spirit of prophecy amongst the people of God, we fall into the trap of clericalism.

In the Gospel, for example, the priests ask Jesus: “With what authority do you do these things? We are the masters of the Temple!” They didn’t understand the prophecy, Pope Francis said, they had forgotten the promise. They didn’t know how to read the spirit of the times, they didn’t listen to the words of God, they had only their authority.

When there is no prophecy amongst the people of God, the emptiness that is created gets filled by clericalism. All memory of the past and hope for the future are reduced only to the present: no past promise, no future hope. But when clericalism reigns supreme, Pope Francis said, the words of God are sorely missed, and true believers weep because they cannot find the Lord.

As we prepare for the birth of the Lord, Pope Francis concluded, let us pray: “Lord, let us not lack prophets amongst your people!” All those who are baptised are prophets: let us not forget God’s promise, let us not tire of moving forward. (Without prophecy, only clericalism.)

Jorge the "prophet" once again manages to blaspheme Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by claiming that He suffered the same fate as befalls men such as himself, Bergoglio, who have the "courage" to "liberate" the people from the bonds of clericalism, which has "enslaved" them in the name of false traditions that are said to be man made and have nothing to do with the Gospel.

This is why Bergoglio is busy at the present time restructuring the the conciliar curia with like-minded "prophets," especially in the Congregation for the Bishops, so that "episcopal" candidates may be drawn from the ranks of presbyters in the conciliar structures who will truly "serve the people" and give "voice to the voiceless" without a semblance of clericalism. The Girondists or Mensheviks are out. The Jacobins or Bolsheviks are in.

Even The New York Times has noted the significance of these moves:

ROME — Pope Francis moved on Monday against a conservative American cardinal who has been an outspoken critic of abortion and same-sex marriage, by replacing him on a powerful Vatican committee with another American who is less identified with the culture wars within the Roman Catholic Church.

The pope’s decision to remove Cardinal Raymond L. Burke from the Congregation for Bishops was taken by church experts to be a signal that Francis is willing to disrupt the Vatican establishment in order to be more inclusive.

Even so, many saw the move less as an effort to change doctrine on specific social issues than an attempt to bring a stylistic and pastoral consistency to the church’s leadership.

“He is saying that you don’t need to be a conservative to become a bishop,” said Alberto Melloni, the director of the John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies in Bologna, Italy, a liberal Catholic research institute. “He wants good bishops, regardless of how conservative or liberal they are.”

Cardinal Burke, who came to the Vatican in 2008 after serving as archbishop of St. Louis, is a favorite of many conservative Catholics in the United States for his upholding of church rites and traditions favored by Pope Benedict XVI. Cardinal Burke’s preference for the long train of billowing red silk known as cappa magna, and other such vestments, has, however, made him seem out step with Francis, who has made it clear through example that he prefers more humble attire.

Last week, Cardinal Burke also seemed to create more substantive daylight between himself and the pope, giving an interview in which he raised concerns about comments by Francis that the church should reduce the focus on abortion and same-sex marriage.

“One gets the impression, or it’s interpreted this way in the media, that he thinks we’re talking too much about abortion, too much about the integrity of marriage as between one man and one woman,” Cardinal Burke said of the pope in an interview with EWTN, a Catholic broadcaster. “But we can never talk enough about that.”

Since his election as pope in March, Francis has received glowing news media coverage and widespread adulation from the faithful for putting a kinder, more inclusive face on a global institution that had been widely perceived as out of touch. He has expressed an intention to reorganize and overhaul the Roman Curia, the bureaucracy that governs the church.

Cardinal Burke still serves as the prefect of the Vatican’s highest canonical court, but analysts say his removal from the Congregation for Bishops will sharply reduce his influence, especially over personnel changes in American churches.

“The Congregation for Bishops is the most important congregation in the Vatican,” said the Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a Jesuit priest and the author of “Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church.”

“It decides who are going to be the bishops all over the world,” he added. “This is what has the most direct impact on the life of the local church.”

To replace Cardinal Burke, Francis chose Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, an ideological moderate with a deep knowledge of the Vatican but also with pastoral experience. Father Reese noted that Cardinal Burke had been a leader of American bishops arguing that Catholic politicians who support abortion rights should be barred from receiving communion, while Cardinal Wuerl had taken an opposite tack.

“That certainly is in line with the pope, who has said that communion is not a reward for being good,” Father Reese said. “It is a sacrament of healing to help people.” (Prophet of Antichrist Replaces Conservative U.S. Cardinal on Influential Vatican Committee.)

The Arrupian Revolution being implemented now by Jorge Mario Bergoglio returns the counterfeit church of conciliarism to the days of the likes of "bishops" appointed during the "pontificate" of Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick, although the new generation of "bishops" to follow in the wake of Jorge's shake-up of the conciliar Congregation of the Bishops will be more completely revolutionary and "progressive" than were those of the Montinian era.

Well, it should be noted that many of the "bishops" appointed in the Montinian the Sickian era were very much in tune with the then largely unknown "Father" Jorge Mario Bergoglio down at the end of the earth in Argentina, which means that they were much in tune with the true revolutionary Modernist spirit of the "Second" Vatican Council, whose implementation was being overseen by Montini himself.

Montini gifted the United States of America with a number of memorable reprobates in the conciliar hierarchy, including a few true bishops before he promulgated Annibale Bugnini's invalid rite of episcopal consecration in 1968, prior to arrival on our shores on May 23, 1973, of the Belgian Destroyer, Archbishop Jean Jadot, the conciliar Apostolic Delegate to this country who helped to shepherd the names of numerous ultra-conciliar revolutionaries into the conciliar hierarchy in the United States of America until he was recalled to Rome on June 27, 1980.

Among those personally "consecrated" by Jadot was "Archbishop" Robert Sanchez, who had to resign from the conciliar ordinary of Sante Fe, New Mexico, on April 6, 1993, after it was revealed on 60 Minutes that he engaged in natural vice with five different women, and none other than the notorious, self-professed "gay" (but celibate, of course) Rembert George Weakland,  a direct acolyte on the Consilium of Bugnini himself, who persecuted faithful Catholic priests and the laity during his terroristic reign as "Archbishop" of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, from September 20, 1977, to the time of his own scandal-prompted "retirement" on May 24, 2002 (see Weak In Mind, Weakest Yet In Faith and Just A Matter of Forgiveness?). Gee, who was that who succeeded Weakland in 2002? Yes, yes, a chap from Saint Louis, Missouri, a fellow named Timothy Michael Dolan.

Among the men advanced or promoted within the ranks of the American conciliar "hierarchy," including "auxiliary bishops," during the time of Jean Jadot, were men such as Howard Hubbard of Albany, New York, Matthew Clark of Rochester, New York, Kenneth Untener of Saginaw, Michigan, Bernard Francis Law of Cape Giradeau, Missouri, Peter Rosazza, an auxiliary of Hartford, Connecticut, known for this Marxist views, Walter Sullivan of Richmond, Virginia, the infamous Thomas Gumbleton, another self-confessed "gay" bishop," an acolyte of Call to Action's own John Cardinal Dearden from Detroit, Joseph Imesch of Joliet, Illinois, Joseph Fiorenza of Galveston-Houston and, among so many others, Robert Sanchez and Rembert Weakland themselves. Weakland was good enough to admit that the type of men favored by Jadot were "pastoral," "open-minded" and "independent thinkers" (see A Pilgrim in a Pilgrim Church: Memoirs of a Catholic Archbishop - Rembert G. Weakland, Rembert Weakland--this link will take you directly to Weakland's discussion of Jadot begins near the bottom of the page).

Mind you, Montini's pre-Jadot selections for "bishops" in the United States of America included the likes of Joseph Bernardin (seamless garment, lover of all things lavender, blasphemer of Saint John the Evangelist by claiming that he was the original source of anti-Semitism) and Francis Mugavero, who was a notorious, "gay-friendly" revolutionary. And many of the post-Jadot selections for the American conciliar "hierarchy" during the eras of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI were of the exact mindset as Jadot's appointees had been, which means that were ideological soul mates of Jorge Mario Bergoglio. (For a partial list of the soon-to-be "canonized" "Blessed" John Paul II's particularly nefarious appointees, see "Canonizing" A Man Who Protected Moral Derelicts.)

Thus it is that the new appointees on the conciliar Congregation for the Bishops will replicate Bergoglio himself by raising to the conciliar hierarchy presbyters who have been prevented from consideration for "episcopal" promotion in the past because they were "pastoral," "open-minded" and "independent thinkers." This paves the way for more Joseph Bernardins, more Roger Mahonys, more Tod Browns, more George Niederauers, more Donald Wuerls, more Joseph Imesches, more Daniel Leo Ryans, more Francis Mugavero, more Thomas Gumbletons, more John Raymond McGanns, more Emil Wcelas, more Theodore McCarricks, more Peter Rosazzas, more Richard Sklbas, more Rembert Weaklands, more Walter Sullivans, more Sylvester Ryans, more William Franklins, more Lawrence Soenses, more Michael Sheehans, more Joseph Sullivans (of the Brooklyn variety)--in other words, more of just about every touchy-feely, "gay-friendly" Modernists. Those associated with a newspaper that has been characterized as the "National Catholic Distorter" find themselves now with a "pope" to their liking. The National Catholic Reporter is now the "gold standard" of "doctrinal orthodoxy" and pastoral "charity" in the Land of Bergoglio and his "Bishops."

Indeed, National Catholic Reporter's John Allen discussed the background of some of Bergoglio's new appointees with particular delight:

From Mexico, Francis turned not to Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera, generally seen as a John Paul II protégé and a champion of the church's conservative wing, but to Cardinal Francisco Robles Ortega of Guadalajara, who comes from a working-class family in Jalisco and, though he's never been part of the liberation theology movement, has good relationships with progressive sectors of the Mexican church.

Robles commands the respect of his brother bishops, having been elected in November 2012 to take over as president of the episcopal conference. He's also drawn good marks for his candor and lack of defensiveness, among other things offering an apology in a recent homily for "the scandals of those who lead the church."

From Colombia, Francis tapped Cardinal Rubén Salazar Gómez, who has occasionally come under fire for alleged waffling on the church's moral teachings.

In 2011, he drew criticism for voicing qualified support for the de-penalization of drugs, and in 2012, he was compelled by the Vatican's Secretariat of State to amend comments implying acceptance of the de-penalization of abortion in three cases anticipated by Colombian law, including rape, incest and threats to the life of the mother.

Despite those controversies, Salazar too has the support of his fellow bishops, having twice been elected president of the Colombian conference.

From Westminster in the United Kingdom, Francis elevated Archbishop Vincent Nichols, generally seen as a doctrinal and political moderate who has been criticized from the right in the U.K., among other things, for his allegedly lukewarm support for the old Latin Mass and for the new structure created under Benedict XVI to welcome former Anglicans into the Catholic church.

On the other hand, admirers say Nichols is a gifted administrator and builder of consensus who serves as the elected president of the bishop's conference in England and Wales.

In terms of new Vatican personnel named to the Congregation for Bishops, Francis added several of his own nominations, including his new secretary of state, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, and the new prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, Archbishop Beniamino Stella. Both are veteran Italian diplomats known for pragmatic and generally nonideological approaches.

Francis also tapped two Vatican officials he inherited from Benedict XVI, including one, Brazilian Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, prefect of the Congregation for Religious, who has occasionally come under fire for allegedly being too soft, including in the Vatican's ongoing examination of American nuns.

His efforts to promote reconciliation with religious women began even before he got to Rome in an interview he gave to NCR the day his Vatican appointment was announced.

"I want to learn from them and walk with them," he said of the sisters. "You have to see people up close, get to know them, what will help them overcome whatever problem there is."

Certainly no one can accuse Bráz de Aviz of having lived a sheltered life, disconnected from the sufferings of ordinary people in the developing world.

As a young priest, Bráz de Aviz was once on his way to a village to say Mass when he stumbled upon an armored car robbery. He was shot during the crossfire, with bullets perforating his lungs and intestines and one eye. Although he survived and surgeons were able to save his eye, he still carries fragments of those bullets in his body.

To be sure, Francis did not exactly flush out the more conservative elements from the congregation. For instance, he confirmed Cardinal George Pell of Australia, who's also a member of the pope's Council of Cardinals, as well as Spanish Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and known around Rome as the "little Ratzinger" -- not only because of his diminutive size, but also his affinity for Benedict's doctrinal views.

No doubt, Francis thinks it's important to maintain some balance, helping to ensure that bishops around the world are capable of understanding the concerns of all types of Catholics.

There's equally no doubt, however, that as of Monday, Francis shifted the center of the gravity inside the body responsible for selecting bishops towards the middle -- not just with the American members, as it turns out, but across the board. (Preparing A Generation of Francis' Bishops.)

Balance?

George Pell, who does believe that Adam and Eve were real people and who has contended, contrary to Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick when he said two months ago now that don’t have to accept every jot and tittle" of the decrees of the "Second" Vatican Council, is a "conservative"? (See Apostates Reprimanding Apostates and George Pell Openly Contradicts Paul The Sick). Dream on, John Allen, dream on.

Antonio Canizares Llovera, who is committed to what he thinks is the rubrical "integrity" of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service (see "Cardinals" Burke and Canizares, Meet The Council of Trent), could be considered a "conservative" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, to be sure. Unfortunately, one has to be Catholic, not a "conservative" conciliarist, and Antonio Canizares Llovera has defected from the Faith by subscribing to the "doctrines," such as they are, of the "Second" Vatican Council.

More to the point, however, is the fact that Bergoglio's new appointees to the Congregation for the Bishops each are "gay friendly" and have a long, long track record of "outreach" to those who identify themselves on the basis of their inclination to the commission of perverted acts in violation of the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law.

To cite just one example, the conciliar "archbishop" of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, opposes "marriage" between persons of the same gender while support "civil union" status for them:

 

We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision… As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give… (Vincent Nichols says he is in favour of gay civil unions.)

Lifelong relationship? Protection? From what? The loss of the souls engaged in unrepentant perverse acts against nature that cry out to Heaven for vengeance? (See the appendix below for yet another recitation of what can be called a Primer to Refute the Slogans of the World of Perversity.)

The lavender collective has their man in Jorge Mario Bergoglio, which is a magazine devoted to the promotion of perversity has named the Argentine Apostate as its "man of the year." (No, I am not going to link to any story about this as it needs no further comment and I do not want to send anyone to the magazine's website. As is said, this news "has been in all the papers.)

The "honor," if it can be called that, given to Bergoglio is well-deserved as is proved by the "gay-friendly" appointees he made to the conciliar Congregation for the Bishops and by the following remarks made by Oswald "Cardinal" Gracias, the conciliar "archbishop" of Mumbai (Bombay), Italy, who is one of his Commissars, concerning an decision of the Indian Supreme Court to reinstate that country's criminal laws against sodomy:

 

Cardinal Oswald Gracias, Archbishop of Mumbai and president of the Episcopal Conference of India, said that the Church has “never considered gay people criminals,” after the Supreme Court of India restored a law banning homosexual acts.

According to AsiaNews, Cardinal Gracias, a member of the Council of Cardinals advising Pope Francis on Curial reform, said “the Catholic Church has never been opposed to the decriminalisation of homosexuality, because we have never considered gay people criminals.”

“As Christians, we express our full respect for homosexuals. The Catholic Church is opposed to the legalisation of gay marriage, but teaches that homosexuals have the same dignity of every human being and condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse,” Cardinal Gracias said.

India’s Supreme Court overturned a decision taken by the High Court of Delhi in 2009, which had decriminalised homosexual acts. The court said it was up to parliament to legislate on the issue. According to Section 377, a 153-year-old colonial law, a same-sex relationship is an “unnatural offence” and punishable by a 10-year jail term. ('Gay people are not criminals,' says Commissar Gracias.)

The Catholic Church, "Cardinal" Gracias, has never referred to those who committed the sin of Sodom, which cries out to Heaven for vengeance, as "gay." She has referred to them as Sodomites and practitioners of perversity. Saint Paul wrote as follows about such practitioners and the foul, detestable sin that they commit:

 

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

Moreover, "Cardinal" Gracias, you are an ignoramus as the Catholic Church, of which you are not a member, has sanctioned the use of civil law against those caught in the act of Sodom, up to and including the death penalty itself:

 

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)

Just a slightly different approach, wouldn't you say? A true pope understood the horror of such a detestable sin on the part of the clergy and sought to administer punishment to serve as a medicinal corrective for other priests and to demonstrate to the laity the horrific nature of such a moral crime. A false "bishop" seeks to protect his "institution" and the "clerical club." Quite a different approach.

Mind you, I am not suggesting the revival of this penalty in a world where it would not be understood and where the offender would be made a "martyr" for the cause of perversity, only pointing out the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that clerics and others in ecclesiastical authority who are guilty of serious moral crimes are deserving of punishment, not protection, by their bishops. Such is the difference yet again between Catholicism and conciliarism, a false religion that cannot withstand the currents of perversity because its own liturgical rites and doctrines are perverse and loathsome in the sight of the true God of Divine Revelation, the Most Blessed Trinity.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his chosen Commissars and recent appointees want to extend "open arms" to those who practice the sin of Sodom without seeking their conversion away from their sins that cry out to Heaven and to cease identifying themselves, whether individually or collectively, by the sin that rained fire and brimstone down up th cities of Sodom and Gommorha. By refusing to seek their conversion and by using what Mrs. Randy Engel has termed "gay speak," Bergoglio and other conciliar revolutionaries thus show themselves to be the worst enemies of those steeped in perverse sins by refusing to discharge the Spiritual Works of Mercy to them, including admonishing the sinner. The only "sinners" that Bergoglio admonishes are believing Catholics.

 

This is why Raymond Leo "Cardinal" Burke, who got himself bumped off of the conciliar Congregation for the Bishops a few days ago, is delusional to believe, as reported just below, that there is going to be any kind of "stability" in the conciliar curia under "Pope Francis" as his "pope," a true son of the conciliar revolution, understands full well that instability, disorder and chaos are ways by which revolutions spread and gain acceptance. Girondists such as himself will always get eaten alive by the Jacobins such as Bergoglio as there never can be any kind of "moderate" or "stable" revolution, and conciliarism is in se a revolution against the Catholic Faith.

 

Here is what "Cardinal" Burke (who said to me in 2003 during my Remnant days something that he will never repeat again, "keep up the good work") is reported to have said recently during an interview on the Eternally Wishful Television Network (EWTN):

The service of the Roman Curia is part of the very nature of the church, and so that has to be respected," Burke told EWTN, a U.S.-based Catholic cable network that spotlights conservative views.

"I can't imagine that somehow the Roman Curia is going to take on a completely different figure. It just doesn't make sense," Burke said. The interview was broadcast Thursday as the centerpiece of a program that highlighted concerns about the direction of the church since Francis was elected in March.

Francis' own top collaborators, namely a "kitchen cabinet" of eight cardinals he tapped to help him change the Vatican's byzantine and often scandal-ridden ways, have said the old curial system "is over," as one put it, and will be replaced by "something different."

But Burke told EWTN that it was "not altogether clear what the results of the reform will be" and lamented what he described as "a kind of unpredictability about life in Rome in these days."

The cardinal's answer was in response to a question about comments by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, who was the top aide to retired Pope Benedict XVI. Gänswein, who also works with Francis, complained in a German newspaper interview last week that "I wait every day for another innovation" from the new pope. (Reforms Prompt Delusional Curial Pushback.)

"Cardinal" Burke, "experts" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism have been trying to make "sense" of the decrees of the "Second" Vatican Council and the magisteria of the conciliar "popes" for five decades now. If one can attack the nature of dogmatic truth, which is an attack in the very nature of God Himself, and charge the whole nature of the Divine Constitution of Holy Mother Church and make what passes for the Sacred Liturgy to be nothing other than a means of "inculturating" every false current imaginable while permitting various options galore, it is only logical that the conciliar curia inside of the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River (and in the extra-territorial offices on the Via della Conciliazione and in the Trastevere district of Rome) would fall to Robespierre's guillotine sooner or later.

Permit me, Raymond Leo Burke, to introduce you to Papa Santo Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto's Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments. They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907, No. 38)

Why the bewilderment, "Cardinal" Burke? We have been warned. You are sadly self-deluded into not realizing that the hour is late and that figures of Antichrist have been posing as Successors of Saint Peter since October 28, 1958. We have been warned.

There is no also no reason for "Archbishop" Gänswein to express wonder as to what the next "innovation" from Bergoglio will be as his own beloved mentor, the very much retired "Pope" Benedict XVI, was all in favor of "innovation." He was Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, after all, who got rid of the miter on his "papal" coat-of-arms and who spoke favorably of "innovation," albeit in the context of his philosophically absurd and philosophically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity," in his infamous curia address of December 22, 2005:

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 itself. It 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. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature (December 22, 2005.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio just has a different kind of innovation than Ratzinger. Isn't "Francis" just as much a conciliar "pope" as Ratzinger," George Gänswein?

When all is said and done, though, there no "daylight" on matters of substance between Bergoglio and Ratzinger.

Compare, for instance, the following brief discussion of Bergoglio's perceived "need" to reform the conciliar "Petrine Ministry" as found in his interview with Andrea Tornielli with what the then Joseph "Cardinal" Ratzinger wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982, which served as the basis of The Ravenna Document, October 13, 2007, which he praised publicly on several occasions:

Tornielli: You announced a “conversion of the papacy”. Did a specific path emerge from your meetings with the Orthodox Patriarchs?

Bergoglio: “John Paul II spoke even more explicitly about a way of exercising the primacy which is open to a new situation. Not just from the point of view of ecumenical relations but also in terms of relations with the Curia and the local Churches. Over the course of these first nine months, I have received visits from many Orthodox brothers: Bartholomew, Hilarion, the theologian Zizioulas, the Copt Tawadros. The latter is a mystic, he would enter the chapel, remove his shoes and go and pray. I felt like their brother. They have the apostolic succession; I received them as brother bishops. It is painful that we are not yet able to celebrate the Eucharist together, but there is friendship. I believe that the way forward is this: friendship, common work and prayer for unity. We blessed each other; one brother blesses the other, one brother is called Peter and the other Andrew, Mark, Thomas…”.  (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

After all, Cardinal Humbert of Silva Candida, in the same bull in which he excommunicated the Patriarch Michael Cerularius and thus inaugurated the schism between East and West, designated the Emperor and the people of Constantinople as "very Christian and orthodox", although their concept of the Roman primary was certainly far less different from that of Cerularius than from that, let us say, of the First Vatican Council. In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198-199)

It remains for the question of the role of the bishop of Rome in the communion of all the Churches to be studied in greater depth. What is the specific function of the bishop of the “first see” in an ecclesiology of koinonia and in view of what we have said on conciliarity and authority in the present text? How should the teaching of the first and second Vatican councils on the universal primacy be understood and lived in the light of the ecclesial practice of the first millennium? These are crucial questions for our dialogue and for our hopes of restoring full communion between us.

We, the members of the Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, are convinced that the above statement on ecclesial communion, conciliarity and authority represents positive and significant progress in our dialogue, and that it provides a firm basis for future discussion of the question of primacy at the universal level in the Church. We are conscious that many difficult questions remain to be clarified, but we hope that, sustained by the prayer of Jesus “That they may all be one … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17, 21), and in obedience to the Holy Spirit, we can build upon the agreement already reached. Reaffirming and confessing “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4, 5), we give glory to God the Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, who has gathered us together. (The Ravenna Document)

Future discussion of "primacy at the universal level in the Church? Difficult questions remain to be clarified? God the Holy Ghost needs to help reach "an agreement" on Papal Primacy? Apostasy.

Pope Leo XIII dealt with these false assertions in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1894:

First of all, then, We cast an affectionate look upon the East, from whence in the beginning came forth the salvation of the world.  Yes, and the yearning desire of Our heart bids us conceive and hope that the day is not far distant when the Eastern Churches, so illustrious in their ancient faith and glorious past, will return to the fold they have abandoned.  We hope it all the more, that the distance separating them from Us is not so great: nay, with some few exceptions, we agree so entirely on other heads that, in defense of the Catholic Faith, we often have recourse to reasons and testimony borrowed from the teaching, the Rites, and Customs of the East.

The Principal subject of contention is the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff.  But let them look back to the early years of their existence, let them consider the sentiments entertained by their forefathers, and examine what the oldest Traditions testify, and it will, indeed, become evident to them that Christ's Divine Utterance, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, has undoubtedly been realized in the Roman Pontiffs.  Many of these latter in the first gates of the Church were chosen from the East, and foremost among them Anacletus, Evaristus, Anicetus, Eleutherius, Zosimus, and Agatho; and of these a great number, after Governing the Church in Wisdom and Sanctity, Consecrated their Ministry with the shedding of their blood.  The time, the reasons, the promoters of the unfortunate division, are well known.  Before the day when man separated what God had joined together, the name of the Apostolic See was held in Reverence by all the nations of the Christian world: and the East, like the West, agreed without hesitation in its obedience to the Pontiff of Rome, as the Legitimate Successor of St. Peter, and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ here on earth.

And, accordingly, if we refer to the beginning of the dissension, we shall see that Photius himself was careful to send his advocates to Rome on the matters that concerned him; and Pope Nicholas I sent his Legates to Constantinople from the Eternal City, without the slightest opposition, "in order to examine the case of Ignatius the Patriarch with all diligence, and to bring back to the Apostolic See a full and accurate report"; so that the history of the whole negotiation is a manifest Confirmation of the Primacy of the Roman See with which the dissension then began.  Finally, in two great Councils, the second of Lyons and that of Florence, Latins and Greeks, as is notorious, easily agreed, and all unanimously proclaimed as Dogma the Supreme Power of the Roman Pontiffs.

We have recalled those things intentionally, for they constitute an invitation to peace and reconciliation; and with all the more reason that in Our own days it would seem as if there were a more conciliatory spirit towards Catholics on the part of the Eastern Churches, and even some degree of kindly feeling.  To mention an instance, those sentiments were lately made manifest when some of Our faithful travelled to the East on a Holy Enterprise, and received so many proofs of courtesy and good-will.

Therefore, Our mouth is open to you, to you all of Greek or other Oriental Rites who are separated from the Catholic Church, We earnestly desire that each and every one of you should meditate upon the words, so full of gravity and love, addressed by Bessarion to your forefathers: "What answer shall we give to God when He comes to ask why we have separated from our Brethren: to Him Who, to unite us and bring us into One Fold, came down from Heaven, was Incarnate, and was Crucified?  What will our defense be in the  eyes of posterity?  Oh, my Venerable Fathers, we must not suffer this to be, we must not entertain this thought, we must not thus so ill provide for ourselves and for our Brethren."

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government.

Nor is there any reason for you to fear on that account that We or any of Our Successors will ever diminish your rights, the privileges of your Patriarchs, or the established Ritual of any one of your Churches.  It has been and always will be the intent and Tradition of the Apostolic See, to make a large allowance, in all that is right and good, for the primitive Traditions and special customs of every nation.  On the contrary, if you re-establish Union with Us, you will see how, by God's bounty, the glory and dignity of your Churches will be remarkably increased. (Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884.)

No, there's no daylight between the "innovators" Bergoglio and Ratzinger on matters of substance, only in style. In substance, however, the two are simply different expressions of the same revolution against Christ the King and His Holy Church.

Additionally, another area, among so many, of absolute convergence between Bergoglio and Ratzinger is of false ecumenism, which is illustrated below by comparing an answer given by the former to Andrea Tornielli with the infamous address that the latter gave at an ecumaniacal meeting in Cologne, Germany, on Friday, August 19, 2005:

Tornielli: Is Christian unity a priority for you?

Bergoglio: “Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority. Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed. To those who kill we are Christians. We are united in blood, even though we have not yet managed to take necessary steps towards unity between us and perhaps the time has not yet come. Unity is a gift that we need to ask for. I knew a parish priest in Hamburg who was dealing with the beatification cause of a Catholic priest guillotined by the Nazis for teaching children the catechism.  After him, in the list of condemned individuals, was a Lutheran pastor who was killed for the same reason. Their blood was mixed. The parish priest told me he had gone to the bishop and said to him: “I will continue to deal with the cause, but both of their causes, not just the Catholic priest’s.” This is what ecumenism of blood is. It still exists today; you just need to read the newspapers. Those who kill Christians don’t ask for your identity card to see which Church you were baptised in. We need to take these facts into consideration.” (Never Be Afraid of Tenderness.)

We all know there are numerous models of unity and you know that the Catholic Church also has as her goal the full visible unity of the disciples of Christ, as defined by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council in its various Documents (cf. Lumen Gentium, nn. 8, 13; Unitatis Redintegratio, nn. 2, 4, etc.). This unity, we are convinced, indeed subsists in the Catholic Church, without the possibility of ever being lost (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 4); the Church in fact has not totally disappeared from the world.

On the other hand, this unity does not mean what could be called ecumenism of the return:  that is, to deny and to reject one's own faith history. Absolutely not!

It does not mean uniformity in all expressions of theology and spirituality, in liturgical forms and in discipline. Unity in multiplicity, and multiplicity in unity:  in my Homily for the Solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul on 29 June last, I insisted that full unity and true catholicity in the original sense of the word go together. As a necessary condition for the achievement of this coexistence, the commitment to unity must be constantly purified and renewed; it must constantly grow and mature. (Ecumenical meeting at the Archbishopric of Cologne English)

Bergoglio and Ratzinger are blood brothers of conciliarism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is as deluded as Raymond Leo Burke and Georg Gänswein.

Insofar as Bergoglio's answer to Andrea Tornielli, who served more or less the role of Larry King by serving up questions that were not exactly challenging, suffice it to refute it with the infallible decree Cantate Domino, which was issued on February 4, 1442, at the Council of Florence under the authority of Pope Eugene IV:

t [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

Although Ratzinger's ecumaniacal words and actions have been discussed on this site hundreds of times, there are new readers to this site recently. It is for their benefit that the following citations are included yet again:

It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd. (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, which is visible to all, and which is to remain, according to the will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it. . . .  Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that 'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth," would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be 'careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.'" (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

As plain as night and day. Conciliarism has not been, is not now and can never be Catholicism.

The hour is indeed very late. A worldwide movement in the direction of a One World Ecumenical Church is gathering steam, especially under Jorge "Don't Sweat the Dogmas" and "Let's Beat Up on Believing Catholics Every Day" Bergoglio. There is even a movement, ableit a relatively small one at this time, within Orthodox Talmudism to put "doctrine" aside in favor of intra-Talmudic friendship no matter the brand of Talmudism (Orthodox and its various schools, Conservative, Liberal, Reform, etc.):

We at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School (YCT) believe that the future of Orthodoxy depends on our becoming a movement that expands outward non-dogmatically and cooperatively to encompass the needs of the larger Jewish community and the world. For this vision to succeed, we require a new breed of leaders - rabbis who are open, non-judgmental, knowledgeable, empathetic, and eager to transform Orthodoxy into a movement that meaningfully and respectfully interacts with all Jews, regardless of affiliation, commitment, or background. (Talmudic Ecumenism. I thank the rabbi, whom I have exhorted to convert to the true Faith, who sent this to me as he is opposed to any such "dialogue" within Orthodox Talmudism. Please join me in praying to Saint Paul and Father Maria-Alphonse Ratisbonne for this rabbi's conversion.)

One sees the convergence between the Arrupian Theology in which Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been schooled--and by which he is destroying the last remaining bastions of recognizable Catholicism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism--with the Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical Society. Each false religion must fold one into the other prior to the coming of the Antichrist, who will slay all false religions before the final battle with the true religion, Catholicism.

It is good to consider these words of Pope Saint Pius X once again as they become more relevant and pertinent every time Jorge Mario Bergoglio flaps his gums:

And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Behold an undisciplined mind that has neither dogmas, nor hierarchy without any discipline for the mind or curb for the passions, which believes in the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Behold the heretical mind of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, apostate, who just won't listen to Patrolman Ed Nicholson's plea to Patrolman Gunther Toody: "SHUT UP!"

The "O Antiphon" for today concerns the Root of Jesse. The line of King David, the root of Jesse, was chosen, to be the one from which Our Blessed Lord Saviour Jesus Christ would assume His Sacred Divinity in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of His Most Blessed Mother by the power of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost:

O Root of Jesse, that stands for an ensign of the people, before whom the kings keep silence and unto Whom the Gentiles shall make supplication: Come, to deliver us and tarry not. Amen.

 

The prayer that the late Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., wrote in The Liturgical Year for this day is quite apropos of the ecclesiastical situation in which we find ourselves:

At length, O Son of Jesse! Thou art approaching the city of Thy ancestors. The Ark of the Lord has risen, and journeys, with the God that is in her, to the place of her rest. 'How beautiful are thy steps, O thou daughter of the Prince', now that thou art bringing to the cities of Juda their salvation! The angels escort thee, thy faithful Joseph lavishes his love upon thee, heaven delights in thee, and our earth thrills with joy to bear thus upon itself its Creator and its Queen. Go forward, O Mother of God and Mother of men! Speed thee, thou propiatory that holdest within thee the divine Manna which gives us life! Our hearts are with thee, and count thy steps. Like thy royal ancestor David, 'we will not enter into the dwelling of our house, nor go up into the bed whereon we lie, nor give sleep to our eyes,nor rest to our temples, until we have found a place in our hearts for the Lord whom thou bearest, a tabernacle for the Go of Jacob. Come, then, O Root of Jesse! thus hidden in this Ark of purity; Thou wilt soon appear before Thy people as the standard round which all that would conquer must rally. Then their enemies, the kings of the world, will be silenced, and the nations will offer Thee their prayers. Hasten thy coming, dear Jesus! come and conquer all our enemies, and deliver us. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B.)

Father Benedict Baur's The Light of the World, a latter day version of Dom Prosper Gueranger's The Liturgical Year, contains reflections that are most relevant to the theme of this article and of the "O Radix Jesse" for Vespers this evening.

Christ the King, the Lord! Divine Wisdom, Adonai, the powerful God, is at the same time man in the flesh and blood of the house of Jesse, the father of King David. Verily, the right of kingship has now passed from the house of David. The glory that once clothed the royal family has faded and withered, leaving only a blighted and withered root. But from this root is to spring a glorious blossom, the King of the world. "He shall rule from sea to sea and from river unto the ends of the earth. Before Him, the Ethiopians shall fall down and His enemies shall lick the ground. The kings of Tharsis and the islands shall offer presents: the kings of the Arabians and of Saba shall serve Him" (Ps. 71: 8-11). To Him God has said, "Thou has My Son. . . . I will give Thee the Gentiles for Thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession" (Ps. 2:7 f.).

"He shall be great, . . . and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of David, His father, and He shall reign in the house of Jacob forever. And of His Kingdom there shall be no end" (Luke 1:32 f.). In the face of Roman power He shall declare, "I am a King" (John 18:37). On the throne of the cross they shall proclaim His kingship in the three universal languages of the time: "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" (John 19:19). He will send forth apostles, for all power is given Him "in heaven and in earth." Going, therefore, teach ye all nations, . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt. 29:18-20). Before Him a Herod, a domitian, and a Diocletian shall tremble. A Julian will be obliged to confess, "Galilean, Thou hast conquered."

He will establish His kingdom in the world, a kingdom of truth, of justice, and of grace. He who was cast off by men and fastened to the cross, will make that cross a throne. The Lord rules as a king from His cross. He is remembered gratefully and loved by millions who leave all earthly things, father and mother and all else, to follow Him. they devote their health, and their life, even their blood, to His service. Root of Jesse, Thou standest as an ensign of the nations, and kings are silent in reverence before Thee.

Come to deliver us and tarry not." The world cries out for Christ its King, who shall cast out the Prince of this world (John 12:31). The prince of this world established his power over men as a result of original sin. He exercises his lordship very efficiently, and has led many men into apostasy and idolatry, and has brought them into temples where he himself is adored. He even dared to approach our Lord, after His fast of forty days in the desert, to tempt Him to fall down before him and adore him. Even after we had been delivered from the servitude of Satan through the death of Christ on the cross, the prince of this world attempts to exercise his power over us. "The devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour" (1 Pet. 5: 8). Like a bird of prey he hovers us waiting for a favorable opportunity to seize us and lead us into sin. Often enough he transforms "himself into an angel of light: (1 Cor. 11: 14). The sworn enemy and adversary of Christ and of all that is good, he devotes his entire energy and his great intelligence to the task of establishing a kingdom of sin and darkness which is opposed to God and to Christianity.

Stan establishes his power over deluded men in a way that is perfectly obvious. When he has gained control over the body of a man, he uses it for his own purposes, as though it were he who actually controls and animates the body in the place of the human soul. He often exerts his influence over men by harassing them and hindering them by his external works, as is so evident in the live of some some holy men and women. In these trying times, when faith in Christ and in God has largely disappeared, and when the propaganda of a pagan culture is broadcast everywhere, and the forces of evil and falsehood rise up to cast God from His throne, who does not feel the power of the devil? Does it not appear that we are approaching that time when Satan will be released from the depths of hell to work his wonders and mislead, if possible, even the elect? (Apoc. 20:2; Matt. 24:24.)

"Come, tarry not." Observe how thoroughly the world of today has submitted to the reign of Satan. Mankind has abandoned the search for what is good and holy. Loyalty, justice, freedom, love, and mutual trust are no longer highly regarded. Establish, O God, They kingdom among us, a kingdom established upon truth, justice, and peace. "Come, tarry not." "Thy kingdom come." (Father Benedict Baur, The Light of the World.)

May we pray to Our Lady in these days of her expectant waiting as her Most Chaste Spouse, Good Saint Joseph, leads her and her unborn Son to Bethlehem, that our annual celebration of the Nativity of her Divine Son will indeed be seen by His enemies, both those in the world and those in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, will be conquered and that we, who have been His enemies all too frequently by means of our sins, will be conquered once and for all by His ineffable grace to eschew the honors and riches of this world to be faithful to Him as He has revealed Himself to us through His true Church.

May each of the Joyful Mysteries of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary we pray in the next six days prior to Christmas help us to receive Him more worthily and fervently in Holy Communion so that our hearts and souls will be better able to lead all others to the true Manger from which He gives us Himself as our Spiritual Flesh and Drink, the Holy Cross as the Sacrifice He offered thereon is re-presented in an unbloody manner by a true bishop or a true priest in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

 

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us!

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

 

 

If you want to see this work continue for the next thirty-five days, please do join the very few of those who support us to make its work possible by means of a non-tax-deductible financial gift. Over four hundred people accessed part one of this series. It would be very good to receive a non-tax-deductible financial gift from a few of those, especially those who are new to the site. Any amount helps.

Appendix

A Primer to Refute the Slogans of the World of Perversity

1) God's love for us is an act of His divine will, the ultimate expression of which is the salvation of our immortal souls.

2) Our love for others must be premised on willing for them what God wills for us: their salvation as members of the Catholic Church.

3) We love no one authentically if we do or say anything, either by omission or commission, which reaffirms him in a life of unrepentant sin.

4) Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ hates sin. He wills the sinner to repent of his sins by cooperating with the graces He won for them on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into his heart and soul through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces.

5) One of the Spiritual Works of Mercy is to admonish the sinner. We have an obligation to admonish those who are in lives on unrepentant sin to turn away from their lives of sin and to strive to pursue the heights of sanctity.

6) God has compassion on all erring sinners, meaning each one of us. He understands our weakness. He exhorts us, as He exhorted the woman caught in adultery, to "Go, and commit this sin no more."

7) It is not an act of "love" for people to persist in unrepentant sins with others.

8) It is not an act of "judgmentalness" or "intolerance" to exhort people who are living lives of unrepentant sin to reform their lives lest their souls wind up in Hell for eternity.

9) Mortal Sins cast out Sanctifying Grace from the soul. Those steeped in unrepentant mortal sin are the captives of the devil until they make a good and sincere Confession to a true priest.

9) Certain sins cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Sodomy is one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

10) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments do not "love" the individuals with whom they are sinning. Authentic love cannot exist in a soul committed to a life against the Commandments of God and the eternal welfare of one's own soul, no less the souls of others.

11) Those engaged in natural  or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children.

12) Those engaged in natural or unnatural acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are not fit to adopt children because their very sinful lives put into jeopardy the eternal of the souls of the children they seek to adopt. It is not possible for people who are sinning unrepentantly to teach children to hate sin as God hates sin. They are immersed in sin. Pope Pius XI put it this way in Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930:

 

But Christian parents must also understand that they are destined not only to propagate and preserve the human race on earth, indeed not only to educate any kind of worshippers of the true God, but children who are to become members of the Church of Christ, to raise up fellow-citizens of the Saints, and members of God's household, that the worshippers of God and Our Savior may daily increase.

13) Those engaged in unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments are further unfit to adopt children because they have no right in the Divine Positive Law or the natural law to live together as a "couple."  Once again, Pope Pius XI's Casti Connubii:

 

Nor must We omit to remark, in fine, that since the duty entrusted to parents for the good of their children is of such high dignity and of such great importance, every use of the faculty given by God for the procreation of new life is the right and the privilege of the married state alone, by the law of God and of nature, and must be confined absolutely within the sacred limits of that state.

14) Those engaged in unnatural, perverse acts against the Sixth and Ninth Commandment have no right in the Divine Positive Law or the Natural Law to present a "model" of parenthood that is from the devil himself. The words that Saint Paul wrote about perversity in Rome in his own day are quite apropos of our own:

 

Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use against which is their nature.

And in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.

And as they liked not to  have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.

Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  (Romans 1: 24-32)

15) Matrimony was elevated to a Sacrament by Our Lord at the wedding feast in Cana. The Holy Sacrament of Matrimony is entered into by one man and by one woman to achieve these ends: the procreation and education of children, the mutual good of the spouses, a remedy for concupiscence. Pope Pius XI noted this in Casti Connubii:

 

This conjugal faith, however, which is most aptly called by St. Augustine the "faith of chastity" blooms more freely, more beautifully and more nobly, when it is rooted in that more excellent soil, the love of husband and wife which pervades all the duties of married life and holds pride of place in Christian marriage. For matrimonial faith demands that husband and wife be joined in an especially holy and pure love, not as adulterers love each other, but as Christ loved the Church. This precept the Apostle laid down when he said: "Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the Church," that Church which of a truth He embraced with a boundless love not for the sake of His own advantage, but seeking only the good of His Spouse. The love, then, of which We are speaking is not that based on the passing lust of the moment nor does it consist in pleasing words only, but in the deep attachment of the heart which is expressed in action, since love is proved by deeds. This outward expression of love in the home demands not only mutual help but must go further; must have as its primary purpose that man and wife help each other day by day in forming and perfecting themselves in the interior life, so that through their partnership in life they may advance ever more and more in virtue, and above all that they may grow in true love toward God and their neighbor, on which indeed "dependeth the whole Law and the Prophets." For all men of every condition, in whatever honorable walk of life they may be, can and ought to imitate that most perfect example of holiness placed before man by God, namely Christ Our Lord, and by God's grace to arrive at the summit of perfection, as is proved by the example set us of many saints.

This mutual molding of husband and wife, this determined effort to perfect each other, can in a very real sense, as the Roman Catechism teaches, be said to be the chief reason and purpose of matrimony, provided matrimony be looked at not in the restricted sense as instituted for the proper conception and education of the child, but more widely as the blending of life as a whole and the mutual interchange and sharing thereof. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 29, 1930.)

16) It is never permissible to put even one child into spiritual, if not physical, jeopardy by claiming that so many others would be helped if the Church did not cooperate with an unjust law. Our Lord said that it would be better for one to have a millstone thrown around his neck and thrown into a lake than to lead one of his little ones astray. He was not joking.

17) The civil state has no authority from God to sanction illicit relationships, whether between a man or a woman (such as Andrew Cuomo's relationship with his current girlfriend, which he is publicly flaunting) or between those of the same gender who are committing sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. What Pope Pius XI wrote in Casti Connubii about "civil unions" between unmarried men and women applies just as equally to those who are committed the sin of Sodom:

To begin at the very source of these evils, their basic principle lies in this, that matrimony is repeatedly declared to be not instituted by the Author of nature nor raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a true sacrament, but invented by man. Some confidently assert that they have found no evidence of the existence of matrimony in nature or in her laws, but regard it merely as the means of producing life and of gratifying in one way or another a vehement impulse; on the other hand, others recognize that certain beginnings or, as it were, seeds of true wedlock are found in the nature of man since, unless men were bound together by some form of permanent tie, the dignity of husband and wife or the natural end of propagating and rearing the offspring would not receive satisfactory provision. At the same time they maintain that in all beyond this germinal idea matrimony, through various concurrent causes, is invented solely by the mind of man, established solely by his will.

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.

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.

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 29, 1930.)

 

There is no such understanding of these simple truths today even in many quarters of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, where pastors of some parishes and heads of many religious communities are completely supportive of "marriage equality" while maintaining their "good standing" in the conciliar structures. Vincent Nichols is bereft of any such understanding because he has simply lost the Catholic Faith. If one can offend God in matters pertaining to the First and Second Commandments, it is a pretty easy thing to offend Him in the rest. If "Pope" Benedict XVI is not going to act against Vincent Nicholas, and he won't, any hope that he will act against Rogelio Livares Plano of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, for harboring the corrupt Father Carlos Urrutigoity, no less making him the diocesan vocations director, and his corrupt Society of Saint John is very misplaced (see Mr. James Bendell's study on this scandal, Pray for the Children.)