“There’s Been This Division”

The Anglican layman who poses as the “archbishop” of Canterbury, Justin Welby, is held in great esteem by Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the Argentine layman who poses as a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter, and his fellow band of conciliar revolutionaries. Indeed, Welby, who shares Bergoglio’s “concern” about “homophobia” and “income inequality, is considered to be an “expert” on “the Christian faith” who is competent to address Catholics, who are expected to “learn” things from him that they did not know before.

Vatican Radio saw fit to run a news story on meeting that Welby had today at the Lambeth Palace, which, of course, the Anglicans stole from the Catholic Church in 1534, with Chemin Neuf, a syncretist conciliar “lay movement, something that is very telling in and of itself:

(Vatican Radio) A prayer service took place on Thursday morning at London’s Lambeth Palace, the residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, to officially welcome four members of the Catholic ecumenical community Chemin Neuf.

An Anglican married couple, a Catholic sister and a Lutheran man training for ministry will form part of the resident Lambeth community to “share in the daily round of prayer” and to “further the ecumenical and international dimensions” of the Anglican leader’s ministry. The move was described by England’s Cardinal-elect Vincent Nichols as “a clear and bold sign of the importance of prayer in the search for visible Christian unity.”


To find out more Philippa Hitchen spoke first to Anglican Chemin Neuf member Alan Morley-Fletcher and then to the French founder of the community, Fr Laurent Fabre:

“It was an amazing surprise for us and we didn’t hesitate to say yes …we already knew Justin Welby well because of the work he’d already done in Africa on reconciliation and our community is very present in Africa, so we said yes with great joy….


Our day is based around prayer……in between that we would be around…trying to meet people…discussing with them, sometimes ministering to people who are here or who are visiting….


Since 1534 there’s been this division between the Anglican and Catholic Churches…this is something very significant we’re witnessing now….and it gives joy to a lot of people….for example to the Pope…..and in England also to Archbishop Vincent Nichols who is about to become a cardinal…..it’s a little beginning but it gives us a lot of hope….


There are important points in common between Pope Francis and Justin Welby….for both it was a surprise election, both are very popular, very much loved….both want to go further in terms of unity of Christians…..and as both are men of prayer, we can expect good suprises….and we need to pray for both of them so that they can take the right decisions at the right time”. (Syncretists Learn from Anglican Heretic.)

Yes, “there’s been this division” since 1534.

What is called a “division” is actually a schism as there was no “Anglican” church prior to 1534. The Anglican sect was created when the lustful, adulterous, lecherous King Henry VIII had Parliament declare him to be the “Supreme Head of the Church in England” a year after the Bishop of London, Thomas Cranmer, had issued a declaration of nullity of Henry’s marriage to his legitimate wife, Queen Catherine of Aragon, in order to marry the scheming woman who beguiled him, Anne Boleyn. In other words, the Anglican sect was created to serve the lust of a king who wound up killing the woman responsible for leading him into taking Catholic England out of the one and only true Faith.

Henry Tudor’s schismatic act ushered in a merciless period of the shedding of the blood of those Catholics who refused to abandon the true Faith by recognizing the Parliamentary Act of Supremacy. Over 72,000 Catholics, a figure that representing three percent of the population of England at that time, were killed by orders of the king between 1534 and the time of his death on January 28, 1547. The most extensive land grab in human history took place as monasteries and convents were closed and the poor who lived on their grounds in exchange for a share of their crops were expelled, thus creating the problem of the urban poor.  Ever the clever politician, Henry Tudor gave titles of nobility to those whom he favored with the lands he stole from the Catholic Church to assure that their could be no thought of their accepting any kind of reunion with Rome (and the one that took place upon the accession of his daughter by Queen Catherine, Mary, to the throne in 1553 lasted for only five years). “Some division.”

The conciliar revolutionaries, however, including Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Vincent Nichols, the conciliar “archbishop” of Westminster who receives the red had as a conciliar “cardinal” today, accept Justin Welby as a valid “bishop” who has a mission from God to sanctify and thus to save souls who hold to the “Anglican Communion” that was born as a result of lust and divorce. Bergoglio and Nichols share a desire with Welby to “search for unity” even though there is only means for those who adhere to the Anglican sect to save their souls: to convert unconditionally to the Catholic Church:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

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

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

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is “the root and womb whence the Church of God springs,” not with the intention and the hope that “the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, “Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,”[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be “careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

The conciliarists reject this plain, irreformable teaching of the Catholic Church. They reject this as theirs is a synthetic faith that is designed to tickle the itching ears of men and to reaffirm them in their lives of sin in the name of “mercy,” thereby Going the Way of All Heretical Sects.

It is clear that the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism intend to go down the same path of “gradualism” as each of the Protestant sects have trod, chipping away, whether incrementally or by giant strides, at whatever remains of recognizably Catholic Faith and Morals. They are doing this in order to break down the last bastions of what Jorge Mario Bergoglio himself repeatedly has referred to as “ideology” but is nothing other than fidelity to everything contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith.

The nefarious Walter “Cardinal” Kasper explained this strategy of “gradulalness,” as he termed it, yesterday when he addressed the conciliar “cardinals” prior to the consistory that takes place today, Saturday, February 22, 2014, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Antioch and the Commemoration of Saint Paul:

From a formal point of view, Fr. Lombardi mentioned that Cardinal Kasper’s document does not claim to address all themes related to the family, nor does it attempt to anticipate the next Synod, but is rather a form of “opening”. Its introduction was dedicated to the rediscovery of the Gospel of the family, originating from the family in the order of creation, the vision of the family in Genesis and in God’s plan. The second part focused on the structures of sin within the family: problems, tensions between men and women, body and spirit, the alienation of the suffering of women and mothers, etc. Finally, it explored the issue of the family in the Christian order of redemption, referring to texts from the Gospel and the New Testament relating to the family, such as the Letter to the Ephesians. It also considered marriage as a Sacrament, and its sanctifying grace.

The cardinal also referred to the question of remarried divorcees, considering the theme in depth and in a structured, nuanced fashion. He reiterated that in this area it is necessary to bring together pastoral care with the inseparable duo of faith and the words of Jesus, and an understanding of divine mercy. The cardinal referred to Pope emeritus Benedict XVI’s work on this issue, when he asked if, beyond rigour and laxity, the Sacrament of penance could perhaps offer the path to accommodating difficult situations. He also recalled Pope Francis’ address to the prelates of the Roman Rota at the beginning of this year, in which he spoke about the validity of marriage, when he affirmed that the legal and pastoral dimensions are not in opposition.

Fr. Lombardi concluded by emphasising that the Cardinal accorded great importance to the “law of gradualness”, or rather the advancement towards new forms in exploring in depth the mystery of redemption in Christ, and in understanding the Gospel law of truth. (Kasper addresses  Brother Raccoon Lodge Members.)

Yes, the “law of gradualness” is what led the Anglicans to go from Henry Tudor’s acceptance of divorce and remarriage to the acceptance of contraception and abortion, purely as a matter of “individual conscience,” you understand, to the “ordination” of women as “priests” and to the mainstreaming of the agenda of the Homosexual Collective in the name of “inclusion,” “charity” and “equality.”

As wrong as Walter Kasper is about the “law of gradualness,” however, he is entirely correct that none other than Joseph Alois Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is a championing of this Hegelianism, both in theory and in fact, as the Antipope Emeritus told us on December 22, 2005, that it was necessary to “discover” that the meaning of Catholic doctrine can change over time as human language can never express fully the many aspects of truth, thereby making its expression a prisoner of the subjective circumstances of the time in which it was formulated:

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.

It is clear that this commitment to expressing a specific truth in a new way demands new thinking on this truth and a new and vital relationship with it; it is also clear that new words can only develop if they come from an informed understanding of the truth expressed, and on the other hand, that a reflection on faith also requires that this faith be lived. In this regard, the programme that Pope John XXIII proposed was extremely demanding, indeed, just as the synthesis of fidelity and dynamic is demanding.. (Christmas greetings to the Members of the Conciliar and Prelature, December 22, 2005)

It was by use of his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity” that Ratzinger/Benedict justified the “new ecclesiology,” false ecumenism and inter-religious “prayer” services, episcopal collegiality, religious liberty, separation of Church and State, heretical interpretations of Sacred Scripture, the distortion and misrepresentation of various Church Fathers and Doctors and saints, including the martyrs of the early Church, and, of course, the abominable Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo service. Ratzinger/Benedict even distorted the facts of history itself on numerous occasions. This is why the former conciliar “pope” could be called Benedict the Contortionist as statements made in defiance of the teaching of the Catholic Church are promulgated by her counterfeit ape.

An article written by Sandro Magister in 2011 explained that it was as Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger that the now retired universal public face of apostasy believed that it was possible to find a way to accommodate Catholics with a ratified and consummated marriage who had divorced and remarried without the fig leaf of a concliar decree of nullity:

In the third part of his essay, Pope Benedict replies to those who demand that the Catholic Church respect the choice of the divorced and remarried when “in conscience” they believe it just to receive communion, in contrast with the juridical norm that bans it.

Benedict XVI begins with a consideration that seems to close any sort of loophole:

“If the prior marriage of two divorced and remarried members of the faithful was valid, under no circumstances can their new union be considered lawful and therefore reception of the sacraments is intrinsically impossible. The conscience of the individual is bound to this norm without exception.” A norm, the indissolubility of marriage, that is of “divine law” and “over which the Church has no discretionary authority.”

But immediately afterward, he adds:

“However, the Church has the authority to clarify those conditions which must be fulfilled for a marriage to be considered indissoluble according to the sense of Jesus’ teaching.”

And, he writes, the ecclesiastical tribunals that should ascertain whether or not a marriage is valid do not always function well. Sometimes the processes “last an excessive amount of time.” In some cases “they conclude with questionable decisions.”In still others “mistakes occur.”

In these cases, therefore – the pope recognizes –, “it seems that the application of ‘epikeia’ in the internal forum is not automatically excluded,” meaning a decision of conscience:

“Some theologians are of the opinion that the faithful ought to adhere strictly even in the internal forum to juridical decisions which they believe to be false. Others maintain that exceptions are possible here in the internal forum, because the juridical forum does not deal with norms of divine law, but rather with norms of ecclesiastical law. This question, however, demands further study and clarification. Admittedly, the conditions for asserting an exception would need to be clarified very precisely, in order to avoid arbitrariness and to safeguard the public character of marriage, removing it from subjective decisions”. (No Communion for Outlaws. But Benedict Is Studying Two Exceptions.)

Ah, “the sense of Jesus’ teaching.”

What does this mean?

This means that there is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio on this issue, and it means that there is no space between the lords of conciliarism and the Orthodox and the Protestants on it. Non-Catholics really do stick together, ladies and gentlemen.

Moreover, the desire to accommodate “new situations” is simply a code to find some way of legitimizing the “loving relationships” of those who are engaged in perverse sins against nature. Vincent “Cardinal” Nichols himself has referred to such “loving,” “stable” “relationships”:

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

The Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, said he appreciates some same-sex couples want to be joined in wedlock but insisted the true nature of marriage is between a man and a woman.

Asked what he would say to a gay Catholic couple who approached him for marriage within the Church, the Archbishop said: “I would want to say to them that I understand their desires, that I understand their experience of love is vitally important in their lives, but I would want to say to them that they are called in my view, in the Church’s view, to a very profound friendship in life.

“I would want them to be respected, but I would want them to have a vision in themselves that what they are called to is not marriage but a very profound and lifelong friendship.”

Yesterday Theresa May, the Home Secretary, and Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister, unveiled a document setting out how same-sex couples would be allowed to register civil marriages. (Apostate “Archbishop:” Gay couples are just lifelong friends.)

Lifelong relationship? “Gay couples”? Saint Patrick never used such terms. No saint has ever used such terms. No true pope or bishop of the Catholic Church has ever used such terms. When are people going to realize that this kind of talk is but a correlative proof of the fact that these men are apostates, men who have lost the Catholic Faith and who are thus enemies of Christ the King and of the souls He redeemed by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross.

Writing in Casti Cannubii, December 31, 1930, Pope Pius XI, demolished shibboleths such as the ones uttered by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Walter Kasper and Vincent Nichols:

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

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

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

Indeed there are some who desire and insist that these practices be legitimatized by the law or, at least, excused by their general acceptance among the people. They do not seem even to suspect that these proposals partake of nothing of the modern “culture” in which they glory so much, but are simply hateful abominations which beyond all question reduce our truly cultured nations to the barbarous standards of savage peoples. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 29, 1930.)

As Jorge Mario Bergoglio views things, however, to adhere to such “rigid” “views” as stated by Pope Pius XI is to believe in an “ideology” that has nothing to do with what he, Bergoglio, believes is the Catholic Faith. “Ideological” Catholics do not have the Faith as they do not “live” It, especially by means of “charity:”

Christians who think of faith as a system of ideas, ideologically: there were such as these even in Jesus’ own day. The Apostle John says of them, that they were the antichrist, the ideologues of faith, of whatsoever [ideological] stamp they might have been. At that time there were the Gnostics, but there will [always] be many – and thus, those who fall into casuistry or those who fall into ideology are Christians who know the doctrine, but without faith, like demons. The difference is that the demons tremble, these Christians, no: they live peacefully.

The Pope recalled how in the Gospels, there are also examples of “people who do not know the doctrine, but have so much faith.” He went on to mention the episode of the Canaanite woman, who, with her faith obtains healing for her daughter, who was the victim of possession, and the Samaritan woman who opens her heart because, he says, “she has not met with abstract truths,” but “Jesus Christ.” Then there is the blind man healed by Jesus, who then faces interrogation by the Pharisees and teachers of the law until he kneels with humility and adores the one who healed him. Three people, said Pope Francis, who show how faith and witness are inseparable:

“Faith is an encounter with Jesus Christ, with God, from which faith is born, and from there it brings you to witness. That is what the Apostle means: a faith without works , a faith that does not involve one’s [whole] self, that does not lead to witness, is not faith. It is words – and nothing more than words.” (Friday Morning at the Ding Dong School of Apostasy)

This is hardly the first time that Bergoglio has spoken this way and I have no stomach, pretty literally right now, to recount each of the times that he has done so in the past year.

Suffice it for the moment, though, to provide this reminder, taken from his “apostolic exhortation,” Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013:

161. It would not be right to see this call to growth exclusively or primarily in terms of doctrinal formation. It has to do with “observing” all that the Lord has shown us as the way of responding to his love. Along with the virtues, this means above all the new commandment, the first and the greatest of the commandments, and the one that best identifies us as Christ’s disciples: “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you” (Jn 15:12). Clearly, whenever the New Testament authors want to present the heart of the Christian moral message, they present the essential requirement of love for one’s neighbour: “The one who loves his neighbour has fulfilled the whole law… therefore love of neighbour is the fulfilling of the law” (Rom 13:8, 10). These are the words of Saint Paul, for whom the commandment of love not only sums up the law but constitutes its very heart and purpose: “For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, ‘you shall love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal 5:14). To his communities Paul presents the Christian life as a journey of growth in love: “May the Lord make you increase and abound in love for one another and for all” (1 Th 3:12). Saint James likewise exhorts Christians to fulfil “the royal law according to the Scripture: You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (2:8), in order not to fall short of any commandment. . . .

194. This message is so clear and direct, so simple and eloquent, that no ecclesial interpretation has the right to relativize it. The Church’s reflection on these texts ought not to obscure or weaken their force, but urge us to accept their exhortations with courage and zeal. Why complicate something so simple? Conceptual tools exist to heighten contact with the realities they seek to explain, not to distance us from them. This is especially the case with those biblical exhortations which summon us so forcefully to brotherly love, to humble and generous service, to justice and mercy towards the poor. Jesus taught us this way of looking at others by his words and his actions. So why cloud something so clear? We should not be concerned simply about falling into doctrinal error, but about remaining faithful to this light-filled path of life and wisdom. For “defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them”. (Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is forever attempting to posit a false dichotomy between doctrinal fidelity and charity. This effort is unspeakably insidious as true charity starts with love of God, and one cannot truly love God unless one adheres to everything that He has taught to us. To disparage the importance of doctrinal formation in order to seek to replace it with a nebulous kind of social work that is performed to “prove” how “good” and “kind” Christians can be is nothing other than to place a complete seal of approval upon the false principles of The Sillon that were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910. It is also to make a mockery of the very words of Our Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the entire patrimony of the Catholic Church:

[11] The Jews therefore sought him on the festival day, and said: Where is he? [12] And there was much murmuring among the multitude concerning him. For some said: He is a good man. And others said: No, but he seduceth the people. [13] Yet no man spoke openly of him, for fear of the Jews. [14] Now about the midst of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. [15] And the Jews wondered, saying: How doth this man know letters, having never learned?

[16]Jesus answered them, and said: My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.[17] If any man do the will of him; he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. [18] He that speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh the glory of him that sent him, he is true, and there is no injustice in him. [19] Did Moses not give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? [20] Why seek you to kill me? The multitude answered, and said: Thou hast a devil; who seeketh to kill thee?  (John 7: 11-20.)

Bergoglio also managed yesterday to blaspheme Saint John the Evangelist, the only Apostle who stood at the foot of the Cross along with Our Lady and Saint Mary Magdalene, Mary of Cleophas and Salome, by making it appear as though the Beloved Apostle agreed with him. The truth is, of course, that Saint John the Evangelist explained that we cannot truly love God unless we keep His Commandments:

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. And every one that loveth him who begot, loveth him also who is born of him. In this we know that we love the children of God: when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the charity of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not heavy. (1 John 5: 1-3)

The “gradualness” extolled by Bergoglio and Kasper will lead their false church down the road of the Anglicans to the point where even the surgical dismemberment of children in the womb in the “hard cases” is going to be accepted as a matter of “therapeutic abortion.” Impossible? Well, you ought to read what the head of the “new evangelization” council said five years ago now (see Vatican Archbishop, Spokesman Come Out Swinging against Pro-Life Critics; see also So Long to the Fifth Commandment, the Statement of those “Pontifical Academy for Life” members who criticized Fisichella, Dr. Marian Therese Horvat’s The Holy See Abandons its Pro-Life Position, and Rotten To The Very Roots.)

For our part, though, we must remember that to denounce error is acquit our duties before God without being respecters of persons, and those who are concerned about “piling on” Jorge Mario Bergoglio ought to be reminded that Successors of Saint Peter can never teach error, which is why it is important to reprise this brief section from Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846:

10. This consideration too clarifies the great error of those others as well who boldly venture to explain and interpret the words of God by their own judgment, misusing their reason and holding the opinion that these words are like a human work. God Himself has set up a living authority to establish and teach the true and legitimate meaning of His heavenly revelation. This authority judges infallibly all disputes which concern matters of faith and morals, lest the faithful be swirled around by every wind of doctrine which springs from the evilness of men in encompassing error. And this living infallible authority is active only in that Church which was built by Christ the Lord upon Peter, the head of the entire Church, leader and shepherd, whose faith He promised would never fail. This Church has had an unbroken line of succession from Peter himself; these legitimate pontiffs are the heirs and defenders of the same teaching, rank, office and power. And the Church is where Peter is,[5] and Peter speaks in the Roman Pontiff,[6] living at all times in his successors and making judgment,[7] providing the truth of the faith to those who seek it.[8] The divine words therefore mean what this Roman See of the most blessed Peter holds and has held.

11. For this mother and teacher[9] of all the churches has always preserved entire and unharmed the faith entrusted to it by Christ the Lord. Furthermore, it has taught it to the faithful, showing all men truth and the path of salvation. Since all priesthood originates in this church,[10] the entire substance of the Christian religion resides there also.[11] The leadership of the Apostolic See has always been active,[12] and therefore because of its preeminent authority, the whole Church must agree with it. The faithful who live in every place constitute the whole Church.[13] Whoever does not gather with this Church scatters.[14] (Pope Pius IX, Qui Pluribus, November 9, 1846.)

Each of our true popes and Holy Mother Church’s true general councils had to be wrong to denounce error and to insist on doctrinal formation in catechesis and missionary work for Jorge Mario Bergoglio to be correct. This simply cannot be so.

To defend doctrinal truth and to uproot error from the mind is a duty we owe to God and to each other:

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.)

Would that they had but displayed less zeal and energy in propagating it! But such is their activity and such their unwearying labor on behalf of their cause, that one cannot but be pained to see them waste such energy in endeavoring to ruin the Church when they might have been of such service to her had their efforts been better directed. Their artifices to delude men’s minds are of two kinds, the first to remove obstacles from their path, the second to devise and apply actively and patiently every resource that can serve their purpose. They recognize that the three chief difficulties which stand in their way are the scholastic method of philosophy, the authority and tradition of the Fathers, and the magisterium of the Church, and on these they wage unrelenting war. Against scholastic philosophy and theology they use the weapons of ridicule and contempt. Whether it is ignorance or fear, or both, that inspires this conduct in them, certain it is that the passion for novelty is always united in them with hatred of scholasticism, and there is no surer sign that a man is tending to Modernism than when he begins to show his dislike for the scholastic method. Let the Modernists and their admirers remember the proposition condemned by Pius IX: “The method and principles which have served the ancient doctors of scholasticism when treating of theology no longer correspond with the exigencies of our time or the progress of science.” They exercise all their ingenuity in an effort to weaken the force and falsify the character of tradition, so as to rob it of all its weight and authority. But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those “who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind…or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church“; nor that of the declaration of the fourth Council of Constantinople: “We therefore profess to preserve and guard the rules bequeathed to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the Holy and most illustrious Apostles, by the orthodox Councils, both general and local, and by everyone of those divine interpreters, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.” Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: “I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

Yes, “there’s been this division.” The true “division,” though is between the doctrines, liturgical rites and pastoral practices of conciliarism from those of the Catholic Church. The two are irreconcilable.

Today is the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch, where he first governed Holy Mother Church before establishing the Chair permanently in Rome. One of the readings, taken from the writings of Saint Augustine of Hippo, in today’s Divine Office explains the importance of this great feast:

The solemn Feast of today received from our forefathers the name of that of St Peter’s Chair at Antioch, because there is a tradition that it was on this day that Peter, first of the Apostles, was enthroned in a Bishop’s Chair. Rightly, therefore, do the Churches observe the first day of that Chair, the right to which the Apostle received for the salvation of the Churches from the Lord of the Churches Himself, with the words Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.

It was the Lord Himself Who called Peter the foundation of the Church, and therefore it is right that the Church should reverence this foundation whereon her mighty structure riseth. Justly is it written in the Psalm which we have just heard Let them exalt him in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders. Blessed be God, Who hath commanded that the Blessed Apostle Peter should be exalted in the congregation! Worthy to be honoured by the Church is that foundation from which her goodly towers rise, pointing to heaven!

In the honour which is this day paid to the inauguration of the first Bishop’s throne, an honour is paid to the office of all Bishops. The Churches testify one to another, that, the greater the Church’s dignity, the greater the reverence due to her priests. While I confess how rightly godly custom hath exalted this Feast in the estimation of all the Churches, the more do I wonder at the growth of that unhealthy error which at this day causeth some unbelievers to lay food and wine upon the graves of the dead, as if souls once rid of the body had any longer any need of bodily refreshment. (The Divine Office.)

We see the growth of unhealthy error today. Alas, that error is to be found in a false church that most people in the world believe is the Catholic Church. However, Holy Mother Church can never be the author of any kind of error, and errors have multiplied rapidly under Bergoglio, who is so bereft of the Catholic Faith as to address a syncretist Protestant as a “brother bishop” in a video he recorded from his own iPhone (see Francumenism: Mission Accomplished at an anti-sedevacantist website), something that will be the subject of the next commentary on this site but speaks for itself pretty clearly.

It is impossible for the spotless, virginal mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to give us error or ambiguity in her doctrines, no less to contradict them outright, whether formally or by papal pronouncements.

This precise point was made by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men’s faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before.        (Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

How can it get any clearer?

Let us keep close to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in His Real Presence in this time of apostasy and betrayal if this is at all possible to do given the relatively few places where He is to be found, adoring Him, if only by making a spiritual communion, and commending ourselves to His ineffable mercy through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary as we pray as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.

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

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

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 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.

This entry was posted in The Bergoglio Files by Thomas Droleskey. Bookmark the permalink.

About Thomas Droleskey

Dr. Thomas A. Droleskey is a Catholic writer and speaker . He is the publisher-editor of Christ or Chaos.com, a site that has featured over 900 articles since the beginning of 2006, many dealing with his embrace of sedevacantism. Hundreds of his articles appeared in The Wanderer, the oldest weekly national Catholic newspaper, between 1992 and 2000. He was a contributor to The Latin Mass: A Journal of Catholic Culture between 2001 and 2003. Droleskey's articles have appeared in the American Life League's Celebrate Life magazine. He also contributed articles to The Remnant and for Catholic Family News. His articles also appeared for two years in The Four Marks. Dr. Droleskey was an adjunct professor of political science at the C. W. Post Campus of Long Island University between January of 1991 and July of 2003, reprising his association there for a winter intersession course, which was taught between December 28, 2006, and January 11, 2007. He had taught political science around the nation since January of 1974, receiving numerous awards for excellence in teaching. Many of his students have converted to the Catholic Faith. Formerly a pro-life activist, Droleskey was the candidate for Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York on the Right to Life Party line in 1986. He was the party's candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay in 1997, and he challenged then Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato for the party's senatorial nomination in 1998, receiving over 37% of the primary vote. Droleskey has campaigned for pro-life candidates around the country. He is now retired from all involvement in partisan politics, concentrating instead on the promotion of the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen. Dr. Droleskey has lectured extensively around the nation for the past twenty years, driving nearly 1,000,000 miles in the last twenty-five years of his lecturing around the nation. His thirty-six hour lecture program, Living in the Shadow of the Cross, has been given in twenty different venues across the United States. Another lecture program, "To be Catholic from the Womb to the Tomb," was given in eleven different places across the nation. His work is dedicated to the restoration of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and of the Social Reign of Christ the King. Droleskey is devoted to the establishment of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ and the Queenship of Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart. His first book, Christ in the Voting Booth, was published by Hope of Saint Monica, Inc., 1998. His second book, There Is No Cure for this Condition, was published by Chartres Communications in 2001. G.I.R.M. Warfare (The Traditional Latin Mass versus the General Instruction to the Roman Missal) was published in 2004; Restoring Christ as the King of All Nations, Droleskey's compendium of fifty-three articles about the immutable doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, was published in June of 2005. Three e-books, There Is No Shortcut to Cure This Condition, Conversion in Reverse: How the Ethos of Americanism Converted Catholics and Contributed to the Rise of Conciliarism and Meeting the Mets: A Quirky History of a Quirky Team, have been published in the past four years. The latter book, for which this particular Word Press site was created initially in 2012, is also available in a paperback format. Droleskey served for some years on the Board of Advisers of the Society of Catholic Social Scientists. He has served on the boards of the National Association of Private and Independent Catholic Schools and on the board of 100% Pro-Life Pac. He is listed in the 2001-2002 edition of the Marquis Who's Who in America. Droleskey, who was born on November 24, 1951, is married to the former Sharon Collins. Their first child, Lucy Mary Norma, was born in Sioux City, Iowa, on March 27, 2002. A native of Long Island, Droleskey and his family now live in the United States of America.