Antichrist cannot be far behind.
The adversary has unleashed a furious torrent of unbridled conciliar revolutionary activity in the last year since the “election” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio as “Pope Francis,” a man who appears to be living a life of arrested development as a rebellious adolescent. Bergoglio, who speaks and acts viscerally, has been on a joy ride and a ego trip that knows no limits as he has encouraged the likes of Father Hans Kung, long a critic of the pace of the conciliar revolution, and the editorial staff of the National Catholic Reporter and fellow Jacobin/Bolshevik conciliarists throughout the world.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has spent the last year giving great encouragement to those who are steeped in sins against the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as he has tickled the itching ears of men and women who are living together outside the context of the Holy Sacrament of Matrimony and those who are still married but have sought a civil divorce and before civilly “remarrying” without even a conciliar decree of nullity. Bergoglio has also given great encouragement to those engaged in unnatural vice by five little words: “Who am I to judge?”
Bergoglio has put his money where his mouth is as he has retained a proven morally corrupt presbyter, Battista Ricca, in the position to which he has appointed him, that is, as the head of the Vatican Institute of Religious Works (the Vatican Bank), even after incontrovertible evidence was brought forth to demonstrate his complete indecency as a human being, no less as a putative “priest.”
Bergoglio, however, has seen fit to “judge” anyone who holds fast to the immutable truths of the Catholic Faith. This contemptible reprobate has engaged in a ceaseless rhetorical campaign of rank demagoguery against those he has referred to pejoratively as “Pharisees,” “Pelagians,” “restorationists,” “triumphalists,” “stubborn” and “ideologues.”
This is has been much more than rhetoric, however.
Remember, the “merciful” “Pope Francis” has authorized a corpulent faux Capuchin presbyter, “Father” Fidenzio Volpi, to launch a full-scale war against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate because some of their number cleaved to the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition and had offered criticisms of the “Second” Vatican Council.
Bergoglio has used his daily sessions of the Ding Dong School Of Apostasy at the Casa Santa Marta to reveal his agenda for the future of conciliarism.
Bergoglio used his first “encyclical letter,” Lumen Fidei, July 5, 2013, to make it clear that personal “experience,” not “doctrine,” is the foundation of one’s faith in God, a Modernist proposition that had been dissected and condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907. (See Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part one, Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part two, Incompetent To Teach Squat About The Catholic Faith, part three.)
Bergoglio spread the joy of conciliarism with sacrilegious liturgies and false doctrines aplenty whilst cavorting upon the Copacabana Beach in Rio di Janiero during the travesty that was World Youth Day 2013 (see Francis The Anti-Apostle, Francis The Syncretist, Francis The Sillonist, Francis The Apostate: From Revolution To Anarchy, Francis The Pied Piper of Antichrist, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part one, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part two, Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three).
Bergoglio has made headlines by making what appears to be outlandish statements in various interviews to journalists, staring with those who accompanied him on the airplane taking him back from Rio de Janiero, Brazil, to Rome, on Monday, July 29, 2013 ( Francis Says ¡Viva la Revolución!, part three), and including, at least up to now, with three others: “Father” Antonio Spadaro, S.J. (see Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part one, Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part two and Francis: Apostle of Antichrist, part three), Eugenio Scalfari (Nothing Random About This, part one, Nothing Random About This, part two, Nothing Random About This, part three, Nothing Random About This, part four, Nothing Random About This, part five.), and Andrea Tornielli (see Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson To Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!, part one and Memo From Patrolman Ed Nicholson to Jorge Mario Bergoglio: SHUT UP!, part two) and his most recently interview which was given to Ferruccio di Bortoli of the Italian daily newspaper Corriere della Sera (see Not Another Interview!).
The supposedly outlandish statements were, of course, nothing other than standard-issue conciliarspeak that many of us heard decades ago pass through the lips of Jesuit revolutionaries.
Bergoglio used his first “apostolic exhortation,” Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013, to outline his program for the further elimination of the vestiges of recognizable Catholicism from every nook and cranny of his counterfeit church of conciliarism, an agenda that had been discussed a month beforehand in two identical lectures given by his chief Commissar and ideologist, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez (see Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part one, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part two, Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part three and Commissar of Antichrist Speaks, part four). (For the seven part series on Evangelii Gaudium, please see Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part one, Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part two, Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part three, Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part four, Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part five, Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part six and Jorge and Oscar’s False Gospel of False Joy, part seven).
When all is said and done, therefore, everything that there is to know about the direction that Jorge Mario Bergoglio would take the conciliar revolution. He is the same now as he has been throughout the course of his storied career as a lay Jesuit revolutionary. Indeed, a 2007 interview he gave to the “lay movement” Communion and Liberation’s 30 Days spelled out with exactitude what he would do if he ever got the chance to use the conciliar “papacy” to universalize his own particular “pastoral” approach to take the conciliar revolution to its “existential peripheries.”
Here are some excerpts accompanied by a bit of commentary:
BERGOGLIO: Staying, remaining faithful implies an outgoing. Precisely if one remains in the Lord one goes out of oneself. Paradoxically precisely because one remains, precisely if one is faithful one changes. One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or the fundamentalists, to the letter. Fidelity is always a change, a blossoming, a growth. The Lord brings about a change in those who are faithful to Him. That is Catholic doctrine. Saint Vincent of Lerins makes the comparison between the biologic development of the person, between the person who grows, and the Tradition which, in handing on the depositum fidei from one age to another, grows and consolidates with the passage of time: «Ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate». (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca)
Paradox and contradiction worthy of His Apostateness, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, Antipope Emeritus. “One does not remain faithful, like the traditionalists or the fundamentalists, to the letter”?
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has certainly hammered home that them in the past three hundred sixty-five days.
Beroglio is a man who is as free with the teaching of saints such as Saint Vincent Lerins as the man who defeated him at the 2005 conciliar conclave, the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger. This is what Saint Vincent Lerins actually taught about Catholic Tradition:
“Do not be misled by various and passing doctrines. In the Catholic Church Herself we must be careful to hold what has been believed everywhere, always and by all; for that alone is truly and properly Catholic.” (Saint Vincent of Lerins, quoted in Tumultuous Times by Frs. Francisco and Dominic Radecki, CMRI, p. 279.)
Q. Is this what you would have said at the Consistory?
BERGOGLIO: Yes. I would have spoken about these three key points.
Q. Nothing else?
BERGOGLIO: Nothing else… No, perhaps I would have mentioned two things of which there is need in this moment, there is more need: mercy, mercy and apostolic courage.
Q. What do they mean to you?
BERGOGLIO: To me apostolic courage is disseminating. Disseminating the Word. Giving it to that man and to that woman for whom it was bestowed. Giving them the beauty of the Gospel, the amazement of the encounter with Jesus… and leaving it to the Holy Spirit to do the rest. It is the Lord, says the Gospel, who makes the seed spring and bear fruit.
Q. In short, it is the Holy Spirit who performs the mission.
BERGOGLIO: The early theologians said: the soul is a kind of sailing boat, the Holy Spirit is the wind that blows in the sail, to send it on its way, the impulses and the force of the wind are the gifts of the Spirit. Without His drive, without His grace, we don’t go ahead. The Holy Spirit lets us enter the mystery of God and saves us from the danger of a gnostic Church and from the danger of a self-referential Church, leading us to the mission.
Q. That means also overthrowing all your functionalist solutions, your consolidated plans and pastoral systems …
BERGOGLIO: I didn’t say that pastoral systems are useless. On the contrary. In itself everything that leads by the paths of God is good. I have told my priests: «Do everything you should, you know your duties as ministers, take your responsibilities and then leave the door open». Our sociologists of religion tell us that the influence of a parish has a radius of six hundred meters. In Buenos Aires there are about two thousand meters between one parish and the next. So I then told the priests: «If you can, rent a garage and, if you find some willing layman, let him go there! Let him be with those people a bit, do a little catechesis and even give communion if they ask him». A parish priest said to me: «But Father, if we do this the people then won’t come to church». «But why?» I asked him: «Do they come to mass now?» «No», he answered. And so! Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God.
This is valid also for lay people… (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca)
The danger of a self-referential Church?
Overthrowing all your functionalist solutions, your consolidated pastoral systems?
Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God?
Jorge Mario Bergoglio has constantly blasphemed the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, by rejecting the immutability of Holy Mother Church’s Divine Constitution and of the Sacred Deposit of Faith that her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom gave to her exclusively to teach infallibly and safeguard until His Second Coming at the General Judgment of the living and the dead on the Last Day.
Bergoglio’s discussion of his false concept of “mercy” in 2007 presaged what can be called his “mercy initiative” as “Pope Francis” to “pastorally deal” with “sensitive” “moral issues” without, of course, “changing doctrine.” As has been noted in recent articles on this site this is situation ethics, this is moral relativism. This is what the Argentine Apostate has always believed. He is not a Catholic. It is that simple.
How is this not identical to what Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, evoking the spirit of Hans Urs von Balthasar, wrote in Principles of Catholic Theology in 1982?
Does this mean that the Council should be revoked? Certainly not. It means only that the real reception of the Council has not yet even begun. What devastated the Church in the decade after the Council was not the Council but the refusal to accept it. This becomes clear precisely in the history of the influence of Gaudium et spes. What was identified with the Council was, for the most part, the expression of an attitude that did not coincide with the statements to be found in the text itself, although it is recognizable as a tendency in its development and in some of its individual formulations. The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of the present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the “demolition of the bastions” is a long-overdue task. (Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, p. 391.)
Pope Pius VIII, writing in his one and only encyclical letter, Traditi Humiliate Nostrae, May 24, 1829, during his very brief pontificate warned us about those such as Hans Urs von Balthasar, Joseph Ratzinger and Jorge Mario Bergoglio, men who have sought to “raze” the foundations of the Church:
Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner. All things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel. With tears We say: “Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ.” Truly the impious have said: “Raze it, raze it down to its foundations.” (Pope Pius VIII, Traditi Humiliate Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)
Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an apostate. Each of his predecessors has been one as well.
Q, What should one do?
BERGOGLIO: Look at our people not for what it should be but for what it is and see what is necessary. Without preconceptions and recipes but with generous openness. For the wounds and the frailty God spoke. Allowing the Lord to speak… In a world that we can’t manage to interest with the words we say, only His presence that loves us, saves us, can be of interest. The apostolic fervor renews itself in order to testify to Him who has loved us from the beginning.
Q. For you, then, what is the worst thing that can happen in the Church?
BERGOGLIO: It is what De Lubac calls «spiritual worldliness». It is the greatest danger for the Church, for us, who are in the Church. «It is worse», says De Lubac, «more disastrous than the infamous leprosy that disfigured the dearly beloved Bride at the time of the libertine popes». Spiritual worldliness is putting oneself at the center. It is what Jesus saw going on among the Pharisees: «… You who glorify yourselves. Who give glory to yourselves, the ones to the others». (30Giorni | What I would have said at the Consistory (Interview with Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio by Sefania Falasca).)
Generous openness to what? The devil, that’s what.
Quoting De Lubac on spiritual worldliness, which means ridding the Catholic Church of the belief that she alone possesses truth and has the sole right from God to teach, govern and sanctify men?
You want another example?
Sure, below you will find an an excerpt from an speech Jorge Mario Bergoglio gave upon the release of Father Luis Guissani’s The Attraction of Jesus that was republished in yet another Communion and Liberation magazine, Traces, which is based in Argentina:
The book presented today, El atractivo de Jesucristo, is not a theological treatise, it is a dialogue of friendship; these are table conversations between Father Guissani and his disciples. It is not a book for intellectuals, but for people who are men and women. It is the description of that initial experience, which I shall refer to later on, of wonder which arises in dialogue about daily experience that is provoked and fascinated by the exceptionally human and divine presence and gaze of Jesus Christ. It is the story of a personal relationship–intense, mysterious, and concrete at the same time–of an impassioned and intelligent affection for the person of Jesus, and this enables Fr. Giussani to come to the threshold, as it were, of Mystery, to speak familiarly and intimately with Mystery.
Everything in our life, today just as in Jesus’ time, begins with an encounter. An encounter with this Man, the carpenter of Nazareth, a man like all men and yet different. The first ones, John, Andrew, and Simon, felt themselves to be looked at into their very depths, read in their innermost being, and in them sprang forth a surprise, a wonder that instantly made them feel bound to Him, made them feel different.
When Jesus asked Peter, “Do you love Me?”, “his ‘Yes’ was not the result of an effort of will, it was not the fruit of a ‘decision’ made by the young man Simon: it was the emergence, the coming to the surface of an entire vein of tenderness and adherence that made sense because of the esteem he had for Him–therefore an act of reason;” it was a reasonable act, “which is why he couldn’t not say ‘Yes.’”
We cannot understand this dynamic of encounter which brings forth wonder and adherence if it has not been triggered–forgive me the use of this word–by mercy. Only someone who has encountered mercy, who has been caressed by the tenderness of mercy, is happy and comfortable with the Lord. I beg the theologians who are present not to turn me in to the Sant’Uffizio or to the Inquisition; however, forcing things a bit, I dare to say that the privileged locus of the encounter is the caress of the mercy of Jesus Christ on my sin.
In front of this merciful embrace–and I continue along the lines of Giussani’s thought–we feel a real desire to respond, to change, to correspond; a new morality arises. We posit the ethical problem, an ethics which is born of the encounter, of this encounter which we have described up to now. Christian morality is not a titanic effort of the will, the effort of someone who decides to be consistent and succeeds, a solitary challenge in the face of the world. No. Christian morality is simply a response. It is the heartfelt response to a surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy (I shall return to this adjective). The surprising, unforeseeable, “unjust” mercy, using purely human criteria, of one who knows me, knows my betrayals and loves me just the same, appreciates me, embraces me, calls me again, hopes in me, and expects from me. This is why the Christian conception of morality is a revolution; it is not a never falling down but an always getting up again. (The Attraction of the Cardinal.)
This is quintessentially Modernist as the Modernists taught that man’s belief in God and His Divine Son spring forth from an inner impulse and not by virtue of having had the supernatural virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity infused into his soul in the Sacrament of Baptism. Pope Saint Pius X dissected this heresy very well in Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907:
7. However, this Agnosticism is only the negative part of the system of the Modernists: the positive part consists in what they call vital immanence. Thus they advance from one to the other. Religion, whether natural or supernatural, must, like every other fact, admit of some explanation. But when natural theology has been destroyed, and the road to revelation closed by the rejection of the arguments of credibility, and all external revelation absolutely denied, it is clear that this explanation will be sought in vain outside of man himself. It must, therefore, be looked for in man; and since religion is a form of life, the explanation must certainly be found in the life of man. In this way is formulated the principle of religious immanence. Moreover, the first actuation, so to speak, of every vital phenomenon — and religion, as noted above, belongs to this category — is due to a certain need or impulsion; but speaking more particularly of life, it has its origin in a movement of the heart, which movement is called a sense. Therefore, as God is the object of religion, we must conclude that faith, which is the basis and foundation of all religion, must consist in a certain interior sense, originating in a need of the divine. This need of the divine, which is experienced only in special and favorable circumstances. cannot of itself appertain to the domain of consciousness, but is first latent beneath consciousness, or, to borrow a term from modern philosophy, in the subconsciousness, where also its root lies hidden and undetected.
It may perhaps be asked how it is that this need of the divine which man experiences within himself resolves itself into religion? To this question the Modernist reply would be as follows: Science and history are confined within two boundaries, the one external, namely, the visible world, the other internal, which is consciousness. When one or other of these limits has been reached, there can be no further progress, for beyond is the unknowable. In presence of this unknowable, whether it is outside man and beyond the visible world of nature, or lies hidden within the subconsciousness, the need of the divine in a soul which is prone to religion excites — according to the principles of Fideism, without any previous advertence of the mind — a certain special sense, and this sense possesses, implied within itself both as its own object and as its intrinsic cause, the divine reality itself, and in a way unites man with God. It is this sense to which Modernists give the name of faith, and this is what they hold to be the beginning of religion.
8. But we have not yet reached the end of their philosophizing, or, to speak more accurately, of their folly. Modernists find in this sense not only faith, but in and with faith, as they understand it, they affirm that there is also to be found revelation. For, indeed, what more is needed to constitute a revelation? Is not that religious sense which is perceptible in the conscience, revelation, or at least the beginning of revelation? Nay, is it not God Himself manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? And they add: Since God is both the object and the cause of faith, this revelation is at the same time of God and from God, that is to say, God is both the Revealer and the Revealed. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
This is not a minor point at all. It is quite essential to the entire belief system of concilairism. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was only repeating what he had been taught by the late Father Luigi Guissani, a belief about man’s “inner sense” and “relation to God” that has been propagated throughout Joseph Ratzinger’s entire priesthood. Bergoglio has reiterated this foundational Modernist belief about the “inner well-springs” of religious faitih throughout the course of the last year, making it the cornerstone of his first “encyclical letter,” Lumen Fidei, July 5, 2013, and his “apostolic exhortation,” Evangelii Gaudium, November 26, 2013.
The only substantive difference between Bergoglio and Ratzinger is that that their styles are different. Ratzinger attempted to “intellectualize” the conciliar revolution by using the conciliar “papacy” as the grand laboratory to put what he thought was a “papal” imprimatur on his body of writing, most of which consists of a collection of his lectures. Bergoglio, on the other hand, is the visceral crowd-pleaser, and he is as as pleased as punch, to call to mind the late Hubert Horatio Humphrey’s stock lines, that this is the case.
Also, of course, Ratzinger attempted, at least sometimes, to put a sober face on his staging of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Bergoglio is a full-fledged child of the “papal” extravaganza “Masses” staged by Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II. Indeed, he has told us that he was trained in a “liberated” school of the liturgy. This is certainly the case as Bergoglio’s “liberated” school of the liturgy is liberated from everything to do with the Catholic Faith.
Although a review of the past year somewhat along the lines of what was done for Ratzinger/Benedict thirteen months ago in Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now will take several weeks to complete as I have no intention of letting this man wreck my health for another year with late-night postings, suffice to say for the moment that one of the things that has remained consistent in the past year is the inconsistency of “papal” spinmeister “Father” Federico Lombardi, S.J., who authorize his deputy, “Father” Thomas Rosica, to issue a statement to the effect that “Pope Francis” did not endorse the concept of “civil unions” in his interview with Corriere della Serra even though the Argentine Apostate said that “Each case must be looked at and evaluated in its diversity.” (March 5 interview with Corriere della Sera.)
This is an excerpt of what Rosica issued after consulting the spinmeister-in-chief, Federico Lombardi:
Journalists have asked if the Pope was referring specifically to gay civil unions in the above response. The Pope did not choose to enter into debates about the delicate matter of gay civil unions. In his response to the interviewer, he emphasized the natural characteristic of marriage between one man and one woman, and on the other hand, he also spoke about the obligation of the state to fulfill its responsibilities towards its citizens.
By responding in this way, Pope Francis spoke in very general terms, and did not specifically refer to same-sex marriage as a civil union. Pope Francis simply stated the issues and did not interfere with positions held by Episcopal Conferences in various countries dealing with the question of civil unions and same sex marriage.
We should not try to read more into the Pope’s words that what has been stated in very general terms. (Vatican spokesman clarifies Jorge on civil unions.)
Let me introduce “Father” Thomas Rosica to what “Father” Federico Lombardi said about “civil unions” on April 29, 2013, the Feast of Saint Peter Martyr:
“[I]t is a good thing for the child to know that he has a father and a mother”; [it must be] “made clear that matrimony between a man and a woman is a specific and fundamental institution in the history of mankind. This does not prevent that other forms of union between two persons may be recognized“. (Layman Lombardi, Holy See spokesman, defends legal recognition of non-marital “unions” of two persons?. See also One Thousand Four Hundred Eighty-One Days.)
Was any “papal” rebuke given to “Father” Federico Lombardi, who, it would appear, does not even remember making this comment?
No, none that I have been able to find.
Has anyone in the Vatican contradicted Godfried “Cardinal” Danneels, who has gone so far as to say that “gay marriage” represents a “positive” development (see Plenty To Say, Godfried, Plenty)?
What has happened to the likes of Theodore McCarrick, the retired conciliar “archbishop” of Washington, District of Columbia, or to Vincent Nichols, the conciliar “archbishop” of Westminster, England, or to Robert Zollitsch, the apostate who denied in an interview televised on Holy Saturday, April 11, 2009, that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ died on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday in atonement for the sins of men, or to Piero Marini (see Rocketing To The Very Depths Of Hell), the fiend who served under the liturgical revolutionary named Annibale Bugnini and is now the president of the conciliar commission on Eucharistic Congresses, after announcing their support for “civil union” status for “couples” engaged in degrading, perverse acts denounced by Saint Paul the Apostle in no uncertain terms in his Epistle to the Romans (Chapter 1, Verses 18-32)?
Something did happen.
Vincent Nichols was elevated to the conciliar “college of cardinals” on February 22, 2014, the Feast of the Chair of Saint Peter in Antioch.
Sorry for the mistake.
What has happened to to Ranier “Cardinal” Woelki, the conciliar “archbishop” of Berlin, Germany, for saying the following three years ago now?
But some momentum for change was evident from a speech by Berlin Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki.
He told a crowd on Thursday that the church should view long-term, faithful homosexual relationships as they do heterosexual ones.
“When two homosexuals take responsibility for one another, if they deal with each other in a faithful and long-term way, then you have to see it in the same way as heterosexual relationships,” Woelki told an astonished crowd, according to a story in the Tagesspiegel newspaper.
Woekli acknowledged that the church saw the relationship between a man and a woman as the basis for creation, but added that it was time to think further about the church’s attitude toward same sex relationships. (Some clerical abusers ‘should work in church’.)
Apostates get promoted in the counterfeit church of conciliarism. One of them even “graduates” to become the universal public face of apostasy after the death or the resignation of a “Petrine Minister.” And it is one such apostate, Jorge Mario Bergoglio who was “elected” one year ago today as he unleashed a visceral flow of revolutionary rhetoric and activity that has caused at least one Protestant to say to his Catholic wife, who is the sister of a friend of ours, “Why would I want to convert to a church headed by an atheist?”
Why can’t more Catholics see Bergoglio for what he is, and reject him soundly as an imposter, an illegitimate claimant to the Throne of Saint Peter that has been empty since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958?
Why the blinders?
Why the refusal to look at the facts rather that twisting reality to suit one’s preconceived conclusions for the sake of comfort and human respect while ignoring all counter-arguments from every scholarly source imaginable as if those counter-arguments did not even exist or were not based on authentic Catholic teaching?
Our days are indeed short. We do not know the day or the hour of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour’s Coming for us at the end of our lives. To prepare for this terrible moment of our Particular Judgments is never easy. It is even more difficult in these days of apostasy and betrayal, which is why we must not only flee from the false church of conciliarism but also be humble sheep to shepherds who have been courageous enough to serve us despite all of the humiliations that they must endure for doing so.
We must be grateful for the fact that the Faith has been kept alive in the catacombs and that Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is still being offered in the world by true bishops and true priests who have nothing to do with the counterfeit church of conciliarism and its apostates, whether of the pseudo-intellectual Ratizinger type or the visceral Bergoglio type.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ gave us His Most Blessed Mother to be our Mother as she stood so valiantly by the foot of His Most Holy Cross as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood to redeem us. He has instructed her to give Saint Simon Stock the Brown Scapular, which was worn with such great priestly dignity by Saint John of the Cross, a true son of Carmel, and to give Saint Dominic de Guzman her Most Holy Rosary and to give Saint Catherine Laboure the Miraculous Medal. He has let His Most Blessed Mother teach us through her apparition to Juan Diego that He wants the entirety of the Americas converted to His Social Kingship as she is honored publicly by men and their nations, and He has warned us through her apparition at La Salette in France of impending doom in the Church and the world as a result of the sins of men. And He has told His Most Blessed Mother to console us with her Fatima Message, which is why we really should be earnest in praying as many Rosaries each day as our states-in-life permit.
In the midst the chastisement that Our Lord desires us to suffer through at this time, we must pray to Saint Anthony, the Hammer of Heretics and a true son of Saint Francis of Assisi, to hammer Luis Mario Bergoglio into abandoning the conciliar religion to accept Catholicism in the holy integrity of its doctrines and liturgy. Saint Francis of Assisi hated heresy. The great Saint of Assisi who bore the brand marks of Our Crucified Lord on his holy body is thus very dishonored and defamed by a heretic taking his name as putative pope. Saint Anthony of Padua, Hammer of Heretics, hammer the truth into the apostate head of yet another talking apostate who dared one year ago today to take the holy name of your holy founder, Saint Francis of Assisi.
Remember, every Ave Maria we pray helps us to prepare for the hour of our deaths as we seek to repair the damage caused by our sins and those of the whole world. May we be generous in praying our Rosaries as the consecrated slaves of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, remembering, a true Charity demands, to pray fervently for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries before they die.
We must never be unbent in our sins and we must never be unaware of how we must give God the honor and glory that are His due as members of the Catholic Church who have fled to the catacombs to seek true succor from true bishops and true priests.