Just when I thought that I was making some real headway in spending an entire day addressing the recent events in Crimea and Ukraine, which involve so much hypocrisy and sanctimonious self-righteousness on the part of American leaders, descendants as they are of brutal, amoral, demagogic and jingoistic tyrants who have sought to spread the “American gospel of democracy” in other lands whether or not the people in those lands desired such “improvement, the characters straight of Vatican central casting come forth once again to demand a bit of attention.
Although I am loathe to give them this attention as sometimes it is best and even necessary to starve the beast, if you will, of that which he craves, I have decided to to postpone the completion of part six of my ongoing review of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s first year as the “Petrine Minister” of the counterfeit church of conciliarism with some commentary on a few recent developments in the artificial world of apostasy, heresy, blasphemy, sacrilege and scandal that most people in the world believe is the Catholic Church.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio Makes More Warfare Upon the Immutability of God
Around and around they go, making the same old revolutionary arguments that have been made for fifty-five and one-half years.
As has been noted on this site hundreds of times since April 19, 2005, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has made warfare upon the immutability of God, which is an attack on His very Divine nature, of course, throughout the course of his nearly sixty-three years of priestly apostasy. Ratzinger/Benedict has done so by means of his so-called “hermeneutic of continuity,” which is based on Modernist principles, recycled as they were by the heretics of the “New Theology” in which he was schooled, that are at one and same time both philosophically absurd and stand condemned solemnly by the authority of the Catholic Church.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio shares his predecessor’s disbelief in the immutability of God and the Sacred Deposit of Faith that He has entrusted exclusively to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication. His approach, of course, has been much more direct, crass, vulgar and visceral than that of his more “refined” and “cultured” predecessors.
As noted in Jorge Mario Beroglio: A Prophet In His Own Mind, the currently reigning universal public face of apostasy believes that he is a modern day prophet and that those who oppose him are trying to keep “the Holy Spirit in a cage.”
Never content with making a point once or twice, this driven, obsessive revolutionary narcissist is on a relentless crusade, if one can pardon the use of a “triumphalistic” phrase, to “re-educate” anyone and everyone in the conciliar structures who seeks to adhere to the “dictatorship of thought” by clinging to dogmatic “formulas” that he believes no longer serves the “needs” of those who live on the “existential peripheries.”
This is what Bergoglio said just this morning, April 10, 2014, Thursday of Passion Week, at the Casa Santa Marta during today’s session of his Ding Dong School Of Apostasy:
(Vatican Radio) “Even today there is a dictatorship of a narrow line of thought” that kills “people’s freedom, their freedom of conscience“: we must be “vigilant and pray”, said Pope Francis at morning Mass Thursday.
God promised Abraham that he would become the father of many nations, but he and his descendants will have to observe the Covenant with the Lord. Pope Francis’ homily takes its cue from the first reading of the day to explain the end of Christ’s message to the Pharisees: their mistake – he notes – was to “detach the commandments from the heart of God”. They thought it enough to merely keep the commandments, but these – the Pope said – “are not just a cold law”, because they are born from a relationship of love and are “indications” that help us avoid mistakes in our journey to meet Jesus. So, the Pharisees who close their hearts and minds “to all things new,” do not understand “the path of hope”. “This is the drama of the closed heart, the drama of the closed mind – the Pope said – and when the heart is closed, this heart closes the mind , and when the heart and mind are closed there is no place for God”, but only for what we believe should be done .
Instead, “the commandments carry a promise and the prophets wake this promise up”. How many have closed heart and mind, how many cannot accept the “new message” brought by Jesus, “which is what was promised by the faithfulness of God and the prophets. But they do not understand”.
“It is a closed way of thinking that is not open to dialogue, to the possibility that there is something else, the possibility that God speaks to us, tells us about His journey, as he did to the prophets. These people did not listen to the prophets and did not listen to Jesus. It is something greater than a mere stubbornness. No, it is more: it is the idolatry of their own way of thinking. ‘I think this, it has to be this way, and nothing more’. These people had a narrow line of thought and wanted to impose this way of thinking on the people of God, Jesus rebukes them for this: ‘ You burden the people with many commandments and you do not touch them with your finger'”.
Jesus’ “rebukes their incoherence”. “The theology of these people – the Pope notes – becomes a slave to this pattern, this pattern of thought: a narrow line of thought“.
“There is no possibility of dialogue, there is no possibility to open up to new things which God brings with the prophets. They killed the prophets, these people; they close the door to the promise of God. When this phenomenon of narrow thinking enters human history, how many misfortunes. We all saw in the last century, the dictatorships of narrow thought , which ended up killing a lot of people, but when they believed they were the overlords, no other form of though was allowed. This is the way they think”.
“Even today – the Pope said – there is the idolatry of a narrow line of thought”.
“Today we have to think in this way and if you do not think in this way, you are not modern, you’re not open or worse. Often rulers say : ‘I have asked for aid, financial support for this’ , ‘ But if you want this help, you have to think in this way and you have to pass this law, and this other law and this other law…’ Even today there is a dictatorship of a narrow line of thought and this dictatorship is the same as these people: it takes up stones to stone the freedom of the people, the freedom of the people, their freedom of conscience, the relationship of the people with God. Today Jesus is Crucified once again”.
The Lord’s exhortation “faced with this dictatorship – said the Pope – is always the same: be vigilant and pray; do not be silly , do not buy” things “you do not need, be humble and pray, that the Lord always gives us the freedom of an open heart, to receive his Word which is joy and promise and covenant! And with this covenant move forward!” (Pope Francis at Mass: Be vigilant of dictatorship of thought.)
This is a very clever piece of abject demagoguery on the part of the Argentine Apostate.
Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, of course, was condemning the observance of the Mosaic law and its precepts that He was about to invalidate by the shedding of every single drop of His Most Precious Blood during His Passion and Death on the wood of the Holy Cross on Good Friday. Our Lord was not condemning those who observed the binding precepts of the Divine Positive Law and the Natural Law, and He was not condemning prospectively believe Catholics who tried, despite their own sins and failings, to be faithful to everything that He revealed to us through the Sacred Deposit of Faith.
Is it necessary once again to remind readers that the only true freedom God has given us comes from dying to self and conforming our minds and our wills to everything taught in His Holy Name by His Holy Catholic Church. There is no such thing as “freedom of conscience” and “freedom of thought” to dissent from the Sacred Deposit of Faith and/or to redefine any of Its articles in light of an alleged “more profound understanding.
This has been proclaimed dogmatically, and it has been reaffirmed in The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910:
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 of reason.
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 anathema.
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.)
Fourthly, I 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.)
Thus stands condemned not only Bergoglio’s latest effort to cast himself as a “liberating” “prophet” who is on a mission to slay what he thinks are modern-day Pharisees (“restorationists,” “triumphalists,” etc.) but also his partner in Modernist crimes and “charismatic” blasphemies and sacrileges, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., who is on his own crusade to “liberate” the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.
Father Raniero Cantalamessa Continues Blaspheming God the Holy Ghost
Two excerpts from Cantalamessa’s truly heretical and blasphemous fourth Lenten “reflection” will be provided to demonstrate the oneness of purpose that exists between the “Preacher to the ‘Papal’ Household” and his boss, “Pope Francis,” over whom he prayed along with Protestant ministers in Buenos Aires, Argentina, nearly eight years ago now:
The same is true of dogma. It can lead us to a “defined” and “formulated” Jesus, but Thomas Aquinas teaches us that faith does not terminate in propositions (enuntiabile) but in the reality (res) itself. There is the same difference between the formula of Chalcedon and the real Jesus as there is between the chemical formula H2O and the water that we drink and in which we swim. No one can say that the formula H2O is useless or that it does not perfectly describe a reality. But it is not the reality! Who can lead us to the “real” Jesus who is beyond history and behind the definition? (Cantalamesa Blasphemes Our Lord and God the Holy Ghost.)
This is an insidious effort to seek to use Saint Thomas Aquinas, of all people, as a “witness” in behalf of a nonexistent dichotomy between dogmatic propositions and the “reality” of our Catholic Faith. Saint Thomas taught us that we must grow in our love an and appreciation for the truths of the Holy Faith, which he knew were fixed and precise, reflecting the simple fact that, as Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, that the Catholic Church brings forth her doctrine in a clear and easily understood way:
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.)
Father Raniero Cantalamessa, the heretical blasphemer, believes that the formulation of doctrines can never helps to get know the “real Jesus,” Who can be known, he believes, only by the “immediacy” of the action of God the Holy Ghost upon souls:
And here we come to wonderful, comforting news. There is the possibility of “immediate” knowledge of Christ. It is the knowledge we are given by the Holy Spirit whom Jesus himself sent. He is the only “unmediated mediation” between us and Christ in the sense that he does not act as a veil or constitute a barrier. He is not an intermediary since he is the Spirit of Jesus himself, his “alter ego,” who is of the same nature. St. Irenaeus reaches the point of saying that “communion with Christ . . . is the Holy Spirit.” For this reason the Holy Spirit is different from every other mediation between us and the Risen One, whether that mediation is ecclesial or sacramental. (Cantalamesa Blasphemes Our Lord and God the Holy Ghost.)
God the Holy Ghost speaks to us definitively only through the authority of the Catholic Church. We are sanctified only by the supernatural helps He provides us in Holy Mother Church. While we can and must pray to the Third Person of the Most Trinity to help us enlighten our minds, strengthen our wills and inflame our hearts with love of God, we do so as members of the Catholic Church who recognize any “immediate” impulse we have that is contrary to the teaching authority and sanctifying offices of the Catholic Church is a movement of a false spirit. Indeed, it is the movement of the Prince of Darkness and the Master of Lies who is being served so very well by Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his Pentecostal pal and “prayer partner,” Father Raniero Cantalamessa.
This is a very audacious heresy as Cantalamessa is contending that there can be some kind of conflict between the working of God the Holy Ghost and the teaching authority of Holy Mother Church, meaning, of course, that the Catholic Church can become “imprisoned” in a “worldly,” “self-referential” construct that, to borrow Bergoglio’s words, keeps Him “caged up.” Cantalamessa and his superior, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, believe that the “structures” of the Catholic Church can become “fossilized” by “formalism” and thus lose sight of the “needs” of the “people,” especially those on the “existential peripheries.”
The Catholic Church is infallible in her teaching on Faith, Worship and Morals.
Each of her twenty true general councils have met under the infallible guidance of God the Holy Ghost, who does not change “His” mind as He, the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, is outside of time and space and not influenced by the currents and emotions the passing world. None of these councils taught error. None. Our true popes have made pronouncements and issued papal bulls and encyclical letters without defecting from the Holy Faith.
To believe privately and assert publicly the supposed “immediacy” of the working of God the Holy Ghost without any intermediary action, whether ecclesial or sacramental, is to embrace the false religion of Protestant Pentecostalism, which, of course, Cantalamessa did thirty-seven years ago when he attended an “ecumenical charismatic” event in Kansas City, Missouri (see From Pentecostalism to Apostasy by John Vennari). It is also defy Pope Leo XIII’s specific condemnation of Pentecostalism’s belief in the superiority of “immediate” action by God the Holy Ghost over the teaching of Holy Mother Church:
Coming now to speak of the conclusions which have been deduced from the above opinions, and for them, we readily believe there was no thought of wrong or guile, yet the things themselves certainly merit some degree of suspicion. First, all external guidance is set aside for those souls who are striving after Christian perfection as being superfluous or indeed, not useful in any sense -the contention being that the Holy Spirit pours richer and more abundant graces than formerly upon the souls of the faithful, so that without human intervention He teaches and guides them by some hidden instinct of His own. Yet it is the sign of no small over-confidence to desire to measure and determine the mode of the Divine communication to mankind, since it wholly depends upon His own good pleasure, and He is a most generous dispenser ‘of his own gifts. “The Spirit breatheth whereso He listeth.” — John iii, 8.
“And to each one of us grace is given according to the measure of the giving of Christ.” — Eph. iv, 7.
And shall any one who recalls the history of the apostles, the faith of the nascent church, the trials and deaths of the martyrs- and, above all, those olden times, so fruitful in saints-dare to measure our age with these, or affirm that they received less of the divine outpouring from the Spirit of Holiness? Not to dwell upon this point, there is no one who calls in question the truth that the Holy Spirit does work by a secret descent into the souls of the just and that He stirs them alike by warnings and impulses, since unless this were the case all outward defense and authority would be unavailing. “For if any persuades himself that he can give assent to saving, that is, to gospel truth when proclaimed, without any illumination of the Holy Spirit, who give’s unto all sweetness both to assent and to hold, such an one is deceived by a heretical spirit.”-From the Second Council of Orange, Canon 7.
Moreover, as experience shows, these monitions and impulses of the Holy Spirit are for the most part felt through the medium of the aid and light of an external teaching authority. To quote St. Augustine. “He (the Holy Spirit) co-operates to the fruit gathered from the good trees, since He externally waters and cultivates them by the outward ministry of men, and yet of Himself bestows the inward increase.“-De Gratia Christi, Chapter xix. This, indeed, belongs to the ordinary law of God’s loving providence that as He has decreed that men for the most part shall be saved by the ministry also of men, so has He wished that those whom He calls to the higher planes of holiness should be led thereto by men; hence St. Chrysostom declares we are taught of God through the instrumentality of men.-Homily I in Inscrib. Altar. Of this a striking example is given us in the very first days of the Church.
For though Saul, intent upon blood and slaughter, had heard the voice of our Lord Himself and had asked, “What dost Thou wish me to do?” yet he was bidden to enter Damascus and search for Ananias. Acts ix: “Enter the city and it shall be there told to thee what thou must do.”
Nor can we leave out of consideration the truth that those who are striving after perfection, since by that fact they walk in no beaten or well-known path, are the most liable to stray, and hence have greater need than others of a teacher and guide. Such guidance has ever obtained in the Church; it has been the universal teaching of those who throughout the ages have been eminent for wisdom and sanctity-and hence to reject it would be to commit one’s self to a belief at once rash and dangerous.
A thorough consideration of this point, in the supposition that no exterior guide is granted such souls, will make us see the difficulty of locating or determining the direction and application of that more abundant influx of the Holy Spirit so greatly extolled by innovators To practice virtue there is absolute need of the assistance of the Holy Spirit, yet we find those who are fond of novelty giving an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues, as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times and that having these as his outfit man becomes more ready to act and more strenuous in action. It is not easy to understand how persons possessed of Christian wisdom can either prefer natural to supernatural virtues or attribute to them a greater efficacy and fruitfulness. Can it be that nature conjoined with grace is weaker than when left to herself?
Can it be that those men illustrious for sanctity, whom the Church distinguishes and openly pays homage to, were deficient, came short in the order of nature and its endowments, because they excelled in Christian strength? And although it be allowed at times to wonder at acts worthy of admiration which are the outcome of natural virtue-is there anyone at all endowed simply with an outfit of natural virtue? Is there any one not tried by mental anxiety, and this in no light degree? Yet ever to master such, as also to preserve in its entirety the law of the natural order, requires an assistance from on high These single notable acts to which we have alluded will frequently upon a closer investigation be found to exhibit the appearance rather than the reality of virtue. Grant that it is virtue, unless we would “run in vain” and be unmindful of that eternal bliss which a good God in his mercy has destined for us, of what avail are natural virtues unless seconded by the gift of divine grace? Hence St. Augustine well says: “Wonderful is the strength, and swift the course, but outside the true path.” For as the nature of man, owing to the primal fault, is inclined to evil and dishonor, yet by the help of grace is raised up, is borne along with a new greatness and strength, so, too, virtue, which is not the product of nature alone, but of grace also, is made fruitful unto everlasting life and takes on a more strong and abiding character. (Pope Leo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.) (Pope L:eo XIII, Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae, January 22, 1899.)
Quoting Pope Gregory IX, Pope Saint Pius X provided us with a perfect description of men such as Jorge Mario Begoglio, Raniero Cantalamessa, Oscara Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez and Walter Kasper:
The Modernists completely invert the parts, and of them may be applied the words which another of Our predecessors Gregory IX, addressed to some theologians of his time: “Some among you, puffed up like bladders with the spirit of vanity strive by profane novelties to cross the boundaries fixed by the Fathers, twisting the meaning of the sacred text…to the philosophical teaching of the rationalists, not for the profit of their hearer but to make a show of science…these men, led away by various and strange doctrines, turn the head into the tail and force the queen to serve the handmaid.” (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)
Yet it is that the likes of Bergoglio, Rodriguez, Cantalamessa, Kasper, et al. believe that they are “liberating” what they think is the Catholic Church from her “bourgeois” past.
Walter Kasper and the “Bourgeois Past”
None other than the very active octogenarian named Walker Kasper said this precise thing when describing the “papacy” of “Pope Francis,” thereby adopting the sloganeering language of the French and Bolshevik Revolutionaries:
Francis has made the southern hemisphere central again, showing that “we are no longer the centre of the world.”
Cardinal Walter Kasper said this during the presentation of Raffaele Luise’s work `Con le periferie nel cuore´. “The Pope has freed the Church from its bourgeois past, a Church which was not rich, but well-off,” Cardinal Kasper said. “By making the peripheries central he’s reminded us that God is mercy”
The Church cannot be “a castle, a paper castle; it needs to be Church that is open and free from pointless boundaries.” The cardinal stressed that Francis is “a Pope who is rooted in the Gospel. Basic values do exist: I have never liked the term indispensable. He sees the Gospel as the one indispensable thing.” (Jorge Has Free the Church From Its Bourgeois Past.)
Kasper never “liked the term indispensable.”
Another way of phrasing this is that Walter Kasper never “liked” the term immutable. How can he? He is a Modernist.
The indispensable “Gospel” of “Pope Francis” is a falsified Gospel.
Who says so?
Pope Saint Pius X?
To reply to these fallacies is only too easy; for whom will they make believe that the Catholic Sillonists, the priests and seminarists enrolled in their ranks have in sight in their social work, only the temporal interests of the working class? To maintain this, We think, would be an insult to them. The truth is that the Sillonist leaders are self-confessed and irrepressible idealists; they claim to regenerate the working class by first elevating the conscience of Man; they have a social doctrine, and they have religious and philosophical principles for the reconstruction of society upon new foundations; they have a particular conception of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood; and, in an attempt to justify their social dreams, they put forward the Gospel, but interpreted in their own way; and what is even more serious, they call to witness Christ, but a diminished and distorted Christ. . . .
The breath of the Revolution has passed this way, and We can conclude that, whilst the social doctrines of the Sillon are erroneous, its spirit is dangerous and its education disastrous.
But then, what are we to think of its action in the Church? What are we to think of a movement so punctilious in its brand of Catholicism that, unless you embrace its cause, you would almost be regarded as an internal enemy of the Church, and you would understand nothing of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ! We deem it necessary to insist on that point because it is precisely its Catholic ardor which has secured for the Sillon until quite recently, valuable encouragements and the support of distinguished persons. Well now! judging the words and the deeds, We feel compelled to say that in its actions as well as in its doctrine, the Sillon does not give satisfaction to the Church. . . .
When we consider the forces, knowledge, and supernatural virtues which are necessary to establish the Christian City, and the sufferings of millions of martyrs, and the light given by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, and the self-sacrifice of all the heroes of charity, and a powerful hierarchy ordained in heaven, and the streams of Divine Grace – the whole having been built up, bound together, and impregnated by the life and spirit of Jesus Christ, the Wisdom of God, the Word made man – when we think, I say, of all this, it is frightening to behold new apostles eagerly attempting to do better by a common interchange of vague idealism and civic virtues. What are they going to produce? What is to come of this collaboration? A mere verbal and chimerical construction in which we shall see, glowing in a jumble, and in seductive confusion, the words Liberty, Justice, Fraternity, Love, Equality, and human exultation, all resting upon an ill-understood human dignity. It will be a tumultuous agitation, sterile for the end proposed, but which will benefit the less Utopian exploiters of the people. Yes, we can truly say that the Sillon, its eyes fixed on a chimera, brings Socialism in its train.
We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men become brothers and comrades at last in the “Kingdom of God”. – “We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.”
And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.
We know only too well the dark workshops in which are elaborated these mischievous doctrines which ought not to seduce clear-thinking minds. The leaders of the Sillon have not been able to guard against these doctrines. The exaltation of their sentiments, the undiscriminating good-will of their hearts, their philosophical mysticism, mixed with a measure of illuminism, have carried them away towards another Gospel which they thought was the true Gospel of Our Savior. To such an extent that they speak of Our Lord Jesus Christ with a familiarity supremely disrespectful, and that – their ideal being akin to that of the Revolution – they fear not to draw between the Gospel and the Revolution blasphemous comparisons for which the excuse cannot be made that they are due to some confused and over-hasty composition.
We wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion of the Gospel and to the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ, God and man, prevailing within the Sillon and elsewhere. As soon as the social question is being approached, it is the fashion in some quarters to first put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ, and then to mention only His unlimited clemency, His compassion for all human miseries, and His pressing exhortations to the love of our neighbor and to the brotherhood of men. True, Jesus has loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live in peace and happiness. But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong to His Flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in order to convert them and save them. Whilst He called to Himself in order to comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. Whilst He lifted up the lowly, it was not to instill in them the sentiment of a dignity independent from, and rebellious against, the duty of obedience. Whilst His heart overflowed with gentleness for the souls of good-will, He could also arm Himself with holy indignation against the profaners of the House of God, against the wretched men who scandalized the little ones, against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy burdens without putting out a hand to lift them. He was as strong as he was gentle. He reproved, threatened, chastised, knowing, and teaching us that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes proper for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from which suffering would be banished; but, by His lessons and by His example, He traced the path of the happiness which is possible on earth and of the perfect happiness in heaven: the royal way of the Cross. These are teachings that it would be wrong to apply only to one’s personal life in order to win eternal salvation; these are eminently social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite different from an inconsistent and impotent humanitarianism. (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)
The contrast between conciliarism and Catholicism could not be more clear.
Getting Ready to “Celebrate” the Quincentenary of Martin Luther’s “Reforms”
As a false religion that is but the counterfeit ape of the Catholic Church, conciliarism’s revolutionary leaders are drawn to other false religions like the proverbial moth attracted to a flame. This is why conciliar officials are falling all over themselves to praise the heretic Martin Luther, who was excommunicated by Pope Leo X, as we approach the quincentenary on October 31, 2017, of his posting those ninety-five theses on the door of Castle Door in Wittenberg, Germany. Luther, the conciliar officials contend repeatedly, was “misunderstood” and wrongly denounced as a heretic as “all” he wanted to do was to “reform the Church.”
This contention was made most recently by the retired conciliar “archbishop” of New Orleans, Alfred Hughes, who looks and sounds very much the late character actor John Fiedler, who played Mr. Emil Peterson on The Bob Newhart Show and was the voice of Piglet in some of the “Winnie-the-Pooh” cartoon motion pictures, echoing a tired, shopworn old canard that has been mouthed by Lutherans from the very beginning an by Modernists since the late Nineteenth Century:
His genuine desire to promote renewal in the church cannot be denied,” Archbishop Hughes said. “The personal struggle that marked his life was severely complicated by the way in which authorities in Rome, during the papacy of Pope Leo X, treated him. A helpful place to begin is to note the need for both faith and repentance.”
Bishop Michael Rinehart, head of the Texas-Louisiana Gulf Coast Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, said there was “a spirit of ecumenical hospitality right now that we need to enjoy while it is happening.”
“Luther did not want to leave,” Bishop Rinehart said at the March 25 gathering. “He was bold, he was blunt, he was vulgar and mistakes were made, but he really didn’t want schism. He wanted to reform the church he loved.“
Bishop Rinehart said the 2017 anniversary naturally will elicit media coverage that may attempt to distill the reasons for the split and ask questions with a false premise: Why do Lutherans and Catholics hate each other?
“They don’t,” Bishop Rinehart said. Rather than “drive a wedge in Christendom,” he said, the commemoration could be “an opportunity to have conversation and bury the proverbial hatchet?”
Two of the concrete signposts of the fruitfulness of international dialogue, Archbishop Hughes said, are the 1999 joint statement by Catholic and Lutheran leaders on the doctrine of justification, and another landmark statement, issued last July, called “From Conflict to Communion.”
Luther had railed against the church’s practice of selling indulgences as a way of doing good works that would lead to salvation. The 1999 declaration on the doctrine of justification, which explains how people are justified in God’s eyes and saved by Jesus Christ, expressed a consensus that this is not an issue that divides Catholics and Lutherans.
Bishop Rinehart quoted the key phrase: “Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.”
“We are created for good works,” Bishop Rinehart said. “We’re not saying ‘by’ good works but ‘for’ good works. We can say this together as one.”
Last year’s document, released by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and the Lutheran World Federation, offered five “ecumenical imperatives” for jointly commemorating the 500th anniversary in 2017 of the publication of Luther’s theses:
— Begin from the perspective of unity and not from the point of view of division.
— Be transformed by the encounter with each other and by the mutual witness of faith.
— Commit ourselves to seek visible unity, to elaborate together what this means in concrete steps.— Jointly rediscover the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
— Witness together to the mercy of God in proclamation and service to the world.
Bishop Rinehart recited the creed, which he said Catholics and Lutheran can say together.
He said Lutherans and Catholics “believe in the real presence of Christ” and “have a responsibility to witness to the transforming love of Christ. … It’s OK to disagree, but what the world needs to hear is the message of Christ.“
Archbishop Hughes said it was important to note that Pope Hadrian, who succeeded Pope Leo X, acknowledged in 1522 that “abuses, sins and errors” were made by church authorities in dealing with Luther.
In the past 50 years, Archbishop Hughes said, progress has been made “in our mutual understanding of the sacrament of the Eucharist. Lutherans refer to this as the Lord’s Supper. We have come to acknowledge that both Lutherans and Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in this sacrament, even though each explains that presence in a significantly different way.“
There still are obvious doctrinal disagreements: the ordination of women, married priests and the sacramentality of holy orders. The Lutheran Church approved a resolution in 2009 to allow gays in “publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships” to serve as pastors. It also permits pastors to preside over same-sex marriages in states where they are allowed by civil law.
About those differences, Archbishop Hughes said:
“Authentic ecumenism is always rooted in addressing truth with charity. We need not only to be explicit about what we have been able to recognize we believe in common, but also what it is we still need to address if we are going to realize the Lord’s priestly prayer at the Last Supper that we all be ‘one in him even as I am one with the Father.'”
The forum was sponsored by Interfaith Communications International in cooperation with the Archdiocese of New Orleans. (Luther’s Goal Was Reform, Not Schism.)
Although there is no need to review Pope Leo X’s Exurge Domine, June 15, 1520, or to enumerate the Council of Trent’s Decree of Justification that anathematized Luther’s heretical teaching on “justification by faith alone” as this material can be found in Francis The Hun last year, some of which was included in One Year of Visceral Revolutionary Rhetoric and Activity, part three, nearly a month ago now.
There are just a few points that should be made before the hour becomes completely untenable and your span-of-attention wanes perhaps just a little bit.
First, Martin Luther wanted to “reform” what was irreformable, Catholic doctrine, in order to justify himself in his life of lechery and drunkenness as being no impediment to the salvation of his immortal soul.
Second, Luther did not believe that Our Blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not create a visible, hierarchical Church.
Third, Luther believed that there is no authority given by Our Lord to the Pope and his bishops and priests to govern and to sanctify the faithful.
Fourth, Luther contended that each believer has an immediate and personal relationship with the Savior as soon as he makes a profession of faith on his lips and in his heart, therefore being perpetually justified before God.
Fifth, Luther believed that, having been justified by faith alone, a believer has no need of an intermediary from a non-existent hierarchical priesthood to forgive him his sins. He is forgiven by God immediately when he asks forgiveness.
Sixth, Luther believed that state of justification is not earned by good works. While good works are laudable, especially to help unbelievers convert, they do not impute unto salvation. Salvation is the result of the profession of faith that justifies the sinner.
Seventh, Luther contended that grace is merely, in the words of Martin Luther, the snowflakes that cover up the “dung heap” that is man.
Eighth, Luther rejected Sacred or Apostolic Tradition as a source of Divine Revelation, accepting only Sacred Scripture, and, of course, his own misinterpretation of Holy Writ.
Ninth, Luther believed that each individual is his own interpreter of Sacred Scripture.
Tenth, Luther believed that there is a strict separation of Church and State. Princes, to draw from Luther himself, may be Christians but it is not as a Christian that they ought to rule.
Eleventh, the lovely “shared belief” in Our Blessed Lord and Saviour’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament is not a matter of differences of views. Luther, presaging Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s own false beliefs, believed in “consubstantation,” which contends that Our Lord is present in Holy Communion along with the substance of the bread and wine. The Catholic Church teaches the doctrine of Transubstantiation, which teaches us that nothing of the substance of bread and wine remain after Consecration. What remains are the accidents of the taste of the bread and the taste and smell of the wine. Every particle of a consecrated Host becomes the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Himself.
Twelfth, Martin Luther, again presaging Modernists such as Ratzinger/Benedict and Jorge Mario Bergogio, rejected the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas as having placed a “filter” on the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and thus on Sacred Scripture, corrupting the true meaning of Fathers as they interpreted Holy Writ.
Thirteenth, Pope Adrian VI did not believe that there were abuses in the way that his predecessor, Pope Leo X, handled Luther. Pope Adrian VI simply acknowledge that there were abuses in some of the practices of the time and that these needed to be reformed. Pope Adrian VI did not repeal Exurge Domine as he believed Luther to be a heretic and deserved to be punished.
Fourteenth, Martin Luther used the corruption in the clergy and the selling of indulgences as pretexts to mask his own desire to have a “theology” that reaffirmed him in his own life of sin as he switched from one unforgivable sin against God the Holy Ghost, Despair, to the other, Presumption.
Fifteenth, there is only one path for the Lutherans to know “unity” with the true Catholic Church: their unconditional conversion:
“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.)
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.)
One could go on and on as the conciliar revolutionaries go around and around and around with their apostasies, heresies, blasphemies, sacrileges and scandalous words and deeds.
However, this should provide readers with a pretty good thumbnail explanation as to why “Archbishop” Alfred Hughes and his Lutheran compatriot, Michael Rinehart, another non-bishop, belong to different sects that are united together as part of the One World Ecumenical Church. I said as early as 2000 and 2001 when delivering the “Living in the Shadow of the Cross” lecture series (which is now on You Tube in the form recorded from October of 2012 to February of 2013; see the Articles page of the original Christ or Chaos website for the listings between those four months) in various “indult” and “conservative” parishes in the conciliar structures that, barring a miraculous intervention from God Himself, the conciliar revolutionaries would be using 2017 to “celebrate” Martin Luther’s revolution against the Divine Plan that God Himself instituted to effect man’s return to Him through His Catholic Church, not to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of Our Lady’s apparitions in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portgual, to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and their cousin, Lucia dos Santos. That observation did not require any special insight, especially after the 1999 “joint declaration on the doctrine of Justification, which was brokered by the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, had been issued. (See Bishop Donald Sanborn’s critique of the “joint declaration:” Critical Analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. For another analysis of the conciliar joint declaration on Justification, see The October Revolution, which is found on the anti-sedevacantist Tradition in Action website. Finally, see Just One And The Same.)
Although some in the Motu world exercised the same sort of self-censorship about Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI’s public defections from the Catholic Faith, including the retired “pope’s” praise of Martin Luther, that they are criticizing “conservative” Catholics for exercising now during the “papacy” of “Pope Francis,” perhaps it would be good to review that praise of Martin Luther was a special work of the “pope” who supposedly “liberated” the modernized version of the Immemorial Mass of Tradition (although his true intention was to “pacify the spirits” of traditionally-minded Catholics in the conciliar structures into an acceptance of his supposedly “authoritative” interpretation of the “Second” Vatican Council by means of the aforementioned “hermeneutic of continuity”):
As I begin to speak, I would like first of all to say how deeply grateful I am that we are able to come together. I am particularly grateful to you, my dear brother, Pastor Schneider, for receiving me and for the words with which you have welcomed me here among you. You have opened your heart and openly expressed a truly shared faith, a longing for unity. And we are also glad, for I believe that this session, our meetings here, are also being celebrated as the feast of our shared faith. Moreover, I would like to express my thanks to all of you for your gift in making it possible for us to speak with one another as Christians here, in this historic place.
As the Bishop of Rome, it is deeply moving for me to be meeting you here in the ancient Augustinian convent in Erfurt. As we have just heard, this is where Luther studied theology. This is where he was ordained a priest. Against his father’s wishes, he did not continue the study of Law, but instead he studied theology and set off on the path towards priesthood in the Order of Saint Augustine. And on this path, he was not simply concerned with this or that. What constantly exercised him was the question of God, the deep passion and driving force of his whole life’s journey. “How do I receive the grace of God?”: this question struck him in the heart and lay at the foundation of all his theological searching and inner struggle. For Luther theology was no mere academic pursuit, but the struggle for oneself, which in turn was a struggle for and with God.
“How do I receive the grace of God?” The fact that this question was the driving force of his whole life never ceases to make a deep impression on me. For who is actually concerned about this today – even among Christians? What does the question of God mean in our lives? In our preaching? Most people today, even Christians, set out from the presupposition that God is not fundamentally interested in our sins and virtues. He knows that we are all mere flesh. And insofar as people believe in an afterlife and a divine judgement at all, nearly everyone presumes for all practical purposes that God is bound to be magnanimous and that ultimately he mercifully overlooks our small failings. The question no longer troubles us. But are they really so small, our failings? Is not the world laid waste through the corruption of the great, but also of the small, who think only of their own advantage? Is it not laid waste through the power of drugs, which thrives on the one hand on greed and avarice, and on the other hand on the craving for pleasure of those who become addicted? Is the world not threatened by the growing readiness to use violence, frequently masking itself with claims to religious motivation? Could hunger and poverty so devastate parts of the world if love for God and godly love of neighbour – of his creatures, of men and women – were more alive in us? I could go on. No, evil is no small matter. Were we truly to place God at the centre of our lives, it could not be so powerful. The question: what is God’s position towards me, where do I stand before God? – Luther’s burning question must once more, doubtless in a new form, become our question too, not an academic question, but a real one. In my view, this is the first summons we should attend to in our encounter with Martin Luther.
Another important point: God, the one God, creator of heaven and earth, is no mere philosophical hypothesis regarding the origins of the universe. This God has a face, and he has spoken to us. He became one of us in the man Jesus Christ – who is both true God and true man. Luther’s thinking, his whole spirituality, was thoroughly Christocentric: “What promotes Christ’s cause” was for Luther the decisive hermeneutical criterion for the exegesis of sacred Scripture. This presupposes, however, that Christ is at the heart of our spirituality and that love for him, living in communion with him, is what guides our life. (Meeting with representatives of the German Evangelical Church Council in the Chapter Hall of the Augustinian Convent Erfurt, Germany, September 23, 2011. See also Modernist At Work, part two.)
Yes, there is no space between Ratzinger and Bergoglio on matters of theological substance, only a difference in style and emphasis. (See No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part one, No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part two, No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part three,No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part four, No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part five, No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part six and No Space Between Ratzinger and Bergoglio, part seven).
Both Ratzinger and Bergoglio believe in Modernity’s embrace of “freedom of conscience” and “freedom of speech” that are at the foundation of the daring efforts that they, following the paths blazed by the original Modernists who were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X and whose own predecessors had been condemned by Pope Pius IX, use to make mutable what is immutable: the teaching of the Divine Redeemer as He has entrusted It to His Holy Catholic Church.
On the Commemorated Feast of Pope Saint Leo the Great
Let us turn the to man who turned away Atila the Hun for inspiration on his feast day, which is commemorated today, Friday, April 11, 2014, the Feast of the Seven Dolors of Our Lady in Passiontide and the Commemoration of Friday of Passion Week:
IV. We must have the same mind as was in Christ Jesus.
We must not, therefore, indulge in folly amid vain pursuits, nor give way to fear in the midst of adversities. On the one side, no doubt, we are flattered by deceits, and on the other weighed down by troubles; but because “the earth is full of the mercy of the Lord,” Christ’s victory is assuredly ours, that what He says may be fulfilled, “Fear not, for I have overcome the world.” Whether, then, we fight against the ambition of the world, or against the lusts of the flesh, or against the darts of heresy, let us arm ourselves always with the Lord’s Cross. For our Paschal feast will never end, if we abstain from the leaven of the old wickedness (in the sincerity of truth). For amid all the changes of this life which is full of various afflictions, we ought to remember the Apostle’s exhortation; whereby he instructs us, saying, “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus: Who being in the form of God counted it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, being made in the likeness of men and found in fashion as a man. Wherefore God also exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow of things in heaven, of things on earth, and of things below, and that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father++++++.” If, he says, you understand “the mystery of great godliness,” and remember what the Only-begotten Son of God did for the salvation of mankind, “have that mind in you which was also in Christ Jesus,” Whose humility is not to be scorned by any of the rich, not to be thought shame of by any of the high-born. For no human happiness whatever can reach so great a height as to reckon it a source of shame to himself that God, abiding in the form of God, thought it not unworthy of Himself to take the form of a slave.
V. Only he who holds the truth on the Incarnation can keep Easter properly.
Imitate what He wrought: love what He loved, and finding in you the Grace of God, love in Him your nature in return, since as He was not dispossessed of riches in poverty, lessened not glory in humility, lost not eternity in death, so do ye, too, treading in His footsteps, despise earthly things that ye may gain heavenly: for the taking up of the cross means the slaying of lusts, the killing of vices, the turning away from vanity, and the renunciation of all error. For, though the Lord’s Passover can be kept by no immodest, self-indulgent, proud, or miserly person, yet none are held so far aloof from this festival as heretics, and especially those who have wrong views on the Incarnation of the Word, either disparaging what belongs to the Godhead or treating what is of the flesh as unreal. For the Son of God is true God, having from the Father all that the Father, with no beginning in time, subject to no sort of change, undivided from the One God, not different from the Almighty, the eternal Only-begotten of the eternal Father; so that the faithful intellect believing in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost in the same essence of the one Godhead, neither divides the Unity by suggesting degrees of dignity, nor confounds the Trinity by merging the Persons in one. But it is not enough to know the Son of God in the Father’s nature only, unless we acknowledge Him in what is ours without withdrawal of what is His own. For that self-emptying, which He underwent for man’s restoration, was the dispensation of compassion, not the loss of power. For, though by the eternal purpose of God there was “no other name under heaven given to men whereby they must be saved,” the Invisible made His substance visible, the Intemporal temporal, the Impassible passible: not that power might sink into weakness, but that weakness might pass into indestructible power. (On the Lord’s Resurrection, II.)
Pope Saint Leo the Great also has words for those who believe that they can be silent about the offense given to God and His Holy Truth by supposed “popes” who praise a diabolically-inspired rebel such as Martin Luther, those who believe that they are not required to oppose error or to flee from any contact with men who show themselves to be open enemies of Christ the King and of the souls He redeemed by every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross:
But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )
Flee from the conciliar revolutionaries. Flee from them once and for all. They are not Catholic. They are enemies of the Holy Faith. Understand and accept the fact that a true pope can never be opposed, no less opposed publicly, and that the “resist while recognize” movement has no standing before God even if those who are involved in it lack the personal integrity to see their position condemned by Pope Leo XIII in Epistola Tua, June 17, 1885, and Est Sane Molestum, December 18, 1888.)
Isn’t this pretty easy to see as we ask Our Lady for the graces to persevere in our resolution to have nothing whatsoever to do with these hideous heretics who want to remake everything according to their own revolutionary designs?
Once again, let us turn to Pope Saint Pius X, who warned us as Patriarch of Venice about men such as Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and their band of fellow Huns:
“How necessary it is to stir up again the spirit of faith, at a time when there is a growth of that malignant fever which would discredit everything and deny every dogma of revealed religion! How necessary it is at this present time when people are trying to dismiss the mysteries of our faith, when people are claiming to explain them–while Christ has demanded the submission of the intellect–when they are casting doubt on the most established prophecies, when they are denying the most manifest miracles, whey they are rejecting the sacraments, deriding pious practices, and discrediting the magisterium of the Church and her ministers!
Cardinal Sarto, clearly, had in mind not only the rationalists outside the Church, but also those who, inside the Church, were beginning to dismiss her dogmas because of their own historical presuppositions and their erroneous philosophies. Even if the name Modernism does not appear in this pastoral letter [dated May 21, 1895], Cardinal Sarto had identified its initial symptoms, as he had in Mantua. It was during this period, moreover, that he began to take notice of the works of [notorious Modernist] Alfred Loisy, “forcefully reproving the affirmations contrary to the faith,” which they contained, as a witness in the beatification process tells us.” (Yves Chiron, Saint Pius X: Restorer of the Church. Translated by Graham Harrison. Angelus Press, 2002, p. 95.)
With Pope Saint Pius X, we reject those who reject and mock the integrity of the Holy Faith no matter how many times a putative “pope” does and says things that have been condemned repeatedly by Holy Mother Church.
We must always cling to the spiritual weapons given us by Our Lady to fight the forces of the world, the flesh and the devil, the forces, that is, of Modernity in the world and Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, especially by praying as many Rosaries each day as our state-in-life permits.
Our Lady will help us to be ever ready to defend the honor and the glory of the Blessed Trinity to Whom she is Daughter, Mother, and Spouse. She will lead us to be ever mindful of making reparation for our own many sins by offering our daily penances to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through her own Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, ever desirous of spending time with her at Holy Mass and in front of her Divine Son’s Real Presence in the Most Blessed Sacrament as a foretaste of the Heavenly glories that will await us if we die in a state of Sanctifying Grace as members of the Catholic Church.
The possession of the glory of the Beatific Vision in Heaven is our goal. And that goal cannot be achieved by a participation in or even silence about the apostasies, blasphemies and sacrileges of conciliarism.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us now and the hour of our death. Amen.
Isn’t it time to pray a Rosary now?
Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!
Our Lady of Sorrows, 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.
Pope Saint Leo the Great, pray for us.