Trying To Put Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again
Thomas A. Droleskey
Completely exhausted from the article that was posted during close to 4:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, John F. Kennedy's Overlooked Legacy, which stated facts about the legacy of the thirty-fifth President of the United States of America, including his complete endorsement of separating one's supposedly "personal beliefs" from public policy decision-making, which is hardly the mark of a "good" Catholic), without making any judgment on the state of his immortal soul at his Particular Judgment), this article deals with a subject that I was going to tackle for tomorrow's posting. However, I am doing it now as this will not take too much time to complete.
All manner of "conservatives" and traditionally-mined Catholics are expressing "hope" that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is "correcting" his errors, such as those he stated in his interview with atheist Eugenio Scalfari, the founding publisher of La Republica newspaper in Italy, at the end of September that was published on October 1, 2013, the Feast of Saint Remigius, with his, Bergoglio's full knowledge and blessing even though Scalfari had written to him to say that the text was not a verbatim transcript of what he had said to him. Scalfari gave Bergoglio an opportunity to review the text, and the false "pontiff" replied by telling him not to waste his time, that he, Bergoglio, trusted him:
This in fact led to the [Vatican] decision, on November 15, to remove from the
website of the Holy See the text of the conversation with Scalfari.
was removed," Fr. Lombardi explained, "to clarify the nature of that
text. There were some misunderstandings and disagreements about its
value."On November 21, interviewed at the Roman headquarters of the foreign
press, Scalfari nonetheless revealed more details of the matter.
said that the pope, at the end of the conversation, had consented that
it should be made public. And to Scalfari's proposal that he send him
the text beforehand, he had replied: “It seems like a waste of time to
me, I trust you.”
In effect, the founder of “la Repubblica” sent
the text to the pope, accompanied by a letter in which he wrote among
“Keep in mind that I did not include some of the
things that you said to me. And that some of the things that I attribute
to you you did not say. But I put them there so that the reader may
understand who you are.”
Two days later - again according to what
Scalfari claims - the pope's secretary, Alfred Xuereb, telephoned to
give the go-ahead for publication. Which took place the following day.
commented: “I am perfectly willing to think that some of the things
that I wrote and attributed to him are not shared by the pope, but I
also believe that he maintains that, said by a nonbeliever, they are
important for him and for the activity he is carrying out.” (Even Bergoglio Critiques Himself. And Corrects Three Errors.)
Chiesa Espresso Vaticanologist Sandro Magister (see So Much For The Sandro Magister "Photo Op" Theory), who wrote the report in which the passage above is found, believes that the fact that officials inside of the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River deleted the Scalfari interview from the Vatican website because of the imprecise nature of Scalfari's reporting of Bergoglio's words even though the current universal public face of apostasy gave his personal approval for the text to be published. Magister believes that the deletion of the interview represents an effort on the part of the "pope" to "critique" and "correct" his errors, which are still on display on the La Repubblica website (see (The Antipope: how the Church will change - Repubblica.it.)
This is, to borrow I phrase I have seen in print now and again, "patently absurd" as the published text of the Scalfari interview, even it is not a precise, verbatim transcript of the conversation that the atheist had with the heretic at the Casa Santa Marta in September as it represents a faithful presentation, even if summarized, paraphrased and recollected by Scalfari imprecisely and inaccurately in parts, of Bergoglio's Modernist views that he has been spouting for his entire life as a Jesuit revolutionary and that he has repeated on numerous occasions in the past eight months, ten days. The Scalfari interview presented Bergoglio as he has presented himself, yes, even on the point of personal conscience and atheists "doing so," which is, after all, what the current antipope said in one of his "homilies" as the Casa Santa Marta six months ago now (see Francis Do-Right).
Moreover, there are a whole lot of "errors" for Bergoglio to correct, including one glaring bit of blasphemy that Sandro Magister seems to have forgotten most conveniently, namely, the false "pontiff's" calling what he thinks is the Catholic Church as the "widowed" search" who goes out ot see out her Bridegroom (see "Who Today Will Presume To Say She Is Widowed?").
I, for one, am not going to waste my time or yours on reciting all of Bergoglio's defections from the Catholic Faith or even to discuss Magister's attempt to use Bergoglio's sermon on Monday, November 18, 2013, the Feast of the Dedication of Saints Peter and Paul, about "adolescent progressivism" as an indication that the "pope" is retreating from a "progressive" view of the "Second" Vatican Council and its aftermath as I have already discussed that in Jorge Says Party Hearty, part two. Indeed, Bergoglio's reference to "adolescent progressivism" is nothing new as he made it five months ago now in an effort to situate himself between it and the camp of the "restorationists:"
Pope Francis continued, the law of the Spirit, "takes
us on a path of continuous discernment to do the will of God” and this
can frighten us. The Pope warned that this fear "brings two temptations
with it." The first, is to "go backwards" to say that "it’s possible up
to this point, but impossible beyond this point" which ends up becoming
"let’s stay here". This, he warned, "is the temptation of fear of
freedom, fear of the Holy Spirit." A fear that "it is better to
play it safe." Pope Francis then told a story about a superior general
who, in the 1930’s, went around compiling a list of regulations for his
religious, "a work that took years." Then he travelled to Rome to meet a
Benedictine abbot, who, upon hearing all he had done, replied that in
doing so he "had killed his Congregation’s charism", "he had killed its
freedom" since "this charism bears fruit in freedom and he had stopped
"This is the temptation to go
backwards, because we are 'safer' going back: but total security is in
the Holy Spirit that brings you forward, which gives us this trust - as
Paul says - which is more demanding because Jesus tells us: “Amen, I say
to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or
the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law”. It is more
demanding! But it does not give us that human security. We cannot
control the Holy Spirit: that is the problem! This is a temptation."
Pope Francis noted that there is another
temptation: that of “adolescent progressivism”, that de-rails us. This
temptation lies in seeing a culture and “not detaching ourselves from
"We take the values of this culture a
little bit from here, a little bit from there , ... They want to make
this law? Alright let’s go ahead and make this law. Let’s broaden the
boundaries here a little. In the end, let me tell you, this is not true
progress. It is adolescent progressivism: just like teenagers who in
their enthusiasm want to have everything and in the end? You slip up ...
It’s like when the road is covered in ice and the car slips and go off
track... This is the other temptation at the moment! We, at this moment
in the history of the Church, we cannot go backwards or go off the
Pope Francis concluded : the track "is that
of freedom in the Holy Spirit that makes us free, in continuous
discernment of God's will to move forward on this path, without going
back and without going off-track". Let us ask the Lord for "the grace
that the Holy Spirit gives us to go forward."
concelebrated by Cardinal João Braz de Aviz, accompanied by priests,
religious and lay staff of the Congregation for Institutes of
Consecrated Life. (Universal
Public Face of Apostasy At Abominable Liturgical Service That Pleases
Only The Devil: True progress is in trusting the Spirit.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio continued to be just as much a freewheeling, "let it all hang out," spontaneous heretic after this first reference to "adolescent progressivism" as he will remain after this second reference. Bergoglio has said repeatedly that what he thinks is the Catholic Church must "free" herself from the "past." It is insane, to borrow a phrase used by a priest from another country who was once in our acquaintance, to try put this Humpty Dumpty back together as he fell from the impregnable wall of the Catholic Church early in life.
Go ahead, Signore Magister, please reconcile Jorge Mario Bergoglio's acts of prayer in
Signore Magister even thinks that Bergoglio has "corrected" his interpretation of the "Second" Vatican Council that he offered "Father" Antonio Spadoro, S.J., in an interview for La Civiltà Catolica in the letter that he wrote to a "definitive" study on Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity:"
But even the calibrated and thoroughly studied interview with Pope
Francis in "La Civiltà Cattolica" - published on September 19 by sixteen
magazines of the Society of Jesus in eleven languages - has in recent
days been taken into the shop of things to be corrected.
On a key point: the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
has been made clear by a passage of the letter written by Francis
himself to Archbishop Agostino Marchetto on the occasion of the
presentation on November 12 of a volume in his honor, against the solemn
background of the Campidoglio. A letter that the pope wanted to be read
The passage is the following:
demonstrated this love [of the Church] in many ways, including by
correcting an error or imprecision on my part - and for this I thank you
from my heart - but above all it has been manifested in all its purity
in your studies of Vatican Council II. I have said this to you once,
dear Archbishop Marchetto, and I want to repeat it today, that I
consider you the best hermeneut of Vatican Council II."
definition of Marchetto as "the best hermeneut" of the Council is
striking in itself. Marchetto has in fact always been the most
implacable critic of that "school of Bologna" - founded by Giuseppe
Dossetti and Giuseppe Alberigo and today directed by Professor Alberto
Melloni - which has the worldwide monopoly on the interpretation of
Vatican II, in a progressive vein.
The hermeneutic of the Council
upheld by Marchetto is the same as that of Benedict XVI: not of
"rupture" and "new beginning," but of "reform in the continuity of the
one subject Church." And it is this hermeneutic that Pope Francis has
wanted to signify that he shares, in bestowing such high appreciation on
But if one rereads the succinct passage that Francis
dedicates to Vatican II in the interview with "La Civiltà Cattolica,"
one gets a different impression. "Yes, there are hermeneutical lines of
continuity and of discontinuity," the pope concedes. "Nonetheless," he
adds, "one thing is clear”: Vatican II was "a service to the people"
consisting in "a reinterpretation of the Gospel in the light of
In the few lines of the interview
dedicated to the Council, Bergoglio defines its essence this way three
times, also applying it to the reform of the liturgy.
judgment of the grandiose conciliar event immediately appeared so
summary to many that even the pope's interviewer, director of “La
Civiltà Cattolica" Antonio Spadaro, confessed his amazement in
transcribing it from the pope's spoken words.
Meanwhile, however, this judgment has continued to garner widespread consensus.
example, in receiving Pope Francis at the Quirinale on a visit on
November 4, the president of the Italian republic, Giorgio Napolitano,
thanked him precisely for making “resonate the spirit of Vatican Council
II as a 'reinterpretation of the Gospel in the light of contemporary
culture,'” citing his exact words.
And praise for these same
words of the pope has come - for example - from the foremost of the
Italian liturgists, Andrea Grillo, a professor at the Pontifical
Atheneum of St. Anselm, according to whom Francis has finally
inaugurated the true and definitive “hermeneutic” of the Council, after
having “immediately put in second place that diatribe over 'continuity'
and 'discontinuity' which had long prejudiced - and often completely
paralyzed - any effective hermeneutic of Vatican II.”
it is no mystery that “service to the people” and a reinterpretation of
the Gospel “brought up to date” are concepts dear to the progressive
interpretations of the Council and in particular to the “school of
Bologna,” which has repeatedly declared itself to be an enthusiast of
But evidently there is someone who has personally
pointed out to pope Bergoglio that reducing the Council to such concepts
is at the least “imprecise,” if not “mistaken.”
And it was
precisely Marchetto who took this step. There has always been great
trust between him and Bergoglio, with mutual esteem. Marchetto lives in
Rome at the residence for clergy on Via della Scrofa, in room 204, next
to room 203 where the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires stayed during his
trips to Rome.
Pope Francis not only listened to the criticisms
of his friend, he welcomed them. To the point of thanking him, in the
letter he had read on November 12, for having helped him in “correcting
an error or imprecision on my part.”
It is to be presumed that in
the future Francis will express himself on the Council in a way
different from that of the interview in “La Civiltà Cattolica.” More in
line with the hermeneutic of Benedict XVI. And to the great
disappointment of the “school of Bologna.” (Public Face of Apostasy At Abominable Liturgical Service That Pleases
Only The Devil: True progress is in trusting the Spirit. See also Francis The Obsessed.)
Let us say, purely for the sake of argument, mind you, that Sandro Magister's "presumption" that there is now a "reformed," "chastened," "corrected" Jorge Mario Bergoglio living at the Casa Santa Mara even if it is as a bold a presumption as he made six months ago when claiming that the "pope" was not going to give any more "photo-ops" to pro-abortion public officials. That presumption, as has been demonstrated over and over again in the past six months, was laughable on its face.
It does not matter is Magister's "presumption" this time is correct as the Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's "hermeneutic of continuity" has been condemned by the authority of the Catholic Church.
Here, yes, yet again, is a review of Ratzinger/Benedict's commitment to this philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned "hermeneutic of continuity" and Holy Mother Church's denouncing it in no uncertain terms:
1971: "In theses 10-12, the
difficult problem of the relationship between language and thought is
debated, which in post-conciliar discussions was the immediate departure
point of the dispute.
The identity of the Christian substance as such, the
Christian 'thing' was not directly ... censured, but it was pointed out
that no formula, no matter how valid and indispensable it may have been
in its time, can fully express the thought mentioned in it and declare
it unequivocally forever, since language is constantly in movement and
the content of its meaning changes. (Fr. Ratzinger: Dogmatic formulas must always change.)
The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial
Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the
different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms - perhaps
for the first time with this clarity - that there are decisions of the
magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are,
in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of
pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus
remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times
influenced, may need further correction.
In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last
century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the
anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all,
the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism].
As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they
will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz
said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the
great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois
world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they
became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their
(Joseph Ratzinger, "Instruction on the Theologian's Ecclesial Vocation,"
published with the title "Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia,"
in L'Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)
It is precisely in this
combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that
the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of
innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically
than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for
example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation
of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely
because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to
recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that
express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent,
motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that
depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Roman Curia and Prelature, December 22, 2005.)
For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward
- not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence,
- but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated.
Hence, too, that meaning of the
sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by
holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this
sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.
God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth.
The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either: the
dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the
mind of the church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions
Therefore we define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false. . . .
3. If anyone says that it is possible that
at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be
assigned to the dogmas propounded by the church which is different from
that which the church has understood and understands: let him be
And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral
office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command, by the
authority of him who is also our God and saviour, all faithful
Christians, especially those in authority or who have the duty of
teaching, that they contribute their zeal and labour to the warding off
and elimination of these errors from the church and to the spreading of
the light of the pure faith.
But since it is not enough to avoid the
contamination of heresy unless those errors are carefully shunned which
approach it in greater or less degree, we warn all of their duty to
observe the constitutions and decrees in which such wrong opinions,
though not expressly mentioned in this document, have been banned and
forbidden by this holy see. (Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council, Session III,
Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith, Chapter 4, On Faith and
Reason, April 24, 1870. SESSION 3 : 24 April 1.)
Hence it is quite impossible [the Modernists assert] to maintain that they [dogmatic statements] absolutely contain the truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they
are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sense
in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of
truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his
relation to the religious sense. But the object of the
religious sense, as something contained in the absolute, possesses an
infinite variety of aspects, of which now one, now another, may present
itself. In like manner he who believes can avail himself of varying
conditions. Consequently, the formulas which we call dogma must
be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change.
Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. Here we have
an immense structure of sophisms which ruin and wreck all religion.
It is thus, Venerable Brethren, that for the
Modernists, whether as authors or propagandists, there is to be nothing
stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor, indeed, are they without
forerunners in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our predecessor
Pius IX wrote: 'These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress
to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it
introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the
work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery
susceptible of perfection by human efforts.' On the subject of
revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists
offers nothing new. We find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX,
where it is enunciated in these terms: ''Divine revelation is imperfect,
and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress,
corresponding with the progress of human reason'; and condemned still
more solemnly in the Vatican Council: ''The doctrine of the
faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human
intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical
system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be
faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence also that sense of
the sacred dogmas is to be perpetually retained which our Holy Mother
the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on
plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.'
Nor is the development of our knowledge, even concerning the faith,
barred by this pronouncement; on the contrary, it is supported and
maintained. For the same Council continues: 'Let intelligence and
science and wisdom, therefore, increase and progress abundantly and
vigorously in individuals, and in the mass, in the believer and in the
whole Church, throughout the ages and the centuries -- but only in its own kind, that is, according to the same dogma, the same sense, the same acceptation.' (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the
apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and
always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical'
misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to
another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the
modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or
what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with
the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple
fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact,
namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have
continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his
apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the
belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was,
and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the
apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be
tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture
of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by
the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different,
may never be understood in any other way.
I promise that I shall keep all these articles
faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way
deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing.
Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. (The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.)
No, Signore Magister, trying to "rescue" Jorge Mario Bergoglio by claiming that he is now ready to "adhere" to Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI's Modernist heresy of "evolution of doctrine" does nothing but make his "pope" out to be in the heretical mode of his predecessor, whose offenses the Holy Faith were summarized, at least in part in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now.
To claim that a true "pope" has to have a steady, marathon stream of publicly stated errors corrected is without precedent in the history of the Catholic Church. True popes never spoke spontaneously, never gave interviews and never eschewed and publicly mocked the regal dignity that befits a Successor of Saint Peter, the very Visible Head of the Catholic Church on earth.
Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B, provided us with an antidote to this insanity in his commentary on the life of the fourth pope, Saint Clement I, whose feast we celebrate today:
The memory of St. Clement has been surrounded with a peculiar glory from the very beginning of the Roman Church. After the death of the apostles, he seems to eclipse Linus and Cletus, although these preceded him in the pontificate. We pass, as it were, naturally from Peter to Clement; and the East celebrates his memory with no less honour than the West. He was in truth the universal pontiff, and his acts as well as his writings are renowned throughout the entire Church. This widespread reputation caused numbers of apocryphal writings to be attributed to him, which, however, it is easy to distinguish from his own. But it is remarkable that all the falsifiers who have thought fit to put his name to their own works, or to invent stories concerning him, agree in declaring that he was of imperial descent.
With only one exception, all of the documents which attest Clement's intervention in the affairs of distant churches have perished with time; but the one that remains shows us in full action the monarchical power of the bishop of Rome at that primitive epoch. The church of Corinth was disturbed with intestine quarrels caused by jealously against certain pastors. These divisions, the germ of which had appeared even in St. Paul's time, had destroyed all peace, and were causing scandal to the very pagans. The Corinthians at last felt the necessity of putting an end to a disorder which might be prejudicial to the extension of the Christian faith; and for this purpose it was requisite to seek assistance from outside. The apostle had all departed this life, except St. John, who was still the light of the Church. It was not great distance from Corinth to Ephesus where the apostle resided: yet it was not to Ephesus but to Rome that the church of Corinth turned. Clement examined the case referred to his judgment by that church, and sent to Corinth five commissaries to represent the Apostolic See. They were bearers of a letter, which St. Irenaeus calls potentissimas litteras. It was considered at the time so beautiful and so apostolic, that it was long read in many churches as a sort of continuation of the canonical Scriptures. Its tone is dignified but paternal, according to St. Peter's advice to pastors. There is nothing in it of a domineering spirit; but the grave and solemn language bespeaks the universal pastor, whom none can disobey without disobeying God Himself. These words so solemn and so firm wrought the desired effect: peace was re-established in the church of Corinth, and the messengers of the Roman Pontiff soon brought back the happy news. A century later, St. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, expressed to Pope St. Soter the gratitude still felt by his flock towards Clement for the service he had rendered.
Brought up in the school of the apostles, Clement had retained their style and manner. These are visible in his two 'Letters to Virgins,' which are mentioned St. Epiphanius and St. Jerome, and were found in the eighteenth century translated into Syriac, in a manuscript brought from Aleppo. As St. Caecilia reminded us yesterday, the principles of vowing chastity to God was, from the very beginning, one of the bases of Christianity, and one of the most effectual means for the transformation of the world. Christ Himself had praised the superior merit of this sacrifice; and St. Paul, comparing the two states of life, taught that the virgin is wholly taken up with our Lord, while the married women, whatever her dignity, is divided. Clement had to develop this doctrine, and he did so in these two letters. Anticipating those great doctors of Christian virginity, St. Athanasius, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustin, he developed the teachings of St. Peter and St. Paul on this important subject. 'He or she,' he says, 'who aspires to this higher life, must lead like the angels an existence all divine and heavenly. The virgin cuts herself off from the allurements of the senses; not only does she renounce the right to their even lawful use, but she aspires to that hope which God, who can never deceive, encourages by His promise, and which far surpasses the natural hope of posterity. In return for her generous sacrifice, her portion in heaven is the very happiness of the angels.'
Thus spoke the disciple chosen by St. Peter to get his hand to the task of renovating Rome. It needed no less than this strong doctrine in order to combat the depraved manners of the Empire. Had Christianity been satisfied with inviting men to honour, as the philosophers had done, its efforts would have been to no purpose. Stoicism, by exciting great pride, could bring some men even to despise death; but it was utterly powerless against sensuality, which we must own to have been the strongest auxiliary to the tyranny of the Caesars. The ideal of chastity, thrown into the midst of that dissolute society, could alone arrest the ignominious torrent that threatened to submerge all human dignity. Happily for the world, Christian morals succeeded in gaining ground; and its maxims being followed up by striking examples, it at length forced itself upon the public notice. Roman corruption was amazed to hear of virginity being held in honour and practised by a great many followers of the new religion; and that at a time when the greatest privileges and the most terrible chastisements could scarcely keep to their duty the six vestals upon whose fidelity depended the honour and the safety of the city. Vespasian and Titus were aware of the infringements upon their primary duty committed by these guardians of the Palladium; but they considered that the low level at which morals then stood forbade them to inflict the ancient penalties upon these traitresses.
The time, however, was at hand, when the emperors, the senate, and all Rome, were to learn from the first Apology of St. Justin the marvels of purity concealed within that Babylon of iniquity. 'Among us, in this city,' said the apologist, 'there are many men and women who have reached the age of sixty or seventy years; brought up from infancy under the law of Christ, they have preserved to this day in the state of virginity; and there is not a country where I could not point out many such.' Athenagoras, in a memorial presented a few years later to Marcus Aurelius, was able to say in like manner: 'You will find among us a multitude of persons, both men and women, who have passed their life up to old age in the state of virginity, having no ambition but to unite themselves more intimately to God.'
Clement was predestined to the glory of martyrdom; he was banished to the Chersonesus, on the Black Sea. The Acts, which relate the details of his sufferings, are of very great antiquity; we shall not here enter into discussions concerning them. They tell us how Clement found in the peninsula a considerable number of Christians already transported there, and employed at working the rich and abundant marble quarries. The joy of these Christians on seeing Clement is easily conceived; his zeal in propagating the faith in this far-off country, and the success of his apostolate, are not matter for surprise. The miracle of a fountain springing up from the rock at Clement's word, to quench the thirst of the confessors, is a fact analogous to hundreds of others relate din the most authentic Acts of the saints. Lastly, the apparition of the mysterious lamb upon the mountain, marking with his foot the spot whence the water was to flow, carries back the mind to the earliest Christian mosaics, on which may still be seen the symbol of the lamb standing on a green hillock. (Dom Prosper Gueranger, O.S.B., The Liturgical Year.)
There are some very interesting lessons to be learn from this passage in Dom Prosper Gueranger's The Liturgical Year.
First, there is a reminder of the monarchical power
of the Roman Pontiff.
Who gave away the symbol of that monarchical
Wasn't it Giovanni Montini/Paul VI?
Who refused to be crowned with the Papal
Wasn't it Albino Luciani/John Paul I, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis?
the Papal Tiara off of his coat of arms?
Wasn't it Ratzinger/Benedict?
Who refused to even wear the papal mozzetta?
Wasn't it the Argentine Modernist named Jorge Mario Bergoglio.
conciliarism wants nothing to do with papal monarchical power, having
embraced the heretical novelty of episcopal collegiality.
Clement I knew otherwise.
Second, the lie of episcopal collegiality is
disproved by the fact that the Catholics in Corinth looked to Rome, that
is, to the Successor of Saint Peter, Pope Clement, and not to the
beloved evangelist, Saint John, who had taken care of Our Lady until she
died and was assumed body and soul into Heaven. The Catholics of
Corinth knew that it was not their "local churches" but Rome that was
the seat of the Holy Faith. Deo gratias!
Third, Dom Prosper reminds us that the authority of
the Vicar of Christ is absolute, that the pope is one "whom none can
disobey without disobeying God Himself." Indeed. Although I am late to
have my own eyes opened to the ramifications of this truth, suffice it
to say that a legitimate pontiff commands our obedience in all things
that do not pertain to sin, in all things that pertain to faith and
morals. No one can oppose a legitimate pontiff without opposing Our Lord
Himself. And no legitimate pontiff can give us bad doctrine or
defective worship. He cannot express in his capacity as a private
theologian things contrary to the defined teaching of the
Fourth, in contradistinction to the conciliar "bishops"
in this country, Pope
Saint Clement knew that it was possible with God's grace for men and
women who loved God to persevere in consecrated virginity throughout their lives.
The Romans could not understand this in his time. The world does not understand it today as all it takes to keep a vow of virginity is only
an effort to be made to cooperate with the graces won for us on Calvary
by the shedding of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ's Most Precious Blood and that flow into our
souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, the Mediatrix of All
Graces. There was a simple acceptance of the truths of the Catholic
Fifth, quite similar to our own day today, the
secular leaders of Rome believed in the pursuit of "honor" by their own
strength. Catholics know that it is only by a reliance upon the merits
won for us in the Sacrifice of the Cross, which is re-presented in an
unbloody manner on altars of sacrifice by Catholic priests, men who act in persona Christi,
that sanctity, not prideful "personal honor," is pursued to the point
of one's dying breath--and that it is sanctity that builds right order
in societies, not "civic virtue" or "personal honor."
Jorge Mario Bergoglio's lifelong commit to error and heresy was described with exactitude by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:
39. It may, perhaps, seem to some, Venerable Brethren, that We have dealt at
too great length on this exposition of the doctrines of the Modernists. But it
was necessary that We should do so, both in order to meet their customary charge
that We do not understand their ideas, and to show that their system does not
consist in scattered and unconnected theories, but, as it were, in a closely
connected whole, so that it is not possible to admit one without admitting all.
For this reason, too, We have had to give to this exposition a somewhat didactic
form, and not to shrink from employing certain unwonted terms which the
Modernists have brought into use. And now with Our eyes fixed upon the whole
system, no one will be surprised that We should define it to be the synthesis of
all heresies. Undoubtedly, were anyone to attempt the task of collecting
together all the errors that have been broached against the faith and to
concentrate into one the sap and substance of them all, he could not succeed in
doing so better than the Modernists have done. Nay, they have gone farther than
this, for, as We have already intimated, their system means the destruction not
of the Catholic religion alone, but of all religion. Hence the rationalists are
not wanting in their applause, and the most frank and sincere among them
congratulate themselves on having found in the Modernists the most valuable of
all allies. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Try as they might to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, the fact remains that Modernism is Modernism, no matter if it be of the Jacobin style of "progressivism" or the Girondist style of "moderation." Error is error, and the Catholic Church gives no quarter to error at any time for any reason (see the appendix below).
May we invoke the intercession of Pope Saint Clement I for the restoration of a true pope on the Throne of Saint Peter as the fruit of the Triumph of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits as we give whatever merit we might earn in this time of apostasy and betrayal unto the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity through that same Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Andrew the Apostle, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Pope Saint Clement I, pray for us.
Saint Felicitas, pray for us.
Father Miguel Augustin Pro, S.J., pray for us.
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Error in the Catholic Church Is Impossible
66. And if at times there appears in the
Church something that indicates the weakness of our human nature, it
should not be attributed to her juridical constitution, but
rather to that regrettable inclination to evil found in each individual,
which its Divine Founder permits even at times in the most exalted
members of His Mystical Body, for the purpose of testing the virtue of
the shepherds no less than of the flocks, and that all may increase the
merit of their Christian faith. For, as We said above, Christ did not
wish to exclude sinners from His Church; hence if some of her members
are suffering from spiritual maladies, that is no reason why we should
lessen our love for the Church, but rather a reason why we should
increase our devotion to her members. Certainly the loving
Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives birth to and
nourishes her children; in the faith which she has always preserved
inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical
counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary
graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity,  she generates
hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors. But it cannot be
laid to her charge if some members fall, weak or wounded. In their name
she prays to God daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; and with the brave
heart of a mother she applies herself at once to the work of nursing
them back to spiritual health. When therefore we call the Body of Jesus
Christ "mystical," the very meaning of the word conveys a solemn
warning. It is a warning that echoes in these words of St. Leo:
"Recognize, O Christian, your dignity, and being made a sharer of the
divine nature go not back to your former worthlessness along the way of
unseemly conduct. Keep in mind of what Head and of what Body you are a
member."  (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)
These firings, therefore, with all diligence and care having been formulated by us, we
define that it be permitted to no one to bring forward, or to write, or
to compose, or to think, or to teach a different faith. Whosoever shall
presume to compose a different faith, or to propose, or teach, or hand
to those wishing to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the
Gentiles or Jews, or from any heresy, any different Creed; or to
introduce a new voice or invention of speech to subvert these things
which now have been determined by us, all these, if they be Bishops or
clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, the
clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laymen: let them be
anathematized. (Constantinople III).
These and many other serious things, which at
present would take too long to list, but which you know well, cause Our
intense grief. It is not enough for Us to deplore these innumerable
evils unless We strive to uproot them. We take refuge
in your faith and call upon your concern for the salvation of the
Catholic flock. Your singular prudence and diligent spirit give Us
courage and console Us, afflicted as We are with so many trials. We must
raise Our voice and attempt all things lest a wild boar from the woods
should destroy the vineyard or wolves kill the flock. It is Our duty to lead the flock only to the food which is healthful. In
these evil and dangerous times, the shepherds must never neglect their
duty; they must never be so overcome by fear that they abandon the sheep.
Let them never neglect the flock and become sluggish from idleness and
apathy. Therefore, united in spirit, let us promote our common cause, or
more truly the cause of God; let our vigilance be one and our effort
united against the common enemies.
Indeed you will accomplish this perfectly
if, as the duty of your office demands, you attend to yourselves and to
doctrine and meditate on these words: "the universal Church is
affected by any and every novelty" and the admonition of Pope Agatho:
"nothing of the things appointed ought to be diminished; nothing
changed; nothing added; but they must be preserved both as regards
expression and meaning." Therefore may the unity which is built upon the
See of Peter as on a sure foundation stand firm. May it be for all a
wall and a security, a safe port, and a treasury of countless blessings. To check the audacity of those who attempt to infringe upon the rights
of this Holy See or to sever the union of the churches with the See of
Peter, instill in your people a zealous confidence in the papacy and
sincere veneration for it. As St. Cyprian wrote: "He who abandons the
See of Peter on which the Church was founded, falsely believes himself
to be a part of the Church . . . .
But for the other painful causes We
are concerned about, you should recall that certain societies and
assemblages seem to draw up a battle line together with the followers of
every false religion and cult. They feign piety for religion; but they
are driven by a passion for promoting novelties and sedition
everywhere. They preach liberty of every sort; they stir up disturbances
in sacred and civil affairs, and pluck authority to pieces.(Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that, where the ravings of
human reason extend, there is somebody who studies new things and
strives to know more than is necessary, against the advice of the
apostle. There you will find someone who is overconfident in
seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which it can be found
without even a light tarnish of error. Therefore, the Church is
called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation of truth. You correctly
understand, venerable brothers, that We speak here also of that
erroneous philosophical system which was recently brought in and is
clearly to be condemned. This system, which comes from the
contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does not seek truth
where it stands in the received and holy apostolic inheritance. Rather,
other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain doctrines not approved by
the Church, are adopted. Only the most conceited men wrongly think that
these teachings can sustain and support that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
As for the rest, We greatly deplore the fact that,
where the ravings of human reason extend, there is somebody who studies
new things and strives to know more than is necessary, against the
advice of the apostle. There you will find someone who is
overconfident in seeking the truth outside the Catholic Church, in which
it can be found without even a light tarnish of error.
Therefore, the Church is called, and is indeed, a pillar and foundation
of truth. You correctly understand, venerable brothers, that We speak
here also of that erroneous philosophical system which was recently
brought in and is clearly to be condemned. This system, which
comes from the contemptible and unrestrained desire for innovation, does
not seek truth where it stands in the received and holy apostolic
inheritance. Rather, other empty doctrines, futile and uncertain
doctrines not approved by the Church, are adopted. Only the most
conceited men wrongly think that these teachings can sustain and support
that truth. (Pope Gregory XVI, Singulari Nos, May 25, 1834.)
In the Catholic Church Christianity is Incarnate.
It identifies Itself with that perfect, spiritual, and, in its own
order, sovereign society, which is the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ and
which has for Its visible head the Roman Pontiff, successor of the
Prince of the Apostles. It is the continuation of the mission of the
Savior, the daughter and the heiress of His Redemption. It has preached
the Gospel, and has defended it at the price of Its blood, and strong in
the Divine assistance and of that immortality which has been promised
it, It makes no terms with error but remains faithful to the
commands which it has received, to carry the doctrine of Jesus Christ
to the uttermost limits of the world and to the end of time, and to
protect it in its inviolable integrity. (Pope Leo XIII, A Review of His Pontificate, March 19, 1902.)
For the teaching authority of the Church, which in the divine wisdom was constituted on earth in
order that revealed doctrines might remain intact for ever, and that
they might be brought with ease and security to the knowledge of men,
and which is daily exercised through the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops
who are in communion with him, has also the office of defining, when it
sees fit, any truth with solemn rites and decrees, whenever this is
necessary either to oppose the errors or the attacks of heretics, or
more clearly and in greater detail to stamp the minds of the faithful
with the articles of sacred doctrine which have been explained. (Pope
Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)
Let, therefore, the
separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City
which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their
blood; to that See, We repeat, which is 'the root and womb whence the
Church of God springs,' not with the intention and the hope that
'the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth' will
cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but,
on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and
government. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)