Nothing Random About This

Part Five

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Although it is evidently the case the some out in the never-never land of Motumania are floating the idea that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is indeed a heretic and thus not a true pope.

So far, so good.

It's the "rest of the story," as the late pro-abortion radio commentator Paul Harvey was wont to say, where the fantasy world of those in the Motu world who are flirting with the idea that Bergoglio is not the pope are contending that the last true pope was none other than Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.

No, it is impossible to make any of this up. Impossible.

It would be intellectually dishonest of me to assert that I anticipated this particular idea when I did not. It was, however, to blunt any possible nostalgia for Ratzinger/Benedict amongst the "resist while recognize" crowd that the four previous parts of this series have gone to great lengths to demonstrate that the differences between the retired antipope and his successor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is principally, although not entirely exclusively, a matter of style, not of substance. Both are Modernists. Both deny propositions contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith. Both have advanced these propositions throughout the course of their respective careers, Ratzinger as a priest, although not a true bishop or pope, and Bergoglio as a lay member of the Society of Jesus.

Indeed, this was point when the "two-headed 'pope' monster" met for the first time as Castel Gandolfo, Italy, on Saturday of Passion Week, Saturday, March 23, 2013, No Matter A Difference In Style, One In Modernist Mind and Heart).

Ratzinger/Benedict's style was more solemn and sober, couched in a variety of contradictions and paradoxes by which he attempted to "reconcile" the "discontinuity," as he called it, between the immemorial teaching of the Catholic Church with the documents of the "Second" Vatican Council and the magisterium of the conciliar "popes" by claiming that there is actually "continuity" because the expression of dogma is "conditioned" by the historical circumstances in which it has been formulated and is thus capable of being understood differently at a different time.  Ratzinger/Benedict's contention about the nature of dogmatic truth is philosophically absurd and has been dogmatically condemned, something that I have attempted to document on this site numerous times (for one such example, see "Purifying The Memory" In Order To Bury The Truth).

None of this mattered to those who had permitted their "spirits" to be "pacified" by the issuance of Summorum Pontificum, July 7, 2007, which was premised upon the contention that there had been no rupture between the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. By so contending, Ratzinger/Benedict contradicted himself as he had written in his autobiography, Milestones, and in the preface to the French language edition of the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.

Here is a little reminder of this contradiction:

 

 

There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness (Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum".)

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it--as in a manufacturing process--with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product. Gamber, with the vigilance of a true prophet and the courage of a true witness, oppose this falsification, and thanks to his incredibly rich knowledge, indefatigably taught us about the living fullness of a true liturgy. As a man who knew and loved history, he showed us the multiple forms and paths of liturgical development; as a man who looked at history form the inside, he saw in this development and its fruit the intangible reflection of the eternal liturgy, that which is not the object of our action but which can continue marvelously to mature and blossom if we unite ourselves intimately with its mystery. (Joseph Ratzinger, Preface to the French language edition of Monsignor Klaus Gamber's The Reform of the Roman Liturgy.)

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. It was reasonable and right of the Council to order a revision of the missal such as had often taken place before and which this time had to be more thorough than before, above all because of the introduction of the vernacular.

But more than this now happened: the old building was demolished, and another was built, to be sure largely using materials from the previous one and even using the old building plans. There is no doubt that this new missal in many respects brought with it a real improvement and enrichment; but setting it as a new construction over against what had grown historically, forbidding the results of this historical growth. thereby makes the liturgy appear to be no longer living development but the produce of erudite work and juridical authority; this has caused an enormous harm. For then the impression had to emerge that liturgy is something "made", not something given in advance but something lying without our own power of decision. (Joseph Ratzinger, Milestones.)

One will also note that Ratzinger/Benedict wrote in his Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum" that the 1962 Missal "was never judicially abrogated" even though he had written in Milestones the exact opposite:

The prohibition of the missal that was now decreed, a missal that had known continuous growth over the centuries, starting with the sacramentaries of the ancient Church, introduced a breach into the history of the liturgy whose consequences could only be tragic. (Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Explanatory Letter on "Summorum Pontificum," July 7. 2007.)

There is no need to rewrite the laundry list of "Pope" Benedict XVI's "papal" apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges as I did so fairly comprehensively in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now.

It would be wise to provide just one pictorial image of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's esteeming the Koran at the John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington, District of Columbia, Thursday, April 17, 2008, before returning to interview that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis gave to the octogenarian atheist, Eugenio Scalfari, that was published earlier this week in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica:

The silence from the "resist while recognize" crowd about this at the time was deafening.

Defend the honor and majesty and glory of God?

Defend the integrity of the binding precepts of the First Commandment?

No, no, no. All of that had to give way in favor of a "strategy" to keep Summorum Pontificum in place, thereby giving Ratzinger/Benedict precisely what he wanted in exchange for issuing that Motu proprio: total submission to his every word and deed as the "authoritative" interpreter of the "Second" Vatican Council.

As Ratzinger/Benedict is discovering much to his own personal dismay, however, his own belief that the dogmatic pronouncements of Holy Mother Church's true general councils and papal encyclical letters and the anti-Modernist decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pope Saint Pius X become obsolete in the "particulars they contain" after they had fulfilled the specific time-conditioned purpose for which they were intended has come back to bite him. You see, why should Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis consider himself any more bound to accept Ratzinger/Benedict's decisions when than the now-retired "pope," who believes that Bergoglio/Francis inflicted a "wound" upon Summorum Pontificum by prohibiting the presbyters in the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate from staging the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (see Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part two, Francis: The Latest In A Long Line Of Ecclesiastical Tyrants and Francis, The Out-Of-Control And Uncontrollable Antipope)?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is acting in complete conformity with Ratzinger/Benedict's assertion that the statements and decisions of past popes are merely provisional, and he has no one to blame for himself for the "wound" caused to Summorum Pontificum as he was a major force behind-the-scenes at the "Second" Vatican Council and thus set into motion the instability that has followed and that has now reached its penultimate expression under his, Bergoglio/Francis's, direction in conjunction with his hand-picked pack of revolutionary Commissars.

Revolutions really do eat their own.

Just ask Maximilian Robespierre or Leon Trotsky

Indeed, just ask Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI himself..

Meanwhile, Back at the Casa Santa Marta

Returning now to Jorge Mario Bergoglio's interview with Eugenio Scalfari, the former editor of the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, one with open eyes will continue to see the mind and heart of a pure Modernist at work:

Scalfari: And you think that mystics have been important for the Church?

Bergoglio: "They have been fundamental. A religion without mystics is a philosophy."

Scalfari: Do you have a mystical vocation?

Bergoglio: "What do you think?"

Scalfari: I wouldn't think so.

Bergoglio: "You're probably right. I love the mystics; Francis also was in many aspects of his life, but I do not think I have the vocation and then we must understand the deep meaning of that word. The mystic manages to strip himself of action, of facts, objectives and even the pastoral mission and rises until he reaches communion with the Beatitudes. Brief moments but which fill an entire life."

Scalfari: Has that ever happened to you?

Bergoglio: "Rarely. For example, when the conclave elected me Pope. Before I accepted I asked if I could spend a few minutes in the room next to the one with the balcony overlooking the square. My head was completely empty and I was seized by a great anxiety. To make it go way and relax I closed my eyes and made every thought disappear, even the thought of refusing to accept the position, as the liturgical procedure allows. I closed my eyes and I no longer had any anxiety or emotion. At a certain point I was filled with a great light. It lasted a moment, but to me it seemed very long. Then the light faded, I got up suddenly and walked into the room where the cardinals were waiting and the table on which was the act of acceptance. I signed it, the Cardinal Camerlengo countersigned it and then on the balcony there was the '"Habemus Papam".

Scalfari: We were silent for a moment, then I said: we were talking about the saints that you feel closest to your soul and we were left with Augustine. Will you tell me why you feel very close to him?

Bergoglio: "Even for my predecessor Augustine is a reference point. That saint went through many vicissitudes in his life and changed his doctrinal position several times. He also had harsh words for the Jews, which I never shared. He wrote many books and what I think is most revealing of his intellectual and spiritual intimacy are the "Confessions", which also contain some manifestations of mysticism, but he is not, as many would argue, a continuation of Paul. Indeed, he sees the Church and the faith in very different ways than Paul, perhaps four centuries passed between one and the other."

Scalfari: What is the difference, Your Holiness?

Bergoglio: "For me it lies in two substantial aspects. Augustine feels powerless in the face of the immensity of God and the tasks that a Christian and a bishop has to fulfill. In fact he was by no means powerless, but he felt that his soul was always less than he wanted and needed it to be. And then the grace dispensed by the Lord as a basic element of faith. Of life. Of the meaning of life. Someone who is not touched by grace may be a person without blemish and without fear, as they say, but he will never be like a person who has touched grace. This is Augustine's insight."

Scalfari: Do you feel touched by grace?

Bergoglio: "No one can know that. Grace is not part of consciousness, it is the amount of light in our souls, not knowledge nor reason. Even you, without knowing it, could be touched by grace."

Scalfari: Without faith? A non-believer?

Bergoglio: "Grace regards the soul."

Scalfari: I do not believe in the soul.

Bergoglio: "You do not believe in it but you have one."

Scalfari: Your Holiness, you said that you have no intention of trying to convert me and I do not think you would succeed.

Bergoglio: "We cannot know that, but I don't have any such intention." (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)

Well, there you have it once again from Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis' own lips: he has no intention of seeking with urgency the unconditional conversion of Eugenio Scalfari to the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order. This is especially irresponsible when one considers the fact that Scalfari is eighty-seven years old, the same age as Ratzinger/Benedict himself. He could be called to his Particular Judgment at any time. Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not discharge his duty to the immortal soul of Eugenio Scalfari. Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not perform his duty before God.

Indeed, even though Bergoglio/Francis was correct to tell the atheist Scalfari that he had a soul, he could have illustrated this fact with a simple apologetic argument that is contained in a old text book for high school apologetics that I used as a religious education instructor over thirty years ago now. It is an argument that I adopted immediately in my college classes at Nassau Community College and at Saint John's University at a time I was teaching full-time (five courses) at the former and as an adjunct (two graduate courses) at the latter during the 1982-1983 academic year.

The argument is this: an atheistic surgeon once debated a Catholic about the existence of God and of the soul.

The surgeon said, "I've performed many surgeries. I have never seen a soul."

The Catholic apologist asked, "Have you ever performed any brain surgeries?", to which the apologist answer, "Yes, I have.

The apologist then asked the perfect rhetorical question: "Have you ever seen an idea?"

Bergoglio/Francis said merely that Scalfari had a soul, but he compounded the matter by refusing to clearly delineate Catholic teaching concerning Prevenient Grace, about which none other than Saint Augustine himself had written and which the Council of Trent defined as the grace given by God to move a soul to conversion and hence their Justification by means of Sanctifying Grace:

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God. (Decree on Justification, Council of Trent, Sixth Session, January 13, 1547.)

Then again, Bergoglio/Francis is already on record as having said that "doing good" is all an atheist needs to do to please God even though none of the good works of an atheist are meritorious before God. The mere performance of good works is not salvific absent Sanctifying Grace in the soul, something that Saint Thomas Aquinas taught in the Summa Theologica:

Objection 1. It would seem that each act of an unbeliever is a sin. Because a gloss on Romans 14:23, "All that is not of faith is sin," says: "The whole life of unbelievers is a sin." Now the life of unbelievers consists of their actions. Therefore every action of an unbeliever is a sin.

Objection 2. Further, faith directs the intention. Now there can be no good save what comes from a right intention. Therefore, among unbelievers, no action can be good.

Objection 3. Further, when that which precedes is corrupted, that which follows is corrupted also. Now an act of faith precedes the acts of all the virtues. Therefore, since there is no act of faith in unbelievers, they can do no good work, but sin in every action of theirs.

On the contrary, It is said of Cornelius, while yet an unbeliever (Acts 10:4-31), that his alms were acceptable to God. Therefore not every action of an unbeliever is a sin, but some of his actions are good.

I answer that, As stated above (I-II, 85, 2,4) mortal sin takes away sanctifying grace, but does not wholly corrupt the good of nature. Since therefore, unbelief is a mortal sin, unbelievers are without grace indeed, yet some good of nature remains in them. Consequently it is evident that unbelievers cannot do those good works which proceed from grace, viz. meritorious works; yet they can, to a certain extent, do those good works for which the good of nature suffices.

Hence it does not follow that they sin in everything they do; but whenever they do anything out of their unbelief, then they sin. For even as one who has the faith, can commit an actual sin, venial or even mortal, which he does not refer to the end of faith, so too, an unbeliever can do a good deed in a matter which he does not refer to the end of his unbelief.

Reply to Objection 1. The words quoted must be taken to mean either that the life of unbelievers cannot be sinless, since without faith no sin is taken away, or that whatever they do out of unbelief, is a sin. Hence the same authority adds: "Because every one that lives or acts according to his unbelief, sins grievously."

Reply to Objection 2. Faith directs the intention with regard to the supernatural last end: but even the light of natural reason can direct the intention in respect of a connatural good.

Reply to Objection 3. Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them, whereby they are able to do deeds that are generically good. With regard, however, to Cornelius, it is to be observed that he was not an unbeliever, else his works would not have been acceptable to God, whom none can please without faith. Now he had implicit faith, as the truth of the Gospel was not yet made manifest: hence Peter was sent to him to give him fuller instruction in the faith.  (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Question 10, Article 4.)

In other words, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis offends God greatly whenever he reaffirms an atheist in the belief that "doing good" and following his "conscience" is that God expects of Him. This is manifestly false.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, who believes himself a true and valid Successor of Saint Peter, did not do what Saint Peter himself had done, namely, to give instruction in the Faith. He was content to have an amicable discussion with an elderly man who could meet Christ the King at the moment of his Particular Judgment sooner than most others. Then again, Bergoglio himself will be seventy-seven years of age on December 17, 2013. He does not seem to be particularly concerned about his Particular Judgment.

Moreover, while a Catholic can never be assured of his salvation, which is why he must work it out in fear on trembling by cooperating with the Sanctifying Graces won for him by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ on the wood of the Holy Cross and that flow into his immortal soul through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, he can know that whatever good promptings he has to assist regularly and well at Holy Mass and to be faithful in prayer and to treat others as he would treat Our Lord Himself are the workings of grace in his soul. We do not do such things on our own. Bergoglio is very much mistaken.

Catholics do indeed know that they have received the Supernatural Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity infused into their immortal souls at the moment of Baptism, and that even soul in a state of Mortal Sin, although it loses Charity, still have the embers of Baptismal grace by means of possessing Faith and Hope. Catholics are supposed to pray the Acts of Faith, Hope, Love and Contrition every day to beg for the grace necessary to save their souls and to express sorrow for their sins without either despairing of their salvation or of presuming it. Yes, Jorge, we know these are truths because we assent to everything that God has revealed unto us through His Catholic Church without an iota of dissent, reservation, qualification, ambiguity, doubt, paradox or hesitation.

Insofar as Bergoglio's "mystical experience" when "elected" by his brother apostates on Wednesday, March 13, 2013, is concerned, suffice it to say that he, the man who contends that we cannot know whether we have grace, can know when he experiences "light," albeit a fleeting one before darkness entered into his soul. Lucifer was the light-bearer, I seem to recall. He is know the Prince of Darkness as Satan, whose able assistant Jorge Mario Bergoglio is no matter those occasions when he chooses to speak in a fairly Catholic manner while slipping in a drop of poison or two by means of his use of well-chosen code-words that are meant to appeal to the sensus Catholicus while meaning something entirely different.

This will made very clear in the next part of the Bergoglio-Scalfari interview to be examined here:

Scalfari: And St. Francis?

Bergoglio: "He's great because he is everything. He is a man who wants to do things, wants to build, he founded an order and its rules, he is an itinerant and a missionary, a poet and a prophet, he is mystical. He found evil in himself and rooted it out. He loved nature, animals, the blade of grass on the lawn and the birds flying in the sky. But above all he loved people, children, old people, women. He is the most shining example of that agape we talked about earlier."

Scalfari: Your Holiness is right, the description is perfect. But why did none of your predecessors ever choose that name? And I believe that after you no one else will choose it.

Bergoglio: "We do not know that, let's not speculate about the future. True, no one chose it before me. Here we face the problem of problems. Would you like something to drink?"

Scalfari: Thank you, maybe a glass of water.

He gets up, opens the door and asks someone in the entrance to bring two glasses of water. He asks me if I want a coffee, I say no. The water arrives. At the end of our conversation, my glass will be empty, but his will remain full. He clears his throat and begins.

Bergoglio: "Francis wanted a mendicant order and an itinerant one. Missionaries who wanted to meet, listen, talk, help, to spread faith and love. Especially love. And he dreamed of a poor Church that would take care of others, receive material aid and use it to support others, with no concern for itself. 800 years have passed since then and times have changed, but the ideal of a missionary, poor Church is still more than valid. This is still the Church that Jesus and his disciples preached about." ((The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)

A bit of time needs to be spent on this as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's remarks to Eugenio Scalfari were unvarnished, unfiltered. The false "pontiff" was a bit more careful today, Friday, October 4, 2013, the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi, when he visited Assisi, Italy, speaking in what some are considering very firm terms as a  believing Catholic. In truth, though, Bergoglio managed to place a few drops of poison to demonstrate the perfect continuity between the remarks contained in the entirety of his interview with Eugenio Scalfari and those he gave earlier today.

Some, for example, are lauding Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis for criticizing worldliness, something that is indeed good in and of itself. However, Bergoglio/Francis believes that the Catholic Church has been too "worldly" in her Sacred Liturgy over the centuries and that she has been too "involved" with temporal politics and too eager to assert clerical privileges and to favor the well-born over the poor. Consider the full context of the remarks he delivered today while addressing some of the people who live in poverty in and around Assisi:

(Vatican Radio) Christians and the Church must strip themselves of worldliness, said Pope Francis while addressing some of the poor in the Italian hill town of Assisi early Friday. The Pope offered this message in the same hall in which St. Francis, about 800 years ago, undressed himself and laid his fine clothes at his wealthy father’s feet, renouncing his riches and inheritance in favour of a life of poverty consecrated to God.

The Pope once again put aside his prepared speech and began his impromptu remarks by debunking a notion that had circulated in the press in recent days: that he would imitate St. Francis by divesting the bishops, the cardinals and himself, as well. However, he said, today serves as a good occasion to invite the Church to strip itself of worldliness.

All of the baptized comprise the Church and all have to follow Jesus, who stripped himself and chose to be a servant and to be humiliated on his way to the Cross. “And if we want to be Christians, there is no other way,” he said.

Without the Cross, without Jesus and without stripping ourselves of worldliness, he said, “we become pastry shop Christians… like nice sweet things but not real Christians.”

“We need to strip the Church,” he said. “We are in very grave danger. We are in danger of worldliness.”

The Christian cannot enter into the spirit of the world, which leads to vanity, arrogance and pride, he continued. And these lead to idolatry, which is the gravest sin.

The Church is not just the clergy, the hierarchy and religious, he said. “The Church is all of us and we all have to strip ourselves of this worldliness. Worldliness does us harm. It is so sad to find a worldly Christian.”

“Our Lord told us: We cannot serve two masters: either we serve money or we serve God.…We can’t cancel with one hand what we write with another,” he remarked. “The Gospel is the Gospel.”

The Pope acknowledged the local poor who were gathered with him, saying: “Many of you have been stripped by this savage world that does not give work, that does not help, that does not care if children die of hunger …, that does not care if many families do not have anything to eat or money to bring bread home.”

Referring to the hundreds of refugees who died in a shipwreck off the Italian island of Lampedusa Thursday , the Pope lamented the large numbers of people who die trying to escape dire conditions in their home countries.

It is ridiculous that a Christian would want to follow a worldly path, he continued. “The worldly spirit kills; it kills people; it kills the Church.”

The Pope then asked the Lord to bestow upon Christians the courage to strip themselves of the spirit of the world, which he called “the leprosy, the cancer of society and the cancer of the revelation of God and the enemy of Jesus.”

He concluded: “I ask the Lord that he gives us all the grace to strip ourselves.” (Antipope in Assisi: Christians must strip themselves of worldliness.)

Far from being an expression of orthodox Catholicism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's unscripted remarks,which differed somewhat from the "homily" earlier today during his staging of the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service is nothing other than the work of radical ecclesiastical revolutionary.

Bergoglio/Francis was not even clever in shifting from a denial of any desire to "strip" the "bishops" or "himself" to asserting that what he thinks is the Catholic Church is in danger "because of worldliness," implying that mere men had created "structures" that have interfered with the transmission of the Gospel in all of its primitive simplicity. He truly believes that his false church's "bishops" and priests/presbyters have to "strip" themselves of their "comforts" so as to "serve the people where they live."

Remember, this is the man who told priests/presbyters in Brazil during his visit there from July 22, 2013, to July 28, 2013, that they needed to "get out their sacristies" to be "with the people," positing a false dichotomy between the sacerdotal work of a priest and the Corporal Works of Mercy, for which the Apostles themselves chose worthy men, the first deacons of the Church, to serve the needs of widows and the poor. For Bergoglio/Francis to say that what he thinks is the Catholic Church must strip herself of her "worldliness" is to say that all remnants of Faith, Worship, Morals and pastoral practice that smack of the Middle Ages must be eliminated in the name of "serving the people" when it is nothing other than placing the final Protestantizing and Judaizing touches on the counterfeit church of conciliarism.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis continued along those same lines earlier today when he visiting the Franciscan Serafico Institute of Assisi to address (and caress and touch) the disabled children and young people and their care-givers, implying an equality between the Real Presence of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament and His presence in the souls of the sick, the suffering and the wounded:

After words of welcome from the mayor of Assisi, Claudio Ricci, and the president of the Serafico Institute, Francesca Di Maolo, the Pope addressed the people gathered. He put aside his prepared message and, obviously inspired by his encounter, spoke off the cuff, comparing the scars of Christ to the suffering carried by the young people before him. “These scars (in the sick) need to be recognized and listened to,” he said. After the Resurrection, Jesus appeared to his Apostles, who recognized him by his scars.

Referring to the Eucharist in the tabernacle, he said: “Jesus chooses to be present there in the simplicity and meekness of the bread. And Jesus is hidden in these children, these young people.”

“A Christian adores Jesus, seeks Jesus, knows how to recognize the scars of Jesus. “When Jesus rose he was beautiful,” he continued. “He didn’t have his wounds on his body, but he wanted to keep the scars, and he brought them with him to heaven. The scars of Jesus are here, and they are in heaven before the Father. We care for the scars of Jesus here, and he from heaven shows us his scars and tells all of us, ‘I am waiting for you’.” (Antipope's Visit to Seraphicum Institute of Assisi.)

Alas, the Vatican Radio report was incomplete, lacking the full context in which Bergoglio/Francis had equated Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament with His presence in others, and it is important to see this full context in order to demonstrate that I am not being in the least bit unfair or unjust to the false "pontiff" by stating he meant to imply such an equality:

He said the local bishop, Domenico Sorrentino, had told him that they have permanent Eucharistic adoration in this institute, and he reminded them that just as Jesus is hidden in the Eucharistic bread, so too he is hidden “in these children with their wounds”. (Anti-Francis in Assisi.)

This is standard conciliar revolutionary talk that is part and parcel of the hijacked Liturgical Movement.

Consider, please, the following statement from a set of "guidelines" issued in 2000 by the conciliar-occupied Diocese of Saint Petersburg, Florida, on what purported to be Eucharistic adoration:

"Christ present in the Eucharist presupposes his presence in the assembly gathered for common prayer, his presence in the word, his presence in the minister, and his presence in the sharing of the eucharistic bread and cup. Therefore, private devotion and adoration of the reserved Blessed Sacrament should lead the faithful to a fuller appreciation of the communal dimension of the Mass." (As found in Thomas A. Droleskey, "St. Petersburg Diocese Announces End Of Regular Exposition Of The Blessed Sacrament, The Wanderer, September 7, 2000. The article in which this quote is contained was written when I still accepted the "papal" legitimacy of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, although I was by then an "indulterer.")

The man who issued these guidelines, the nefarious acolyte of Joseph "Cardinal" (seamless garment) Bernardin, "Bishop" Robert Lynch, went on to state the following on June 12, 2000, when he was criticized for issuing them:

"Although exposition of the Blessed Sacrament may help foster devotion to Christ's presence in the Eucharist, a parish's first priority is well-planned and well-celebrated Masses. Parishes seeking to inaugurate or restore eucharistic devotions should reflect on their practices during the communion rite and their commitment of time and money (stewardship) to social services. Are they as respectful and reverent toward Christ's presence in the gathered Body, the Church, as they are to the presence of Christ in the Sacrament? Is the fuller expression of the Eucharist under the forms of bread and wine being offered to the faithful at all Masses? Does the eucharistic bread look like bread? Does the parish carefully prepare enough communion for the gathered assembly instead of routinely going to the tabernacle? Does the eucharistic procession take its own time or is the focus to try to get through the communion rite as efficiently and expediently as possible? Do the eucharistic ministers reflect the parish, i.e., inclusive of age, ethnicity, and gender? Have the eucharistic ministers been properly trained and is their formation ongoing? Is the Eucharist being brought to members of the parish who cannot gather on Sunday because of sickness or advanced age? When these issues have been addressed, then the deeper understanding that Christ intended in the Eucharist will be achieved. (As found in Thomas A. Droleskey, "St. Petersburg Diocese Announces End Of Regular Exposition Of The Blessed Sacrament, The Wanderer, September 7, 2000.)

This is standard-issue "sacramental theology" in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, and it is heresy, yes, every single bit of it, and it is heresy that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis himself embraces, which he why he spoke as did earlier today in Assisi. It must remembered that Bergoglio/Francis has repeatedly criticized those who spend their time in prayer rather than "doing good where the people live." Indeed, he did so just eight days ago, that is, on Thursday, September 26, 2013, the Feast of the North American Martyrs and the Commemoration of Saints Cyprian and Justina (see Francis The Ecclesiastical Agitator), and this is where his misrepresentation of Saint Francis of Assisi to Eugenio Scalfari

Yes, of course, we are called to see Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the souls of all those whom God's Providence places in our paths every day of our lives. This is without question.

Our Lord's Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament, however, is where He dwells as a Prisoner of Love for us so that we can adore Him and receive infused graces from spending time with Him, infused graces that enable us all the better to be divested of self and to be more like Our Lord for all others and better able to see Him in others. The Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament is His Presence makes it possible for us to abide with Him in this mortal, vale of tears as a preparation to increase our longing to be with Him for all eternity in Heaven, and those who have spent their entire lives in Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration in cloistered monasteries throughout the ages have had just as much, if not more, a concern for the spiritual and temporal needs of those who suffer and/or who have been abandoned as those who serve them personally.

By implying, however subtly, that Our Lord is present equally in the poor and those who suffer Bergoglio is demonstrating yet again that he is a true son of the conciliar liturgical revolution. For is the case that Saint Francis of Assisi spent long, long hours in prayer before the Most Blessed Sacrament in the Portiuncula, doing so as he lay prostrate on the cold floor. This is what enabled him to better to serve the poor and to preach the full Gospel to them without any diminution or even the trace of heresy.

Saint Francis of Assisi's hatred of heresy, however, was never mentioned by Bergoglio/Francis in his interview with Eugenio Scalfari on Tuesday, September 24, 2013, the Feast of Our Lady of Ransom, and it was not heard earlier today in Assisi during visit there. It is nevertheless the case that Saint Francis of Assisi preached against heresy throughout his life of prayer, penance, fasting and profound bodily mortifications that the false "pontiff" has castigated and condemned (see Francis The Insidious Little Pest).

Here is a little review:

"In the history of the Church there have been some mistakes made on the path towards God. Some have believed that the Living God, the God of Christians can be found on the path of meditation, indeed that we can reach higher through meditation. That's dangerous! How many are lost on that path, never to return. Yes perhaps they arrive at knowledge of God, but not of Jesus Christ, Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity. They do not arrive at that. It is the path of the Gnostics, no? They are good, they work, but it is not the right path. It’s very complicated and does not lead to a safe harbor. "

"Others - the Pope said - thought that to arrive at God we must mortify ourselves, we have to be austere and have chosen the path of penance: only penance and fasting. Not even these arrive at the Living God, Jesus Christ. They are the pelagians, who believe that they can arrive by their own efforts. " But Jesus tells us that the path to encountering Him is to find His wounds:

"We find Jesus’ wounds in carrying out works of mercy, giving to our body – the body – the soul too, but – I stress - the body of your wounded brother, because he is hungry, because he is thirsty, because he is naked because it is humiliated, because he is a slave, because he's in jail because he is in the hospital. Those are the wounds of Jesus today. And Jesus asks us to take a leap of faith, towards Him, but through these His wounds. 'Oh, great! Let's set up a foundation to help everyone and do so many good things to help '. That's important, but if we remain on this level, we will only be philanthropic. We need to touch the wounds of Jesus, we must caress the wounds of Jesus, we need to bind the wounds of Jesus with tenderness, we have to kiss the wounds of Jesus, and this literally. Just think of what happened to St. Francis, when he embraced the leper? The same thing that happened to Thomas: his life changed. "

Pope Francis concluded that we do not need to go on a “refresher course” to touch the living God, but to enter into the wounds of Jesus, and for this "all we have to do is go out onto the street. Let us ask St. Thomas for the grace to have the courage to enter into the wounds of Jesus with tenderness and thus we will certainly have the grace to worship the living God. " (We encounter the Living God through His wounds.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is not ignorant about the life of Saint Francis of Assisi. He simply chooses to present those aspects of the Seraphic Saint's life that conform to the "conciliar orientation" while dismissing those he believes have become "outdated." He blasphemes Saint Francis of Assisi and all of the holy souls who practiced severe bodily mortifications, including one of the earliest Third Order Franciscans, Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, who did indeed have and practice self-sacrificial charity and service to the poor of her husband's kingdom in Thuringia, as a path to spiritual perfection and unite themselves more fully with the Suffering Christ the King in the persons of the members of His Mystical Body, the Church Militant, here on earth.

Conciliarism's airbrushing of history must also flush down the Orwellian memory hole the fact Saint Francis of Assisi and his followers not only hated heresy and unbelief but sought to convert heretics and infidels out of love for God and out of love for the immortal souls of those steeped error and unbelief. Saint Francis himself desired martyrdom in his quest to convert Mohammedans the Crusades, and the Franciscan Pro to martyrs were killed by Mohammedans in Morocco in North Africa on January 16, 1220, as the mendicant friars had begun their efforts to convert the infidels by the preaching of the Holy Gospel. Saint Anthony of Padua himself desired this martyrdom, and it was only because the ship on which he had set sail was blown off course that he arrived in Italy, where he became known as the "Hammer of Heretics."

Saint Fidelis of Sigmaringen, O.F.M. Cap., gave up his life to that hideous group of people known as Calvinists on April 24, 1622, wrote the following about heresy, which characterizes the life and work of Jorge Mario Bergoglio:

"I came to extirpate heresy, not to embrace it." (See Another Contrast With Concilairism: Saint Fidelis.)

Although contained also in today's republished article, From Riches to Lady Poverty to Eternal Treasures, it is useful to quote again from Pope Pope Pius XI's s stirring depiction of the Seraphic Saint of Assisi in Rite Expiatis, April 13, 1926, concerning Saint Francis's love of Church discipline and his burning desire to maintain the Holy Faith in all of Its inviolability:

What evil they do and how far from a true appreciation of the Man of Assisi are they who, in order to bolster up their fantastic and erroneous ideas about him, imagine such an incredible thing as that Francis was an opponent of the discipline of the Church, that he did not accept the dogmas of the Faith, that he was the precursor and prophet of that false liberty which began to manifest itself at the beginning of modern times and which has caused so many disturbances both in the Church and in civil society! That he was in a special manner obedient and faithful in all things to the hierarchy of the Church, to this Apostolic See, and to the teachings of Christ, the Herald of the Great King proved both to Catholics and nonCatholics by the admirable example of obedience which he always gave. It is a fact proven by contemporary documents, which are worthy of all credence, "that he held in veneration the clergy, and loved with a great affection all who were in holy orders." (Thomas of Celano, Legenda, Chap. I, No. 62) "As a man who was truly Catholic and apostolic, he insisted above all things in his sermons that the faith of the Holy Roman Church should always be preserved and inviolably, and that the priests who by their ministry bring into being the sublime Sacrament of the Lord, should therefore be held in the highest reverence. He also taught that the doctors of the law of God and all the orders of clergy should be shown the utmost respect at all times." (Julian a Spira, Life of St. Francis, No. 28) That which he taught to the people from the pulpit he insisted on much more strongly among his friars. We may read of this in his famous last testament and, again, at the very point of death he admonished them about this with great insistence, namely, that in the exercise of the sacred ministry they should always obey the bishops and the clergy and should live together with them as it behooves children of peace. (Pius XI, Rite expiatis)

Those reading this commentary should understand that Jorge Mario Bergoglio, no matter how he might speak now and again, is the living, breathing antithesis of the true spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi just as much as he is the antithesis of Christ the King Himself.

Bergoglio/Francis's very manifest heretical spirit extends to the realm of Church-State relations, something that was brought out with great clarity in his interview with Eugenio Scalfari:

Scalfari: You Christians are now a minority. Even in Italy, which is known as the pope's backyard. Practicing Catholics, according to some polls, are between 8 and 15 percent. Those who say they are Catholic but in fact are not very are about 20%. In the world, there are a billion Catholics or more, and with other Christian churches there are over a billion and a half, but the population of the planet is 6 or 7 billion people. There are certainly many of you, especially in Africa and Latin America, but you are a minority.

Bergoglio: "We always have been but the issue today is not that. Personally I think that being a minority is actually a strength. We have to be a leavening of life and love and the leavening is infinitely smaller than the mass of fruits, flowers and trees that are born out of it. I believe I have already said that our goal is not to proselytize but to listen to needs, desires and disappointments, despair, hope. We must restore hope to young people, help the old, be open to the future, spread love. Be poor among the poor. We need to include the excluded and preach peace. Vatican II, inspired by Pope Paul VI and John, decided to look to the future with a modern spirit and to be open to modern culture. The Council Fathers knew that being open to modern culture meant religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers. But afterwards very little was done in that direction. I have the humility and ambition to want to do something." (Antipope in Assisi: Christians must strip themselves of worldliness.)

Remarkable.

Just remarkable.

No "proselytism," which is the conciliar manner of disparaging any effort to seek converts (so much for the Legion of Mary).

Modern culture?

Yes, the "modern culture" about whose evils we must not "obsess," a "modern culture" where blasphemy, indecency and immodesty abound are are celebrated, a "modern culture" that denies the Sovereignty of God over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage and subjects the innocent preborn to arbitrary execution in their mothers' wombs by chemical and surgical means, a "modern culture" that, most of all, the creation of the devil in the wake of the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Yes, that "modern culture" is the one to which Bergoglio/Francis, an admirer of the immoral films of the late Federico Fellini, desired to be more "open to" in order to engage in "religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers."

That modern culture.

One has to ask whether Joge Mario Bergoglio is clinically insane. I mean, where has this man been living for the past fifty years?

"Not enough" has been done to advance "religious ecumenism and dialogue with non-believers"?

Has this man never heard of Assisi I, Assisi II and Assisi III (see Outcome Based Conciliar Math: Assisi I + Assisi II  + Assisi III = A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y)?

Has this man never seen his predecessors as the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism enter into temples of false worship, bow and scrape before the "clergy" of non-Catholic religions, esteem the symbols of false religions and attempt to give "joint blessings" with some of those "clergy"?

Has this man never read the endless allocutions of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI concerning the importance of ecumenism as they have praised one false religion after another, including Judaism has never having been superseded by the Catholic Faith?

"Not enough" blasphemy, sacrilege and apostasy has been committed?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is mad, especially when one considers the fact that he has been one of the chief practitioners of false ecumenism, including being "blessed" by a group of Protestant "ministers" in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 2006 and participating in an endless array of blasphemous, sacrilegious events in Talmudic synagogues.

"Not enough" has been done?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio continues to commit, objectively speaking, one Mortal Sin after another by praying Talmudic prayers, which, of course, just happen to deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, with his favorite pro-abortion, pro-perversity rabbi, Abraham Skorka, including the ones he prayed with Skorka at the Casa Santa Marta inside the walls of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber, during the rabbi's recent stay there:

(JNS.org) Argentine Rabbi Abraham Skorka made history when he spent several days in the Vatican living together with Pope Francis I over the Sukkot holiday.

I eat with him at breakfast, lunch and dinner every day. He cares for me, and controls everything regarding my food to makes sure it is all kosher, and according to my religious tradition,” Skorka told the Italian daily La Stampa, which covers Vatican affairs.

“These are festive days, and I have to say certain prayers at meals and, I expand the last prayer and translate it. He accompanies me together with the others at table—his secretaries and a bishop, and they all say ‘Amen’ at the end,” Skorka said.

According to Skorka, who is rector of the Latin American Rabbinic Seminary, his friendship with Pope Francis began in 1997 when Francis, known at the time as Jorge Mario Bergoglio, became Coadjutor Archbishop of Buenos Aires. Skorka said that while their close friendship might be shocking to some, he believes that “history is made more by action than by political reasoning.”

“We hold to different traditions, but we are creating a dialogue that has not existed for centuries. Both of us believe that God has something to do with our friendship and with what we are doing,” he said.

Skorka also revealed that he is planning to travel to Israel with Pope Francis next year.

“I dream of embracing him at the Kotel, or Wailing Wall, and I will accompany him to Bethlehem, in the Palestinian territories. His presence can help a lot at this moment when the peace talks are starting again,” Skorka said. (Antipope Francis I, Argentine rabbi make history by spending Sukkot together.)

No one--and I mean no one--can point to the "homily" he gave in Assisi, Italy, yesterday to attempt to redeem Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's acts of apostasy. This man speaks of "love," but he has no true love for God as He has revealed Himself to us exclusively through His Catholic Church. He commits heinous sin after another against the binding precepts of the First and Second Commandments as he denies multiple articles of the Catholic Faith, and to accord him any other status than that of enemy of Christ the King and the souls that He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross is to offend truth grievously.

Indeed, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis has no regard whatsoever for the Social Reign of Christ the King, believing that Holy Mother Church has no role to play in temporal affairs, sharing this entirely, of course, with his conciliar predecessors, including Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI:

Scalfari: Also because - I allow myself to add - modern society throughout the world is going through a period of deep crisis, not only economic but also social and spiritual. At the beginning of our meeting you described a generation crushed under the weight of the present. Even we non-believers feel this almost anthropological weight. That is why we want dialogue with believers and those who best represent them.

Bergoglio: "I don't know if I'm the best of those who represent them, but providence has placed me at the head of the Church and the Diocese of Peter. I will do what I can to fulfill the mandate that has been entrusted to me."

Scalfari: Jesus, as you pointed out, said: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Do you think that this has happened?

Bergoglio: "Unfortunately, no. Selfishness has increased and love towards others declined."

Scalfari: So this is the goal that we have in common: at least to equalize the intensity of these two kinds of love. Is your Church ready and equipped to carry out this task?

Bergoglio: "What do you think?"

Scalfari: I think love for temporal power is still very strong within the Vatican walls and in the institutional structure of the whole Church. I think that the institution dominates the poor, missionary Church that you would like.

Bergoglio: "In fact, that is the way it is, and in this area you cannot perform miracles. Let me remind you that even Francis in his time held long negotiations with the Roman hierarchy and the Pope to have the rules of his order recognized. Eventually he got the approval but with profound changes and compromises."

Scalfari: Will you have to follow the same path?

Bergoglio: "I'm not Francis of Assisi and I do not have his strength and his holiness. But I am the Bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic world. The first thing I decided was to appoint a group of eight cardinals to be my advisers. Not courtiers but wise people who share my own feelings. This is the beginning of a Church with an organization that is not just top-down but also horizontal. When Cardinal Martini talked about focusing on the councils and synods he knew how long and difficult it would be to go in that direction. Gently, but firmly and tenaciously."

Scalfari: And politics?

Bergoglio: "Why do you ask? I have already said that the Church will not deal with politics."

Scalfari: But just a few days ago you appealed to Catholics to engage civilly and politically.

Bergoglio: "I was not addressing only Catholics but all men of good will. I say that politics is the most important of the civil activities and has its own field of action, which is not that of religion. Political institutions are secular by definition and operate in independent spheres. All my predecessors have said the same thing, for many years at least, albeit with different accents. I believe that Catholics involved in politics carry the values of their religion within them, but have the mature awareness and expertise to implement them. The Church will never go beyond its task of expressing and disseminating its values, at least as long as I'm here."

Scalfari: But that has not always being the case with the Church.

Bergoglio: "It has almost never been the case. Often the Church as an institution has been dominated by temporalism and many members and senior Catholic leaders still feel this way. (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)

As was the case with Karl Marx himself, who observed real injustices being done to the laboring classes by the exercise of unbridled Calvinist-Judeo-Masonic capitalism without understanding that their proximate root causes were to be found in the Protestant Revolution's overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis does not see that the suffering he observes in the world today has worsened as a result of his counterfeit church's "reconciliation" with the forces of Modernity, something that he believes was long overdue, and its false doctrines, including religious liberty and separation of Church and State, and false, sacrilegious and sacramentally barren liturgical rites, points that were made in part one of this series about a thousand years ago now (or so it seems to me).

As a true son of men such as John Locke, the father of modern liberalism who believed that a majority of reasonable men could join together to provide order in society by voluntarily relinquishing their claim to "total liberty" in order to enjoy the benefits of a well-ordered society and that men could "reform" those structures if they failed work to resolve problems, something that leads to an increase of statism and a decrease in the legitimate liberty of citizens, Jorge Mario Bergoglio believes that his false church needs the late Carlo Martini's reforms of the "top-down" hierarchy of what he thinks is the Catholic Church, thereby making a mockery of her very Divine Constitution (for more on Martini, please see part four). So much for not "stripping down" what he thinks is the Catholic Church.

As was the case with Locke, Bergoglio seeks address problems caused by the false premises upon which the structures he seeks to reform have been founded. Liberalism is nothing other than Pelagianism, the belief in human self-redemption, that human beings more or less stir up grace within themselves to make themselves better without any sacramental or supernatural helps. Concilarism is the expression of Modernism's embrace of liberalism, at least in no small measure, and is thus destined to keep falling apart at the seams as a direct consequence of its false premises, which include the rejection of the Social Reign of Christ the King.

Readers of this website know that Holy Mother Church does indeed teach that the civil state operates in a separate sphere of activity. Unlike what Bergoglio/Francis and the rest of his conciliar revolutionaries contend, however, Holy Mother Church has taught from time immemorial that those who govern the affairs of men temporally must pursue the common temporal good in light of man's Last End, the possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision in Heaven, and that they are limits that exist within the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law beyond which they are forbidden to transgress no matter popular sentiment or their own iron will.

Holy Mother Church has the duty, therefore, to remonstrate with civil leaders when the good of souls demands her motherly intervention after discharging her Indirect Power of teaching, preaching and exhortation, something that the great Third Order Franciscan, Saint Louis IX, King of France, understood and accepted as a truly loyal son of Holy Mother Church. Saint Louis IX, who led a Crusade and was a prisoner of the Mohammedans, heard two Masses a day, spent much time in prayer before the Most Blessed Sacrament, and he was one of the finest exemplars of justice to all, including the poor, as he ruled according to the Mind of His Divine Redeemer, Christ the King.

Saint Louis IX knew that a civil potentate such as himself had to obey the Sovereign Pontiff and the bishops in full communion with him, and did so in his own life with joy and gladness, instructing his son, the future King Philip III, to do the same:

1. To his dear first-born son, Philip, greeting, and his father's love.

2. Dear son, since I desire with all my heart that you be well "instructed in all things, it is in my thought to give you some advice this writing. For I have heard you say, several times, that you remember my words better than those of any one else.

3. Therefore, dear son, the first thing I advise is that you fix your whole heart upon God, and love Him with all your strength, for without this no one can be saved or be of any worth.

4. You should, with all your strength, shun everything which you believe to be displeasing to Him. And you ought especially to be resolved not to commit mortal sin, no matter what may happen and should permit all your limbs to be hewn off, and suffer every manner of torment , rather than fall knowingly into mortal sin. (Louis IX: Advice to His Son.)

31. Dear son, I advise you always to be devoted to the Church of Rome, and to the sovereign pontiff, our father, and to bear him the the reverence and honor which you owe to your spiritual father.

32. Dear son, freely give power to persons of good character, who know how to use it well, and strive to have wickednesses expelled from your land, that is to say, nasty oaths, and everything said or done against God or our Lady or the saints. In a wise and proper manner put a stop, in your land, to bodily sins, dicing, taverns, and other sins. Put down heresy so far as you can, and hold in especial abhorrence Jews, and all sorts of people who are hostile to the Faith, so that your land may be well purged of them, in such manner as, by the sage counsel of good people, may appear to you advisable. (Louis IX: Advice to His Son.)

This is not the teaching or the spirit of conciliarism, but it is the teaching and the spirit of the Catholic Church.

That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man's eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man's supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it. The same thesis also upsets the order providentially established by God in the world, which demands a harmonious agreement between the two societies. Both of them, the civil and the religious society, although each exercises in its own sphere its authority over them. It follows necessarily that there are many things belonging to them in common in which both societies must have relations with one another. Remove the agreement between Church and State, and the result will be that from these common matters will spring the seeds of disputes which will become acute on both sides; it will become more difficult to see where the truth lies, and great confusion is certain to arise. Finally, this thesis inflicts great injury on society itself, for it cannot either prosper or last long when due place is not left for religion, which is the supreme rule and the sovereign mistress in all questions touching the rights and the duties of men. Hence the Roman Pontiffs have never ceased, as circumstances required, to refute and condemn the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Our illustrious predecessor, Leo XIII, especially, has frequently and magnificently expounded Catholic teaching on the relations which should subsist between the two societies. "Between them," he says, "there must necessarily be a suitable union, which may not improperly be compared with that existing between body and soul.-"Quaedam intercedat necesse est ordinata colligatio (inter illas) quae quidem conjunctioni non immerito comparatur, per quam anima et corpus in homine copulantur." He proceeds: "Human societies cannot, without becoming criminal, act as if God did not exist or refuse to concern themselves with religion, as though it were something foreign to them, or of no purpose to them.... As for the Church, which has God Himself for its author, to exclude her from the active life of the nation, from the laws, the education of the young, the family, is to commit a great and pernicious error. -- "Civitates non possunt, citra scellus, gerere se tamquam si Deus omnino non esset, aut curam religionis velut alienam nihilque profuturam abjicere.... Ecclesiam vero, quam Deus ipse constituit, ab actione vitae excludere, a legibus, ab institutione adolescentium, a societate domestica, magnus et perniciousus est error."  (Pope Saint Pius X, Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906. Please see the appendix below for two other examples of Pope Saint Pius X's condemnation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic lie that is separation of Church and State.)

How can something that was absolutely false in 1906 become "true" in 2013?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis believes that the civil government's principal purpose is to serve the poor and to promote "brotherhood" in the name of "human dignity." 

Pope Saint Pius X explained that the civil government must aid us in effecting our Last End, telling us that our true popes have never ceased condemning the separation of Church and State when circumstances required them to do so.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis cites the authority of the conciliar "popes."

Who is correct?

Let Pope Pius XI explain the binding nature of the Catholic Church's teaching on the Church-State relations:

Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

Behold a moral, legal and social modernist, as well as a theological modernist.

Behold Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

Bergoglio/Francis is so bereft of the Catholic Faith that he cannot speak in clear terms as an Catholic apologist to an atheist about the existence of God and how He has revealed Himself to men through His true Church:

Scalfari: I am grateful for this question. The answer is this: I believe in Being, that is in the tissue from which forms, bodies arise.

Bergoglio: "And I believe in God, not in a Catholic God, there is no Catholic God, there is God and I believe in Jesus Christ, his incarnation. Jesus is my teacher and my pastor, but God, the Father, Abba, is the light and the Creator. This is my Being. Do you think we are very far apart?"(The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a blaspheming heretic.

God has revealed the entirety of His Divine Revelation, both Sacred Scripture and Sacred or Apostolic Tradition, exclusively through the Catholic Church. He guides It infallibly, none other. The Catholic religion is the one and only true religion, none other, and no other religion can please God as He loathes all false religions. It is heresy to believe, no less to speak, otherwise. Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "God" might as well be that of Judeo-Masonry itself.

The Fathers of the [First] Vatican Council, meeting under the authority of Pope Pius IX and teaching under the infallible guidance of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, decreed the following about God's identity, which is neither "Being," as Scalfari conjures, or mere "Transcendence," as contended by Bergoglio in an pathetic effort to convince Scalfari to believe in God:

1. The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, creator and lord of heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection.

2. Since he is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, he must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in himself and from himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides himself which either exists or can be imagined.

3. This one true God, by his goodness and almighty power, not with the intention of increasing his happiness, nor indeed of obtaining happiness, but in order to manifest his perfection by the good things which he bestows on what he creates, by an absolutely free plan, together from the beginning of time brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body [10].

4. Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well [11]. All things are open and laid bare to his eyes [12], even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.

1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. [13] 2. It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal himself and the eternal laws of his will to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way. This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [14].

3. It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason, can, even in the present state of the human race, be known by everyone without difficulty, with firm certitude and with no intermingling of error.

4. It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind; indeed eye has not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts to conceive what things God has prepared for those who love him [15].

5. Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us [16].

6. The complete books of the old and the new Testament with all their parts, as they are listed in the decree of the said Council and as they are found in the old Latin Vulgate edition, are to be received as sacred and canonical.

7. These books the Church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, nor simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the Church.

8. Now since the decree on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, profitably made by the Council of Trent, with the intention of constraining rash speculation, has been wrongly interpreted by some, we renew that decree and declare its meaning to be as follows: that in matters of faith and morals, belonging as they do to the establishing of Christian doctrine, that meaning of Holy Scripture must be held to be the true one, which Holy mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of Holy Scripture.

9. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret Holy Scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers. (Pope IX, Vatican Council, Session Three, April 24, 1870.)

Eugenio Scalfari does not believe this.

Having been influenced so much by Modernism, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is incapable of making any reference to the decrees of the Vatican Council or of even speaking as an identifiably Catholic to a self-professed atheist.

Moreover, Our Blessed and Saviour Jesus Christ was no mere teacher and pastor. He taught us the following in no uncertain terms:

[12] Again therefore, Jesus spoke to them, saying: I am the light of the world: he that followeth me, walketh not in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (John 8: 12.)

Only those who refuse to accept everything taught by Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ can say that He does not dispel the darkness of a disbelieving world. It is only those who dissent from His Received Teaching or who deny It outright can speak of darkness, which will indeed envelop the earth in times just as today when men refuse to accept His Sacred Deposit Faith and act in defiance of it.

Scalfari: We are distant in our thinking, but similar as human beings, unconsciously animated by our instincts that turn into impulses, feelings and will, thought and reason. In this we are alike.

Bergoglio: "But can you define what you call Being?"

Scalfari: Being is a fabric of energy. Chaotic but indestructible energy and eternal chaos. Forms emerge from that energy when it reaches the point of exploding. The forms have their own laws, their magnetic fields, their chemical elements, which combine randomly, evolve, and are eventually extinguished but their energy is not destroyed. Man is probably the only animal endowed with thought, at least in our planet and solar system. I said that he is driven by instincts and desires but I would add that he also contains within himself a resonance, an echo, a vocation of chaos.

Bergoglio: All right. I did not want you to give me a summary of your philosophy and what you have told me is enough for me. From my point of view, God is the light that illuminates the darkness, even if it does not dissolve it, and a spark of divine light is within each of us. In the letter I wrote to you, you will remember I said that our species will end but the light of God will not end and at that point it will invade all souls and it will all be in everyone."

Scalfari: Yes, I remember it well. You said, "All the light will be in all souls" which - if I may say so - gives more an image of immanence than of transcendence.

Bergoglio: "Transcendence remains because that light, all in everything, transcends the universe and the species it inhabits at that stage. But back to the present. We have made a step forward in our dialogue. We have observed that in society and the world in which we live selfishness has increased more than love for others, and that men of good will must work, each with his own strengths and expertise, to ensure that love for others increases until it is equal and possibly exceeds love for oneself." (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)

Why not use the Thomistic proofs for the existence of God as found in the Angelic Doctor's Summa Theologica?

The light of God will be in all souls at the end of time, including those in Hell?

The souls in Hell hate the Most Blessed Trinity and Our Lady and Saint Joseph and the angels and the saints no matter how many of them professed "love" for them during their lives on earth before their Particular Judgment.

Pope Leo XIII, writing in Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885, offered proofs for the existence of God as the ruler of all men and all nations (see the appendix below) that Jorge Mario Bergoglio rejects as binding upon him or the civil state, thus leaving him to devices other than Thomism to explain God in simple terms to the atheist Scalfari.

To the end, finally, of the Bergoglio-Scalfari interview:

Scalfari: Once again, politics comes into the picture.

Bergoglio: Certainly. Personally I think so-called unrestrained liberalism only makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker and excludes the most excluded. We need great freedom, no discrimination, no demagoguery and a lot of love. We need rules of conduct and also, if necessary, direct intervention from the state to correct the more intolerable inequalities. (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)

Madness.

Bergoglio condemns "unrestrained liberalism" as making the stronger stronger and the weak weaker while calling for the state to "correct the more intolerable inequalities."

No contradiction here, huh?

The modern civil state has by itself propagated injustice after injustice precisely because it is unfettered as a result of Protestant and Judeo-Masonic revolution against the Social Reign of Christ the King with which the conciliar church has made its reconciliation.

Not a word from the lips of Jorge Mario Bergoglio about the innocent preborn.

Not a word about the integrity of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Not a word about Catholicism.

Scalfari: Your Holiness, you are certainly a person of great faith, touched by grace, animated by the desire to revive a pastoral, missionary church that is renewed and not temporal. But from the way you talk and from what I understand, you are and will be a revolutionary pope. Half Jesuit, half a man of Francis, a combination that perhaps has never been seen before. And then, you like "The Betrothed" by Manzoni, Holderlin, Leopardi and especially Dostoevsky, the film "La Strada" and "Prova d'orchestra" by Fellini, "Open City" by Rossellini and also the film of Aldo Fabrizi .

Bergoglio: "I like those because I watched them with my parents when I was a child." (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)

Bergoglio had quite an upbringing. Then again, his theology, liturgical style and pastoral praxis comes straight out of the theater of the absurd:

Scalfari: There you are. May I recommend two recently released films? "Viva la libertà" and the films on Fellini by Ettore Scola. I'm sure you'll like them.

Regarding power, I say, you know that when I was 20 I spent a month and a half in a spiritual retreat with the Jesuits? The Nazis were in Rome and I had deserted from military service. That was punishable by the death sentence. The Jesuits hid us on condition that we did spiritual exercises the whole time that they kept us hidden.

Bergoglio: "But is it impossible to stand a month and a half of spiritual exercises?" he asks, amazed and amused. I will tell him more next time.

Scalfari: We embrace. We climb the short staircase to the door. I tell the Pope there is no need to accompany me but he waves that aside with a gesture.

Bergoglio: "We will also discuss the role of women in the Church. Remember that the Church (la chiesa) is feminine." And if you like, we can also to talk about Pascal. I'd like to know what you think of that great soul."Give all your family my blessings and ask them to pray for me. Think of me, think of me often."

Scalfari: We shake hands and he stands with his two fingers raised in a blessing. I wave to him from the window. This is Pope Francis. If the Church becomes like him and becomes what he wants it to be, it will be an epochal change. (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)

Behold an epochal change taking place within the counterfeit church of conciliarism that takes its false ethos to its penultimate expression in the person of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis.

Yes, there is a final point to be made about the incredible interview that was touched upon briefly in an earlier segment.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis said he had the "humility and the ambition" to "do something" to advance his counterfeit church of conciliarism's "encounter with modern culture" and to advance "ecumenism" and "dialogue," which he believes is the "path to peace."

Humility and ambition, eh?

Well, anyone who boasts of his supposed humility is neither pious or humble.

Here is review of how "humble" and "pious" a man Jorge Mario Bergoglio is in actual truth:

The situation that has been raised [with the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate] has had a similarity with a dramatic case that occurred in Buenos Aires under the "archbishopric" of "Cardinal" Bergoglio. We have spoken for some time about this lamentable subject matter, but let us allow ourselves to return to it even if it be succinctly, then we can illustrate to ourselves about what to expect from the Institute of the Friars of the Immaculata.

Founded in the 18th century by Mother Antula and Maria Antonia de Paz y Figueroa, the Congregation of the Daughters of the Divine Savior has reached a degree of prosperity that, in our time, it has been possessor of various Catholic Colleges with thousands of students, one located in the exclusive Avenue of the Liberator in San Isidro, over all, of the terrain where they erected the Sanctuary of St. Cayetan in Liniers (a lot of money in alms) whose revenue was administered by the nuns.

At an opportune moment, "Cardinal" Bergoglio asked of the Mother Superior to transfer the property of the Sanctuary to the Archbishopric of Buenos Aires. Days later, after consulting her councilor Mother Hilda Ledesma responded to the Cardinal in the negative.

Having had a crystal ball maybe would have avoided the catastrophe of ceding to the disposal of the now "pope" Francis, in order to avoid the despoliation of all the goods and the near extinction of the order, as later accounted.

Because, in no time, he designated an apostolic visitor in the person of a Jesuit friend of Bergoglio: the current bishop Hugo Salaberry de Azul, in the province of Buenos Aires. The excuse: that close to 30 nuns lived in the Holy House of Exercises, some young women who in the majority are from Paraguay won for Christ by the zeal of one nun of that nationality, were there detained against their wills and isolated from society.

The isolation is concluded by the fact that these sisters were instructed in the same convent by professors designated as ad hoc, that which was made to avoid excessive contact with the world in which many nuns are used to nowadays.

A little later, in the first hours of the morning, when some nuns haven't yet groomed themselves, an unfolding of unusual Curial functions informed them that the "Holy See," with the signature of "Cardinal" Re, has designated as Apostolic Commissar on "Msgr." Horacio Garcia, Pro Vicar General of the Archdiocese. The lettered "priest" that was supposed to accompany him excused himself for not being in agreement. In his place came "Fr." Alejandro Russo, current Rector of the Cathedral of Buenos Aires (a favor in return for a favor?)

"Cardinal" Re reigned over the Congregation of the Religious and Institutes of Consecrated Life, who lived here and had one relative in the Archbishopric Curia. A man very close to Bergoglio, who was the one who earned for him the ring of the Fisherman is being flaunted by Francis and that he inherited from a secretary of Paul VI.

The end of this long story, that would give an argument by its vicissitudes to a drama that will be a sure best seller in book stores, ended with the Mother Superior confined to in Cordoba, the sisters returned to the world in such a manner that it can be said that the congregation ceased to exist, and the money and properties in the hands of the "Apostolic Commissariate" whose intervention is prolonged sine die.

An eminent example if how these Pharisees care for the poor, is the case of Mirna, a young Paraguayan woman who had been in the convent since 14 years of age and was bidden farewell by "Msgr." Garcia who put her in the streets without informing her parents, and without even giving her a single cent to look after her needs.

We put on video all of her declarations and we invite our readers to reread an old post of this blog where she tells her story.

The drama of Mirna (video can be seen in the cited reference above).

At this point of the story our readers allow us to vent with a phrase that is quite irreverent: to those who want to cheat, are good for nothing losers. You who call yourselves progressive, not only do you put souls in grave danger, neither do you know how to look after the needs of the body.

According to the very victims, the Apostolic Commissary disposed that the nuns and novices find out their true vocation, with a method that we can call an immersion in the world: psychoanalysis and including exposure to eroticism. About this, it has already been written in this blog. (As translated from the Spanish by Mr. Juan Carlos Araneta.)

Ambitious?

Yes.

Humble.

Never!

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a brutal ecclesiastical tyrant who is intent on fulfilling the long pent-up revolutionary schemes of his "ultra-progessive" fellow travelers who have believed to be "victims" of what they consider to be the "centralizing" and "conservative" policies of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI that kept their brand of Modernism all sealed up in a "box," thus stifling the logical flow of where the "Second" Vatican Council was meant to lead. (For a refutation of this contention, which is premised on the falsehood that Wojtyla and Ratinger were not revolutionaries in their own right, please see Clash Of The Conciliar Titans and "Joe" Hasn't Changed, Fellas).

We are eyewitnesses to Bergoglio unhinged, which is why anyone who permits himself to be fooled by a "homily" here or an allocution there that seems to be Catholic in nature ought to review Pope Saint Pius X's description of the clever devices Modernists use to protect themselves from being accused of being Modernists:

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

Remember these truths and remember them well:

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this, because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

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

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

No, there is nothing random about the Bergoglio-Scalfari interview as it simply reveals Bergoglio what he has been from his youth. He is, as noted at the beginning of this segment, a total creature of the conciliar revolution and its "reconciliation" with the anti-Incarnational principles of Modernity.

We need to suffer as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, especially on this First Saturday of the month of October, the month of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, which we should pray now in reparation for the offenses given to her Divine Son by Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 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.

Saint Francis of Assisi, pray for us.

Saint Placidus and Companions, pray for us.

Appendix

Pope Leo XIII On the Existence of God and His True Religion

Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885

6. As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose everbounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice-not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion -- it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule. For one and all are we destined by our birth and adoption to enjoy, when this frail and fleeting life is ended, a supreme and final good in heaven, and to the attainment of this every endeavor should be directed. Since, then, upon this depends the full and perfect happiness of mankind, the securing of this end should be of all imaginable interests the most urgent. Hence, civil society, established for the common welfare, should not only safeguard the wellbeing of the community, but have also at heart the interests of its individual members, in such mode as not in any way to hinder, but in every manner to render as easy as may be, the possession of that highest and unchangeable good for which all should seek. Wherefore, for this purpose, care must especially be taken to preserve unharmed and unimpeded the religion whereof the practice is the link connecting man with God.

7. Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfillment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.

8. For the only-begotten Son of God established on earth a society which is called the Church, and to it He handed over the exalted and divine office which He had received from His Father, to be continued through the ages to come. "As the Father hath sent Me, I also send you."^[5] "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."^[6] Consequently, as Jesus Christ came into the world that men "might have life and have it more abundantly,"^[7] so also has the Church for its aim and end the eternal salvation of souls, and hence it is so constituted as to open wide its arms to all mankind, unhampered by any limit of either time or place. "Preach ye the Gospel to every creature."^[8]

9. Over this mighty multitude God has Himself set rulers with power to govern, and He has willed that one should be the head of all, and the chief and unerring teacher of truth, to whom He has given "the keys of the kingdom of heaven."^[9] "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep."^[10] "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not."^[11]

10. This society is made up of men, just as civil society is, and yet is supernatural and spiritual, on account of the end for which it was founded, and of the means by which it aims at attaining that end. Hence, it is distinguished and differs from civil society, and, what is of highest moment, it is a society chartered as of right divine, perfect in its nature and in its title, to possess in itself and by itself, through the will and loving kindness of its Founder, all needful provision for its maintenance and action. And just as the end at which the Church aims is by far the noblest of ends, so is its authority the most exalted of all authority, nor can it be looked upon as inferior to the civil power, or in any manner dependent upon it.

11. In very truth, Jesus Christ gave to His Apostles unrestrained authority in regard to things sacred, together with the genuine and most true power of making laws, as also with the twofold right of judging and of punishing, which flow from that power. "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth: going therefore teach all nations . . . teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."^[12] And in another place: "If he will not hear them, tell the Church."^[13] And again: "In readiness to revenge all disobedience."^[14] And once more: "That . . . I may not deal more severely according to the power which the Lord hath given me, unto edification and not unto destruction."^[15] Hence, it is the Church, and not the State, that is to be man's guide to heaven. It is to the Church that God has assigned the charge of seeing to, and legislating for, all that concerns religion; of teaching all nations; of spreading the Christian faith as widely as possible; in short, of administering freely and without hindrance, in accordance with her own judgment, all matters that fall within its competence.

12. Now, this authority, perfect in itself, and plainly meant to be unfettered, so long assailed by a philosophy that truckles to the State, the Church, has never ceased to claim for herself and openly to exercise. The Apostles themselves were the first to uphold it, when, being forbidden by the rulers of the synagogue to preach the Gospel, they courageously answered: "We must obey God rather than men."^[16] This same authority the holy Fathers of the Church were always careful to maintain by weighty arguments, according as occasion arose, and the Roman Pontiffs have never shrunk from defending it with unbending constancy. Nay, more, princes and all invested with power to rule have themselves approved it, in theory alike and in practice. It cannot be called in question that in the making of treaties, in the transaction of business matters, in the sending and receiving ambassadors, and in the interchange of other kinds of official dealings they have been wont to treat with the Church as with a supreme and legitimate power. And, assuredly, all ought to hold that it was not without a singular disposition of God's providence that this power of the Church was provided with a civil sovereignty as the surest safeguard of her independence.

13. The Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right. But, inasmuch as each of these two powers has authority over the same subjects, and as it might come to pass that one and the same thing -- related differently, but still remaining one and the same thing -- might belong to the jurisdiction and determination of both, therefore God, who foresees all things, and who is the author of these two powers, has marked out the course of each in right correlation to the other. "For the powers that are, are ordained of God."^[17] Were this not so, deplorable contentions and conflicts would often arise, and, not infrequently, men, like travelers at the meeting of two roads, would hesitate in anxiety and doubt, not knowing what course to follow. Two powers would be commanding contrary things, and it would be a dereliction of duty to disobey either of the two.

14. But it would be most repugnant to them to think thus of the wisdom and goodness of God. Even in physical things, albeit of a lower order, the Almighty has so combined the forces and springs of nature with tempered action and wondrous harmony that no one of them clashes with any other, and all of them most fitly and aptly work together for the great purpose of the universe. There must, accordingly, exist between these two powers a certain orderly connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body in man. The nature and scope of that connection can be determined only, as We have laid down, by having regard to the nature of each power, and by taking account of the relative excellence and nobleness of their purpose. One of the two has for its proximate and chief object the well-being of this mortal life; the other, the everlasting joys of heaven. Whatever, therefore in things human is of a sacred character, whatever belongs either of its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is referred, to the salvation of souls, or to the worship of God, is subject to the power and judgment of the Church. Whatever is to be ranged under the civil and political order is rightly subject to the civil authority. Jesus Christ has Himself given command that what is Caesar's is to be rendered to Caesar, and that what belongs to God is to be rendered to God.

15. There are, nevertheless, occasions when another method of concord is available for the sake of peace and liberty: We mean when rulers of the State and the Roman Pontiff come to an understanding touching some special matter. At such times the Church gives signal proof of her motherly love by showing the greatest possible kindliness and indulgence.

16. Such, then, as We have briefly pointed out, is the Christian organization of civil society; not rashly or fancifully shaped out, but educed from the highest and truest principles, confirmed by natural reason itself.

17. In such organization of the State there is nothing that can be thought to infringe upon the dignity of rulers, and nothing unbecoming them; nay, so far from degrading the sovereign power in its due rights, it adds to it permanence and luster. Indeed, when more fully pondered, this mutual coordination has a perfection in which all other forms of government are lacking, and from which excellent results would flow, were the several component parts to keep their place and duly discharge the office and work appointed respectively for each. And, doubtless, in the constitution of the State such as We have described, divine and human things are equitably shared; the rights of citizens assured to them, and fenced round by divine, by natural, and by human law; the duties incumbent on each one being wisely marked out, and their fulfillment fittingly insured. In their uncertain and toilsome journey to the everlasting city all see that they have safe guides and helpers on their way, and are conscious that others have charge to protect their persons alike and their possessions, and to obtain or preserve for them everything essential for their present life. Furthermore, domestic society acquires that firmness and solidity so needful to it from the holiness of marriage, one and indissoluble, wherein the rights and duties of husband and wife are controlled with wise justice and equity; due honor is assured to the woman; the authority of the husband is conformed to the pattern afforded by the authority of God; the power of the father is tempered by a due regard for the dignity of the mother and her offspring; and the best possible provision is made for the guardianship, welfare, and education of the children. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)