Jorge’s Just Naturally A Naturalist, part two

Those who are not possessed of the true Faith must view themselves and the events that happen around them and in the world only on a plain of naturalism.

It is also true, however, that the consequences of the overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King wrought by the Protestant Revolution and institutionalized by multifaceted yet interrelated forces of Judeo-Masonry have “converted” most Catholics in Western countries, especially here in the United States of America, into viewing the Sacred Deposit of Faith as alien to “ordinary” daily life and to even personal discourse with others on any subject.

To wit, there was a traditionally-minded presbyter in the conciliar structures (somewhere east of the Mississippi River and west of Dublin, Ireland) who told me over three decades ago that he had a discussion with a Catholic physician in his parish about incompetent doctors. The physician told the presbyter that he had known a lot of incompetent and ignorant priests, to which the presbyter said, “All right. But no one dies if I make a mistake.”

Although I was awaiting the “great restoration” that the then reigning and soon-to-be “canonized” Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II was “sure” to undertake when he found the right moment to remove all those “bad” “bishops,” I tried to view the world and my life through the eyes of the Holy Faith. I knew that the answer that the presbyter gave to the physician was purely naturalistic as a mistake made by a man who believes himself to be a priest could have devastating eternal consequences for the soul of someone he advises.

It was about a decade and a half later that the same presbyter justified having explicit instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments in his parish’s “religious education” program by saying, “Well, you have to do something for them.” He was not interested in hearing that Holy Mother Church does has always done “something” for the young by teaching them to love true God of Divine Revelation and to obey His commands while cooperating with the graces He won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross to avoid sin and its near occasions. After all, we do not need program in “theft instruction” to teach “the young” how to keep the Seventh Commandment.

Indeed, Pope Pius XI explained that such naturalistic programs as those involving explicit classroom instruction in matters pertaining to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments as being injurious to the spiritual and moral development of young Catholics, which is why he forbade such instruction entirely:

65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

66. Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognize the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, fighting against the law of the mind; and also in ignoring the experience of facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and unsupported by the means of grace.

67. In this extremely delicate matter, if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says:

Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice. (Passage and double-indented quotation as found in Pope Pius XI’s Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

It is the case now, of course, that most Catholics in the world live their lives unsupported by anything other other than the Actual Graces that flow forth from the Masses offered by true priests, mostly in the catacombs. This surfeit of Sanctifying and Actual Grace in the world has been caused by the spiritually barren liturgical rites promulgated by the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Although the pull of the world and its naturalistic allurements was strong even before the advent of the conciliar age with the “election” of Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII on October 28, 1958, the Feast of Saints Simon and Jude, the spiritual barrenness of the conciliar liturgical rites has made it easier than ever before for Catholics and non-Catholics alike to immerse themselves headlong into the world and its supposed pleasures.

Those who are worldly, that is, those who see the world only on a natural level, believe that the doctrine of the Holy Faith is either “unrealistic” or “impractical (viz. “inconvenient”) to be applied to one’s daily life. Such people believe that The Holy Faith has no relation to business transactions. Similarly, the worldly wise, those who view the world solely the lens of naturalism have had it drilled into their heads that the Catholic Faith as no relationship to matters of politics, law, public policy, education or anything to do with what passes for “popular culture.” Live one’s life in congruence with Holy Mother Church’s liturgical year? Perish the thought. It’s all about the “here and now.”

The worldwide leader of naturalism at this time is none other than Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who has been masquerading as “Pope Francis” for the most three hundred ninety-seven days. He believes that a concern about the “here and now” and “doing good” assures one of being “saved,” that outside of such concern will be found nothing other than “Pelagians,” “restorationaists,” “triumphalists” and “Pharisees.”

One of the world’s foremost leaders of the supposed “Marxism with a Christian face,” “liberation theology,” Frei Betto, a Dominican who is a personal friend of the Marxist mass murderer and totalitarian monster named Fidel Castro (see Conversations with Frei Betto on Marxism & Liberation Theology, spoke to Jorge Mario Bergoglio in Saint Peter’s Square recently. Contained within the reports of their meeting is further and very ample evidence of Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s absolute commitment to Judeo-Masonic naturalism:

The well-kown Brazilian leader of Liberation Theology, Frei Beto, met Pope Francis on April 9, 2014, in the section of St. Peter’s Square reserved for personalities, above.

The Dominican became known in his youth for links with the communist guerilla group Ação Libertadora Nacional (National Liberation Action) led by Carlos Marighella. Later, he was jailed for helping communists outside of Brazil escape punishment. A personal friend of Fidel Castro, he wrote a book – Fidel and Religion – trying to paint a better picture of the Cuban tyrant. He was also influential in Gorbachev’s perestroika, suggesting a new look for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union that takes religion into consideration.

He authored many books on Liberation Theology and, together with Leonardo Boff, continues to lead this current in Brazil.

Beto gave this report of his brief conversation with Pope Francis to O Globo of Rio de Janeiro.

I told him, Holy Father, the Basic Christian Communities are very grateful for the letter you sent them in January. They do not want to be considered a movement in the Church, but rather to be considered the actual way of being the Church among the people and of being the people in the Church.

Francis smiled while he held my hand. I continued:

As a loving father, make dialogue with Liberation Theology, which is a faithful daughter of the Church. Always keep in mind the defense of the indigenous peoples

Surrounded by many people, the Pope continued to pay attention to me. I ended:

As a Dominican Friar, I place in your hands the re-habilitation of Giordano Bruno and Master Eckhart.

Francis’ answer to my request was:

Pray for that.”

Finally, I addressed him, first in Latin, then in Spanish:

Extra pauperes nulla salus. Outside of the poor there is no salvation.

Francis smiled and, as he continued on, he said:

“I agree with that.” (Fr. Beto, leader of Liberation Theology, meets Jorge.)

Father Betto’s (which is the way his name is spelled on his own book about his conversation with the murderous Fidel Castro) observations require just a bit of commentary as the state of apostasy in the counterfeit church of conciiarism has become nothing other than a parody of every shopworn revolutionary cliche imaginable.

Indeed, Pope Saint Pius X described naturalists such as Betto and Bergoglio with exactitude in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

It remains for Us now to say a few words about the Modernist as reformer. From all that has preceded, it is abundantly clear how great and how eager is the passion of such men for innovation. In all Catholicism there is absolutely nothing on which it does not fasten. They wish philosophy to be reformed, especially in the ecclesiastical seminaries. They wish the scholastic philosophy to be relegated to the history of philosophy and to be classed among absolute systems, and the young men to be taught modern philosophy which alone is true and suited to the times in which we live. They desire the reform of theology: rational theology is to have modern philosophy for its foundation, and positive theology is to be founded on the history of dogma. As for history, it must be written and taught only according to their methods and modern principles. Dogmas and their evolution, they affirm, are to be harmonized with science and history. In the Catechism no dogmas are to be inserted except those that have been reformed and are within the capacity of the people. Regarding worship, they say, the number of external devotions is to be reduced, and steps must be taken to prevent their further increase, though, indeed, some of the admirers of symbolism are disposed to be more indulgent on this head. They cry out that ecclesiastical government requires to be reformed in all its branches, but especially in its disciplinary and dogmatic departments They insist that both outwardly and inwardly it must be brought into harmony with the modern conscience which now wholly tends towards democracy; a share in ecclesiastical government should therefore be given to the lower ranks of the clergy and even to the laity and authority which is too much concentrated should be decentralized The Roman Congregations and especially the index and the Holy Office, must be likewise modified. The ecclesiastical authority must alter its line of conduct in the social and political world; while keeping outside political organizations it must adapt itself to them in order to penetrate them with its spirit. With regard to morals, they adopt the principle of the Americanists, that the active virtues are more important than the passive, and are to be more encouraged in practice. They ask that the clergy should return to their primitive humility and poverty, and that in their ideas and action they should admit the principles of Modernism; and there are some who, gladly listening to the teaching of their Protestant masters, would desire the suppression of the celibacy of the clergy. What is there left in the Church which is not to be reformed by them and according to their principles?  (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

This describes each of the conciliar revolutionaries, whether past or present, including Bergoglio, Betto and the Brazilian “bishop” with whom the latter had a private audience with the former in the Occupied Vatican on the West Bank of the Tiber River. “Action” and “reform” are what matters to these men, not contemplation and stability. Everything must be made “anew” to suit the the “needs” of the times.

This is why men such as “Father” Betto, a member of the Order of Preachers in conciiar captivity whose given name is Carlos Alberto Libanio Christo, want another heretical Dominican, Father Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake for heresy in Rome on February 17, 1600, rehabilitated as they are simply carrying on what the heretical Bruno himself advanced in the latter part of the Sixteenth Century.

Father Giordano Bruno was such a heretic that none other than Georg Hegel, the father of the dialectical process of thought that influenced both Karl Marx and Ratzinger/Benedict’s mentor, the late Father Hans Urs von Balthasar, praised him for his rejection of Divine authority as the foundation of Catholic beliefs. Bruno was such a pantheist and naturalist that he drifted into and was “excommunicated” by the Calvinists and Lutherans, becoming a near-universal pariah in the academic circles in which he sought to insinuate himself as his heresies, including the denial of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’s Sacred Divinity, become bolder and bolder over the course of time. The Italian Freemasons who fought to overthrow the Papal States, arch anti-clericalists and haters of the true Faith that they were, erected a statue in Bruno’s honor in Rome. Yet it is that Carlos Alberto Libanio Christo (aka “Frei Betto”) wants this heretic “rehabilitated” and Jorge Mario Bergolio tells him to pray for that intention.

The masters of the Roman Inquisition did everything possible convince Giordano Bruno, whose immortal soul had been conformed to the Holy Priesthood that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted this very day, Maundy Thurdsay, to recant his heresies. He obstinately refused. Bruno, who promoted, without even a shred of scientific evidence, a radical, primitive heliocentric view of the cosmos that went far beyond even what Nicolaus Copernicus had proposed, was found guilty of theological, not scientific, heresy, and his theological heresies were exactly of the same naturalistic, pantheist ones being advanced by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Carlos Alberto Libanio Christo and, among so many others, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez.

Meister [Master] Johann Eckhart von Hochheim was also Dominican whose imprecision of preaching and in his writings, especially those on mysticism, gave rise to suspicions of heresy. Pope John XII condemned seventeen of his propositions as heretical and eleven others as rash, ill-sounding and suspected of heresy, listing them them as follows:

(1) And when asked why God did not create the world first, he answered that God was not able to create the world first, because He cannot make things before He was, He immediately created the world.

(2) Likewise it can be granted that the world existed from eternity.

(3) Likewise at the same time and once, when God was, when He begot the Son coeternal with Himself, through all things coequal God, He also created the world.

(4) Likewise in every wok, even evil, evil I say, as of punishment and of sin, the glory of God is manifested and reflects equality.

(5) Likewise he who blames anyone, in the blame itself by the sin of blaming praises God, and the more he blames and the more gravely he sins, the more he praises God.

(6) Likewise anyone by blaspheming God Himself, praises God.

(7) Also he seeking anything here or there seeks evil and badly because he seeks the denial of good and the denial of God, and he prays God to be denied to him.

(8) In those men who do not seek after wealth, or honors, or utility, or interior devotion, or sanctity of reward, or the kingdom of heaven, but renounce all these things even that which is theirs, God is honored.

(9) Recently I have considered whether I would wish to receive or to wish for anything from God; I wish to deliberate exceedingly well about this, because when I was receiving from God, then I was under Him or below Him, as a servant or slave, and He [was] as a master in giving, and thus to be in eternal life.

(10) We are transformed entirely in God, and we are changed into Him; in a similar manner as in the sacrament the bread is changed into the body of Christ; so I am changed into Him because He Himself makes me to be one with Him, not like (to Him); through the living God it is true that there is no distinction here.

(11) Whatever God the Father gave to His only begotten Son in human nature, all this He has given to me; here I except nothing, neither union, nor sanctity, but He has given all to me as to Himself.

(12) Whatever Sacred Scripture says about Christ, all this also is verified with respect to every good and divine man.

(13) Whatever is proper to divine nature, all this is proper to the just and divine man; because of this man operates whatever God operates, and together with God he created heaven and earth, and he is the generator of the eternal Word, and God without such a man does not know how to do anything;

(14) A good man ought conform his will to the divine will that he himself wishes whatever God wishes; because God wishes me to have sinner in some way, I would not wish that I had not committed sins, and this is true repentance.

(15) If man had committed a thousand mortal sins, it such a man were rightly disposed, he ought not to wish that he had not committed them.

(16) God properly does not prescribe an exterior act.

(17) An exterior act is not properly good or divine, neither does God properly operate it or produce it.

(18) We bring forth the fruit not exterior actions which do not make us good, but of interior actions which the Father abiding in us does and operates.

(19) God loves souls, not works outside.

(20) A good man is the only sole begotten Son of God.

(21) A good man is that only begotten Son of God whom the Father has begotten from eternity.

(22) The Father begot me His son and the same Son. Whatever God does, this is one; because of this He Himself begot me His Son any distinction.

(23) God is one in all ways and according to every reason, so that in Himself he cannot find any multitude in intellect or outside intellect; for he who sees two, or sees a distinction, does not see God, for God is one beyond the above number, neither is He counted one [read: number] with anyone. It follows, therefore, that no distinction can exist or be understood in God Himself.

(24) Every distinction is foreign to God, either in nature or in person; it is prove that nature itself is one and this oneness, and any person is one and the oneness which is nature.

(25) When it is said: “Simon, do you love me more than these?” [1 John 21:15 f.], the sense is: That is, more than those indeed well but not perfectly. For in the first and the second and more and less there is both a degree and a rank; in oneness, however, there is no degree nor rank. Therefore, he who loves God fore than his  neighbor, (loves) indeed well but not yet perfectly.

(26) All creatures are one pure nothing: I do not say that they are something ordinary or anything, but that they are pure nothing.

In addition is there is an objection against the above said Eckhart, because he preached two other articles under these words:

(1) Something is in the soul which is uncreated and incapable of creation; if the entire soul were such, it would be uncreated and incapable of creation, and this is the intellect.

(2) That God is not good nor better than the rest; so I speak badly whenever I call Go good, as if I should call white black.

. . . We condemn and expressly disapprove the first fifteen articles and also the last two ones as “heretical,” but the eleven others already mentioned as “evil sounding, rash, and suspected of heresy, and no less any books or works of this Eckhart containng the above mentioned articles or any one of them. (Pope John XXII, In Agro Domino, May 27, 1329. As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 194-195.)

“It can be granted that the world existed from eternity”

Errors of this sort are what have to be “rehabilitated”?

Quite unlike “Frei Betto” and his pal from South American who think that Meister Johann Eckhart was “misunderstood,” Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Meister Eckhart accepted the censure that was placed on his works and recanted his errors publicly. Nevertheless, however, seventeen of his errors stand condemned as heretical by the authority a true Successor of Saint Peter. The passage of time does not undo or make irrelevant the condemnations issued by a true pope.

Ah, it must be remembered that none other than the former Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger” said in very explicit terms twenty-four years ago that condemnations of our true popes do become “obsolete” over the course of time once their “particular mission” has been fulfilled:

1990: The text [of the document Instruction on the Theologian’s Ecclesial Vocation] also presents the various types of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms – perhaps for the first time with this clarity – that there are decisions of the magisterium that cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. The nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times influenced, may need further correction.

In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century [19th century] about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time [on evolutionism]. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church’s anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from falling into the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they became obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at their proper time.

(Joseph Ratzinger, “Instruction on the Theologian’s Ecclesial Vocation,” published with the title “Rinnovato dialogo fra Magistero e Teologia,” in L’Osservatore Romano, June 27, 1990, p. 6, cited at Card. Ratzinger: The teachings of the Popes against Modernism are obsolete)

As readers of might–just might–recall, hundreds of articles have detailed the now retired “Benedict XVI’s” promotion of his philosophically absurd and dogmatically condemned “hermeneutic of continuity,” his chosen method of rank positivism to claim that the doctrines of the “Second” Vatican Council are not a rupture with the immutable teaching that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ entrusted to His Catholic Church for Its eternal safekeeping and infallible explication.

This is why “Pope Benedict XVI” sought in 2007 to “beatify” a priest, Father Antonio Rosmini who believed in a philosophical system that redefined the very essence of truth and being that was opposed to the precision of the Scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Ratzinger’s “beatification” of Father Antonio Rosmini took place on November 18, 2007.

The path to Father Rosmini’s “beatification” was cleared on July 1, 2001, by the then Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, who was determined to overturn the Holy Office of the Inquistion’s December 14, 1887, condemnation of forty of Rosmini’s propositions under the pontificate of Pope Leo XIII. Thus it was that Ratzinger, acting under the authority of the “pope” who will be “canonized” by Jorge Mario Bergoglio in six days, Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, bsaid the following about Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of forty of Father Antonio Rosmini’s propositions as he based his “reversal” on the grounds that Pope Leo XIII was, in essence, a “prisoner” of the circumstances in which he lived:

The events following Rosmini’s death required a certain distancing of the Church from his system of thought and, in particular, from some of its propositions. It is necessary to consider the principal historical-cultural factors that influenced this distancing which culminated in the condemnation of the “40 Propositions” of the Decree Post obitum of 1887.

The first factor is the renewal of ecclesiastical studies promoted by the Encyclical Aeterni Patris (1879) of Leo XIII, in the development of fidelity to the thought of St Thomas Aquinas. The Papal Magisterium saw the need to foster Thomism as a philosophical and theoretical instrument, aimed at offering a unifying synthesis of ecclesiastical studies, above all in the formation of priests in seminaries and theological faculties, in order to oppose the risk of an eclectic philosophical approach. The adoption of Thomism created the premises for a negative judgement of a philosophical and speculative position, like that of Rosmini, because it differed in its language and conceptual framework from the philosophical and theological elaboration of St Thomas Aquinas.

A second factor to keep in mind is the fact that the condemned propositions were mostly extracted from posthumous works of the author. These works were published without a critical apparatus capable of defining the precise meaning of the expressions and concepts used. This favoured a heterodox interpretation of Rosminian thought, as did the objective difficulty of interpreting Rosmini’s categories, especially, when they were read in a neo-Thomistic perspective. (Joseph “Cardinal” Ratzinger, Note on the Force of the Doctrinal Decrees Concerning the Thought and the Work of Father Antonio Rosmi Serbati, July 1, 2001.)

In other words, Father Rosmini’s posthumously published works that were condemned by the Holy Office under the authority of Pope Leo XIII on December 14, 1887, were “victimized” by the very Thomism that Ratzinger himself had long believed was to “crystal clear” and “too logical” to be of any real use to examine such a “profound” thinker as Father Antonio Rosmini Serbati. Pope Leo XIII was wrong, Ratzinger believed, to have place such an emphasis on what he, Ratzinger, dismissed as the “school of thought” of Saint Thomas Aquinas. (For an antidote to Ratznger’s rejection of Saint Thomas Aquinas’s Scholasticism, please see Pillar and Champion of Catholic Truth.)

A review of Rosmini’s propositions as condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 leads one to recognize very readily that the likes of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his own predecessor, the soon-to-be “Saint John Paul the Great,” who praised Rosmini as a “great thinker” in Fides et Ratio, September 14, 1998, had a profound kinship with a fellow traveler in the belief that religious faith just kind of “springs up” from within one’s inner consciousness. Indeed, the very first through fourth of Rosmini’s proposition condemned by the Holy Office in 1887 contain germs, if you will, of this cornerstone of Modernism:

1. In the order of created things there is immediately manifested to the human intellect something of the divine in its very self, namely, such as pertains to divine nature.

2. When we speak of the divine in nature, we do not use the word divine to signify a nondivine effect of a divine cause; nor, is it our mind to speak of a certain thing as divine because it is such through participation.

3. In the nature of the universe, then, that is in the intelligences that are in it, there is something to which the term of divine not in a figurative but in a real sense is fitting.–The actuality is not distinct from the est of divine actuality.

4. Indeterminate being, which without doubt is known to all intelligences, is that divine thing which is manifest to man in nature.

5. Being, which man observes, must be something of the necessary and eternal being, the creating cause, the determining and final cause of all contingent beings: and this is God.

6. In the being which prescinds from creatures and from God, which is indeterminate being, andin God, not indeterminate but absolute being, the essence is the same.

7. The indeterminate being of intuition, initial being, is something of the Word, which the mind of the Father distinguishes, not really, but according to reason from the Word. (As found in Henry Denzinger, Enchirdion Symbolorum, thirteenth edition, translated into English by Roy Deferrari and published in 1955 as The Sources of Catholic Dogma–referred to as “Denziger,” by B. Herder Book Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and London, England, Nos. 2183-2185, pp. 475-476. A very good analysis of Rosmini’s propositions was written well over a decade over now by an antisedevacantist writer, Mr. James Larson: The Rosmini Rehabilitation – When To Be is Not To Be. Those who believe that a true pope can be in error and is need of “correction” from members of the laity, however, have to realize that such a position is false. Pope Leo XIII made this very clear in EPISTOLA TUA, June 17, 1885, and EST SANE MOLESTUM,  December 17, 1888. To “be” a true pope one must be a Catholic, and to be a Catholic means that one cannot defect from even a single tenet of the Holy Faith. Not one.  See also Bishop Sanborn’s response to Bp. Williamson on Sedevacantism.)

It is thus the case that “Frei Betto’s” proposed rehabilitation of the Father Giordano Bruno and Meister Johann Eckhart makes perfect sense as the conciliarists have shown us a great willingness to dismiss with a mere wave of the hand, accompanied by Hegelian dialectics, anything from the “past” that stands as a “bastion” to the completion of their revolutionary designs against all that is authentically “Catholic.” Indeed, those who are, despite their sins, faithful to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, are scoffed at by the conciliar revolutionaries as yearning for some kind of “nostaglia.”

Conciliarism’s embrace of propositions condemned by Holy Mother Church as the circumstances of time required was noted by an “ultra-progessive” conciliar revolutinonary, “Father” Gregory Baum, S.J., shortly after “Cardinal” Ratzinger’s “rehabilitation” of Father Antonio Rosmini-Serbati’s propositions was promulgated on July 1, 2001:

Today the situation is different. First, according to Ratzinger, serious research has shown that if Rosmini’s ambiguous and obscure passages are interpreted in the light of his own philosophical work, which is, of course, the only honest way of reading a philosophical text, then their meaning is not contrary to the Catholic tradition. Second, in his encyclical Faith and Reason of 1998, John Paul II has welcomed philosophical pluralism in the church and, in fact, mentioned with great respect Antonio Rosmini among several Catholic thinkers of the 19th century. That is why, at the present time, lifting the condemnations decreed in 1887 is justified.

The nota of July 2001 is an important ecclesiastical document because it applies the historical-critical method to the understanding of the magisterium. Yet has Ratzinger’s “attentive reading” demonstrated that lifting the condemnation does not involve the magisterium in an internal contradiction? I do not think so.

He has shown that the condemnation of Rosmini’s propositions in 1887 were justified in terms of the church’s pastoral policy and hence could be lifted without inconsistency later. Yet he does not raise the truth question. The readers of the condemnation of 1886 were made to believe that these propositions were erroneous: They were not told that they were erroneous only when read from a neo-Thomist perspective and that their true meaning should not be pursued at that time because Pope Leo XIII wanted neo-Thomism to become the church’s official philosophy.

The nota demonstrates that the condemnation of 1886 exercised a useful ecclesiastical function, not that it was true. Ratzinger’s explanation reveals that the Holy Office showed no respect for the truth at all. Its intentions were tactical and political. The Holy Office at that time saw itself as a servant of the church’s central government and judged ideas in terms of their ecclesiastical implications, not their truth.

Still, the nota is an important document since it is the first time an ecclesiastical statement wrestles with a question that has troubled Catholics for a long time. How are we to interpret apparent contradictions in the magisterium?

Here is a famous example. In the bull Unam Sanctam of 1302, Pope Boniface VIII wrote these words: “We declare, we set forth, we define that submission to the Roman pontiff is necessary for the salvation of any human creature.” And the Council of Florence solemnly declared in 1442 that outside the Catholic church there is no salvation, neither for heretics nor schismatics, even if they should live holy lives or shed their blood in the name of Christ. Vatican Council II appeared to proclaim an entirely different doctrine. We read in Gaudium et Spes that since Christ has died for all humans and since the destiny of humanity is one, we are to hold that, in a manner known to God, participation in the mystery of redemption is offered to every human being.

We are bound to ask with Ratzinger whether there is an internal contradiction in the magisterium. Were the solemn declarations of Boniface VIII and the Council of Florence wrong? The words of Boniface were so emphatic, “we declare, we set forth, we define,” that the reader may wonder whether Vatican Council II has made a mistake. At the same time, the declarations of Boniface and the cardinals in attendance at the Council of Florence were hard to reconcile with the teaching of the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries who believed that God’s redemptive Word, incarnate in Christ, was operative wherever people sought the truth. There may have been good church-political reasons for Boniface and the cardinals of the Council of Florence to make these harsh declarations, yet — I would argue — these declarations were wrong. The magisterium has made mistakes. The church, guided by the Spirit, is forever learning.

Ratzinger’s document has sent theologians off into a new area of research. (Ratzinger explains how condemnation was right then, wrong now)

Left unaddressed by Baum’s analysis is the simple fact that the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself. Alas, those impressed with Georg Hegel and Teilhard de Chardin and Hans Urs von Balthasar believe, at least minimally, that the “Spirit” can contradict Himself as men grasp to understand “Him” better over time. Pure Modernism, of course.

Baum’s “analysis,” although supportive of conciliarism, is nevertheless interesting because it does raise the issue of contradiction. Yes, those of us who have come to realize that the conciliar church is not the Catholic Church and that its “magisterium” has no authority to contradict anything taught by the Catholic Church realize that the “overturning” of Pope Leo XIII’s 1887 condemnation of forty of Antonio Rosmini’s propositions by Joseph Ratzinger’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 1, 2001, has no binding force whatsoever. It is always useful, however, when true conciliar revolutionaries such as Gregory Baum point out the plain truth that “contradiction” can be part of the Faith, an important component element of the Modernist mind.

Then again, you see, Father Antonio Rosmini-Serbati was, apart from providing a useful justification of the conciliar revolutoinaries’ embrace of Modernism, an apostle to the poor, and that, according to the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his pal “Frei Betto,  is all that is needed to save one’s soul. They really do believe that “outside the poor there is no salvation” just as much as they reject the Catholic doctrine of outside the Church there is no salvation (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).

Jorge Mario Bergoglio was present as his friend and co-conspirator in all things offensive to God,  Father Raniero Cantalamessa, O.F.M., Cap., managed to use Good Friday to preach about Judas Iscariot’s love of wealth, explaining that it was this love of wealth that led him, a thief, to betray Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Cantalamessa even said that Judas Iscariot is in the depths of Hell for his love of money. While Judas is indeed in the depths of Hell, he is there because he was a blaspheming heretic who had committed sacrilege by receiving Holy Communion at the Last Supper after having schemed to betray Our Lord to the Jewish high priests for thirty pieces of silver. Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Cantalamessa really believe that the only sins that matter to God are those involving money.

Here is part of what the “papal preacher” said in the Basilica of Saint Peter on Good Friday, April 18, 2014:

Why did he become a traitor? Not so long ago, when the thesis of a “revolutionary Jesus” was in fashion, people tried to ascribe idealistic motivations to Judas’ action. Someone saw in his name “Iscariot” a corruption of sicariot, meaning that he belonged to a group of extremist zealots who used a kind of dagger (sica) against the Romans; others thought that Judas was disappointed in the way that Jesus was putting forward his concept of “the kingdom of God” and wanted to force his hand to act against the pagans on the political level as well. This is the Judas of the famous musical Jesus Christ Superstar and of other recent films and novels — a Judas who resembles another famous traitor to his benefactor, Brutus, who killed Julius Caesar to save the Roman Republic!

These are reconstructions to be respected when they have some literary or artistic value, but they have no historical basis whatsoever. The Gospels — the only reliable sources that we have about Judas’ character — speak of a more down-to-earth motive: money. Judas was entrusted with the group’s common purse; on the occasion of Jesus’ anointing in Bethany, Judas had protested against the waste of the precious perfumed ointment that Mary poured on Jesus’ feet, not because he was interested in the poor but, as John notes, “because he was a thief, and as he had the money box he used to take what was put into it” (Jn 12:6). His proposal to the chief priests is explicit: “‘What will you give me if I deliver him to you?’ And they paid him thirty pieces of silver” (Mt 26:15).

But why are people surprised at this explanation, finding it too banal? Has it not always been this way in history and is still this way today? Mammon, money, is not just one idol among many: it is the idol par excellence, literally “a molten god” (see Ex 34:17). And we know why that is the case. Who is objectively, if not subjectively (in fact, not in intentions), the true enemy, the rival to God, in this world? Satan? But no one decides to serve Satan without a motive. Whoever does it does so because they believe they will obtain some kind of power or temporal benefit from him. Jesus tells us clearly who the other master, the anti-God, is: “No one can serve two masters. . . . You cannot serve God and mammon” (Mt 6:24). Money is the “visible god” in contrast to the true God who is invisible.

Mammon is the anti-God because it creates an alternative spiritual universe; it shifts the purpose of the theological virtues. Faith, hope, and charity are no longer placed in God but in money. A sinister inversion of all values occurs. Scripture says, “All things are possible to him who believes” (Mk 9:23), but the world says, “All things are possible to him who has money.” And on a certain level, all the facts seem to bear that out.

“The love of money,” Scripture says, “is the root of all evil” (1 Tim 6:10). Behind every evil in our society is money, or at least money is also included there. It is the Molech we recall from the Bible to whom young boys and girls were sacrificed (see Jer 32:35) or the Aztec god for whom the daily sacrifice of a certain number of human hearts was required. What lies behind the drug enterprise that destroys so many human lives, behind the phenomenon of the mafia, behind political corruption, behind the manufacturing and sale of weapons, and even behind — what a horrible thing to mention — the sale of human organs removed from children? And the financial crisis that the world has gone through and that this country is still going through, is it not in large part due to the “cursed hunger for gold,” the auri sacra fames, on the part of some people? Judas began with taking money out of the common purse. Does this say anything to certain administrators of public funds?

But apart from these criminal ways of acquiring money, is it not also a scandal that some people earn salaries and collect pensions that are sometimes 100 times higher than those of the people who work for them and that they raise their voices to object when a proposal is put forward to reduce their salary for the sake of greater social justice?

In the 1970s and 1980s in Italy, in order to explain unexpected political reversals, hidden exercises of power, terrorism, and all kinds of mysteries that were troubling civilian life, people began to point to the quasi-mythical idea of the existence of “a big Old Man,” a shrewd and powerful figure who was pulling all the strings behind the curtain for goals known only to himself. This powerful “Old Man” really exists and is not a myth; his name is Money!

Like all idols, money is deceitful and lying: it promises security and instead takes it away; it promises freedom and instead destroys it. St. Francis of Assisi, with a severity that is untypical for him, describes the end of life of a person who has lived only to increase his “capital.” Death draws near, and the priest is summoned. He asks the dying man, “Do you want forgiveness for all your sins?” and he answers, “Yes.” The priest then asks, “Are you ready to make right the wrongs you did, restoring things you have defrauded others of?” The dying man responds, “I can’t.” “Why can’t you?” “Because I have already left everything in the hands of my relatives and friends.” And so he dies without repentance, and his body is barely cold when his relatives and friends say, “Damn him! He could have earned more money to leave us, but he didn’t.”

How many times these days have we had to think back again to the cry Jesus addressed to the rich man in the parable who had stored up endless riches and thought he was secure for the rest of his life: “Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have prepared, whose will they be?” (Lk 12:20)

Men placed in positions of responsibility who no longer knew in what bank or monetary paradise to hoard the proceeds of their corruption have found themselves on trial in court or in a prison cell just when they were about to say to themselves, “Have a good time now, my soul.” For whom did they do it? Was it worth it? Did they work for the good of their children and family, or their party, if that is really what they were seeking? Have they not instead ruined themselves and others?

The betrayal of Judas continues throughout history, and the one betrayed is always Jesus. Judas sold the head, while his imitators sell body, because the poor are members of the body of Christ, whether they know it or not. “As you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). However, Judas’ betrayal does not continue only in the high-profile kinds of cases that I have mentioned. It would be comfortable for us to think so, but that is not the case. The homily that Fr Primo Mazzolari gave on Holy Thursday 1958, about “Our Brother Judas” is still famous. “Let me,” he said to the few parishioners before him, “think about the Judas who is within me for a moment, about the Judas who perhaps is also within you.”

One can betray Jesus for other kinds of compensation than 30 pieces of silver. A man who betrays his wife, or a wife her husband, betrays Christ. The minister of God who is unfaithful to his state in life, or instead of feeding the sheep entrusted to him feeds himself, betrays Jesus. Whoever betrays their conscience betrays Jesus. Even I can betray him at this very moment — and it makes me tremble — if while preaching about Judas I am more concerned about the audience’s approval than about participating in the immense sorrow of the Savior. There was a mitigating circumstance in Judas’ case that that I do not have. He did not know who Jesus was and considered him to be only “a righteous man”; he did not know, as we do, that he was the Son of God. (Judas’ story ‘should move us to surrender’ to Christ.)

While it is certainly true that money is the root of all evil and that the quest for it has been and continues to be responsible for many sins, the Bergoglio regime is focused entirely on seeking to “solve” social problems by supporting statist programs for confiscation and redistribution of wealth, which is nothing other than Marxist no matter how many times the false “pontiff” protests that it is not. What the likes of Bergoglio and Cantalamessa do want to accept is that their own crimes of apostasy, heresy, blasphemy and sacrilege make them exactly like Judas Iscariot himself.

Father P.  Gallwey, S.J., explained The Watches of the Sacred Passion with Before and After, Volume I,  that Judas was far more than a thief; he was indeed a blaspheming heretic:

Judas, dost thou betray the Son of Man with a kiss?

I am the truth, Jesus had said; with Him every word that He utters is truth. If He speaks a kind word, it is spoken with truth and sincerity, and charity ineffable; and therefore when we profess love, it contents

Him above measure if our profession is true. If we vow love, a loving obedience or blessed poverty, with desire He desires to find truth and reality in our vow. An unfaithful and foolish promise, the Holy Spirit tells us, tells us, displeases Him. It is much better not to vow than after a vow not to perform the things promised (Eccles. v.).

The kiss of peace, then, is to Him most sacred, and the kiss of treason anguish beyond measure. He is quite willing and glad to shed His Blood, if we will only give Him true love and friendship. Give, My son, thy heart to Me (Prov. xxiii.). In Holy Communion He gives all He has most precious; Himself, His Body, and His Blood; but with yearnings unspeakable He desires that when we approach to receive, we may give Him love for love.

When, therefore, His own disciple betrays with a kiss, and when the Most Holy Sacrament of His Love becomes only a profane mockery, a wound is driven into His Heart more cruel than the nails, or thorns, or the lash inflicted. “If I must be hated, let My overt enemies hate Me, and I can endure it; but let not My own betray Me with a kiss.”

And is is the preconcerted signal. Jesus said that evening in the Supper-Room: “By this shall all men know that you are My disciples if you have lone one for another.” In that same hour Judas is giving a very different sign by which men shall know His Master, Jesus of Nazareth. “The Man Whom I shall kiss treacherously is Jesus of Nazareth.” That is to say, He is the Christ; He is God. Were He not the gracious and merciful God, patient and of much compassion, and easy to forgive evil, man would not be so daring as to kiss Him treacherously. It is on account of “the almighty weakness of His goodness” which so strongly attracts the good, that sinners become so bold. “Tibi solvi peccavi.” I dare not, O my God, treat an earthly king, a an earthly master, an earthly friend, or an earthly equal, as I treat Thee.” (Father P. Gallwey, S.J., The Watches of the Sacred Passion with Before and After, Volume I, Nineteenth Edition, Manresa Press, Roehapmton, S.W., 1930, pp, 641-642.)

As recounted by the Venerable Mary of Agreda, Our Lady herself explained the sacrilegious, heretical nature of Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of her Divine Son as having been multiplied in its gravity his direct refusal to yield to her own sweet pleas to him to convert:


374. I will, however, say something of that which has been made known to me concerning the wicked Apostle Judas; for it belongs to this history and less is known of him. It will at the same time be a warning to the obstinate and an admonition for those little devoted to the most blessed Mary; for it is a sad truth that there should be any mortals who entertain little love toward a Creature so lovable, and One whom the infinite God himself loves without bound or measure; whom the angels love with all their heavenly powers, the Apostles and saints from their inmost souls, whom all creatures should eagerly strive to love, and who never can be loved according to her merits. Yet this unhappy Apostle strayed from the royal road of divine love and its blessings. The understanding, which has been given me concerning this defection for the purpose of making it known in this history, is contained in the following paragraphs.

375. Judas was attracted to the school of Christ our Teacher by his forceful doctrines, and was filled with the same good intentions which moved the others. Powerfully drawn by these motives, he asked the Savior to admit him among his disciples, and the Savior received him with the bowels of a loving Father, who rejects none that come to Him in search of truth. In the beginning Judas merited special favors and forged ahead of some of the other disciples, deserving to be numbered among the twelve Apostles; for the Savior loved his soul according to its present state of grace and his good works, just as He did the others. The Mother of grace and mercy observed the same course with him, although by her infused knowledge She immediately became aware of the perfidious treachery with which he was to end his apostolate. She did not, on that account, deny him her intercession and maternal love; but she applied Herself even more zealously to justify as far as possible the cause of her divine Son against this perfidious and unfortunate man, in order that his wickedness, as soon as it should be put into action, might not have he shadow of an excuse before men. Well knowing that such a character as his could not be overcome by rigor, but would only be driven by it to so much the greater obstinacy, the most prudent Lady took care, that none of the wants or the comforts of Judas should be ignored and she began to treat him, speak and listen to him more gently and lovingly than to all the rest. This She carried so far, that Judas, when the disciples once more disputed among themselves concerning their standing with the Queen (as, according to the Evangelist [Luke 22, 24], it happened also concerning the Redeemer), never experienced the least jealousy or doubt in this matter; for the blessed Lady in the beginning always distinguished him by tokens of special love and he, at that time, also showed himself thankful for these favors.

376. But as Judas found little support in his natural disposition and as the disciples, not being as yet confirmed in virtue and not as yet even in grace, were guilty of some human failings, the imprudent man began to compliment himself on his perfection and to take more notice of the faults of his brethren than of his own (Luke 6, 41). He permitted himself thus to be deceived, making no effort to amend or repent, he allowed the beam in his own eyes to grow while watching the splinters in the eyes of others. Complaining of their little faults and seeking, with more presumption than zeal, to correct the weaknesses of his brethren, he committed greater sins himself. Among the other Apostles he saint John, looking upon him as an inter-meddler and accusing him in his heart of ingratiating himself with the Master and his blessed Mother. The fact that he he received so many special favors from Them was of no avail to deter him from his false presumption. Yet so far as Judas had committed only venial sins and had not lost sanctifying grace. But they argued a very bad disposition, in which he wilfully persevered. He had freely entertained a certain vain complacency in himself; this at once called into existence a certain amount of envy, which brought on a calumnious spirit and harshness in judging the faults of his brethren. These sins opened the way for greater sins; for immediately the fervor of his devotion decreased, his charity toward God and men grew cold, and his interior light was lost and extinguished; he began to look upon the Apostles and upon the most holy Mother with a certain disgust and find little pleasure in their intercourse and their heavenly activity.

377. The most prudent Lady perceived the growth of this defection in Judas. Eagerly seeking his recovery and salvation before he should cast himself entirely into the death of sin, She spoke to him and exhorted him as her beloved child and with extreme sweetness and force of reasoning. Although at times this storm of tormenting thoughts, which had begun to rise in the breast of Judas, was allayed; yet it was only for a short time,, and soon it arose and disturbed him anew. Giving entrance to the devil into his heart, he permitted a furious rage against the most meek Dove to take possession of him. With insidious hypocrisy he sought to deny his sins or palliate them by alleging other reasons for his conduct: as if he could ever deceive Jesus and Mary and hide from Them the secrets of his heart. Thereby he lost his interior reverence for the Mother of mercy, despising her exhortations and openly reproaching Her for her gentle words and reasonings. This ungrateful presumption threw him from the state of grace, the Lord was highly incensed and deservedly left him to his own counsels. By thus designedly rejecting the kindness and the intercession of the most holy Mary, he closed against himself the gates of mercy and of his only salvation. His disgust with the sweetest Mother soon engendered in him an abhorrence of his Master; he grew dissatisfied with his doctrines and began to look upon the life of an Apostle and intercourse with the disciples as too burdensome.

378. Nevertheless the divine Providence did not abandon him immediately, but continued to send him interior assistance, although in comparison with former helps they were of a kind more common and ordinary. They were, however, in themselves sufficient for his salvation, if he would have made use of them. To these graces were added the gentle exhortations of the kindest Mistress, urging him to restrain himself and to humble himself and ask pardon of his divine Master. She offered him mercy in his name and her own kind assistance in obtaining it, promising to do penance for him, if he would consent to be sorry for his sins and amend his life. All these advances did the Mother of grace make in order to prevent the fall of Judas. She was well aware, that not seeking to arise from a fall and to persevere in sin was a much greater evil than to have fallen. The conscience of of this proud disciple could not but reproach him with his wickedness; but becoming hardened in his heart, he began to dread the humiliation, which would have been to his credit, and he fell into still greater sins. In his pride he rejected the salutary counsels of the Mother of Christ and chose rather to deny his guilt, protesting with a lying tongue, that the loved his Master and all the rest, and that there was no occasion for amending his conduct in this regard….

Instruction Which the Queen of Heaven, Mary, Gave Me

543. Concerning the perdition of Judas and of his most just punishment thou has written enough in order to set forth to what extremes a man can be brought by yielding to vices and to the devil, and by refusing to hear and follow the pleading of grace. I moreover inform thee, that not only the torments of the traitorous disciple Judas, but also those of many other Christians, who condemn themselves and shall be sent to the same place of punishment, which was assigned to them and Judas from the beginning of the world, are greater than the torments of many demons. For my most holy Son did not die for the angels, but for men; nor were the fruits and the results of the Redemption for the demon, but entirely at the disposal of the children of the Church in the holy Sacraments. The contempt for these incomparable benefits is not properly the sin of the devils, but of Christians; and therefore the must expect a special and appropriate punishment for this contempt. The mistake of not having recognized Christ as the true God causes the deepest and most tormenting regret to Lucifer and his evil spirits for all eternity. Hence, on account of this error, they are filled with special wrath against those that were redeemed, particularly against the Christians, who derived the greatest benefits from the Redemption of the blood of the Lamb. That is why the devils are so eager to cause forgetfulness and misuse of these graces in them and why afterwards in hell, they are permitted to vent so much the greater fury and wrath upon the wicked Christians. If it were not for the equitable distributions of divine justice by which the pains are proportioned to the guilt, they would wreck still fiercer vengeance upon them. But the goodness of the Lord extends even to this place and restrains the malice of the demons by his infinite power and wisdom. (Venerable Mary of Agreda, The Mystical City of God, Volume III, The Transifixion, pp. 357-361; pp. 523-524,)

Judas Iscariot betrayed Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ with the Kiss of Peace after having received Holy Communion and after having refused the entreaties of Our Lady herself to convert.

The conciliar revolutionaries betray Our Lord every day by staging a sacrilegious liturgy and promoting false doctrines that belong to a falsified “gospel” that are inspired by the devil himself. Their constant praise of false religions, their coddling of public officials who promote the slaughter of the innocent preborn and the moral perversity represented by “gay marriage” because those officials are said to be for the “poor” and the cause of illegal immigrants and their constant attacks on those who try to hold to the truths of the Catholic Faith show themselves to be modern day Judas Iscariots who are naturalists after his own traitorous heart. All of their concern for the “poor” is as disingenuous as the lying, blaspheming, treacherous heretic Judas Iscariot as they base this “concern” upon the “right” of the civil state to steal money from the citizens that wind up further enslaving the poor and reducing everyone in a nation to the status of the mere creatures of the civil state who are taxed so heavily and whose activities and words are monitored so constantly as to make all discussion of the “better world” by means merely natural to be grotesquely perverse.

The wretched naturalists of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, men who wrap themselves upon in the cloak of righteousness about “the poor” and immigrants while turning a blind eye to the horrors of the personal sins of men, about which they are most indulgent in theory and, of course, all too often in practice, have had to invent a new “faith” to justify their false doctrines while continuing to label themselves as Catholics when their words and deeds show them to be nothing other than latter day Judas Iscariots.

Consider the utter naturalism of the supposed “Stations of the Cross” that were led by Jorge Mario Bergoglio at Colosseo in Rome, Italy, on Good Friday, April 18, 2014:

(Vatican Radio) The Way of the Cross led by Pope Francis around Rome’s ancient Colosseum this upcoming Good Friday invites us to reflect on the current economic crisis and its dire consequences, on the suffering of migrants and on the evils that tear many young lives apart . The texts of the meditations, which will be published Tuesday by the Vatican publishing house Libreria Editrice Vaticana, were written by Msgr. Giancarlo Bregantini, Archbishop of Campobasso – Boiano in southern Italy.
In his meditations for the 14 stations of the Lord’s Passion, Archbishop Bregantini captures the dramatic situations that have traumatized so many in today’s world, including those in his own southern Italy.
In the meditations, we are called to contemplate in the wood of Christ’s cross the sins of man and injustices towards our fellow human beings: the economic crisis with its serious social consequences such as job insecurity, unemployment, financial speculation , the suicides of business leaders, and corruption.

Archbishop Bregantini brings us face to face with the dramatic lives of immigrants, the wounds of women who are victims of violence, the trauma of abused children , the pain of mothers who have lost their children to war, or to drugs or alcohol abuse.

Archbishop Bregantini draws again on his own region of southern Italy where children have died from cancer caused by toxic waste ,and asylum seekers who die trying to make the treacherous crossing from Africa in the hopes of finding a new home.
Christ’s own suffering, he tells us, resembles that of prisoners in overcrowded prisons bogged down by too much bureaucracy and a slow justice system and those in prisons where torture is sometimes still practiced.
We are called to create “bridges of solidarity ” and to “overcome the fear of isolation , and to recover an appreciation for the political” so as to seek common solutions to social problems.
Just as Jesus fell three times on the way to Golgotha, he shows us that we must meet these challenges knowing God is there for us. But we must get back on our feet and help others up in solidarity with each other. Only through helping each other can we hope to bear the weight of the cross. (The Way of Naturalism).

There was nothing in those supposed “meditations” or in Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s “reflections” upon them about the actual, Bodily sufferings that our sins, having transcended time, imposed upon Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ during His Passion and Death, including the painful steps that He took while walking with His Holy Cross, the very instrument of His torture and of our salvation, on the Via Dolorosa.

No, no thought is given to the horror of personal sins. The only “true” sins, according to Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his band of conciliar revolutionaries, are “sins” of social injustice, which are themselves the result of the personal sins of men in a world not ordered according to the Social Reign of Christ the King, which is, of course, just another doctrine that the conciliar revolutionaries rejected long ago as “outdated” and “triumphalistic.”

Writing in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, Pope Saint Pius X condemned the false principles of The Sillon, which continued to have the full support of one Father Angelo Roncalli even after they had been condemned, that are identical to the bilge being promoted by the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, “Frei Betto,” Raniero Cantalamessa, Oscar Andres Maradiaga Rodriguez and Giancarlo Bregantini:

To reply to these fallacies is only to 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. Further, they teach these ideas in their study groups, and inculcate them upon their friends, and they also introduce them into their working procedures. Therefore they are really professors of social, civic, and religious morals; and whatever modifications they may introduce in the organization of the Sillonist movement, we have the right to say that the aims of the Sillon, its character and its action belong to the field of morals which is the proper domain of the Church. In view of all this, the Sillonist are deceiving themselves when they believe that they are working in a field that lies outside the limits of Church authority and of its doctrinal and directive power. . . .

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.)

Yes, Jorge’s just naturally a naturalist, a naturalist who is no trail blazer whatsoever, simply a blaspheming heretic who is walking in the paths of the Judases of the past, some of whom he believes must be “rehabilitated” for being misunderstood or, in the case of yet another social Modernist who had just been “rehabilitated,” Father Lorenzo Milani, “too progressive” for the times in which they lived (see Another Day, Another Rehabilitated Modernist).

We must not let these difficult times detract from our Easter joy, which is now in its second full day. This is the time from all eternity that God has chosen for us to be alive, meaning that the graces won for us on the wood of the Holy Cross by His Divine Son and that flow into our hearts and souls through the loving hands of Our Lady, she who is the Mediatrix of All Graces, are sufficient for the moment.

While we pray fervently for the conversion of the conciliar revolutionaries and for the misguided Catholics who will be gathering in Rome this week for the “canonizations” of two Modernists, Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII and Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, we must also beg Our Lady to help us to persevere in her graces during this Easter season, especially by praying the Glorious Mysteries of her Most Holy Rosary, to flee from all contact with conciliarism as we try to help others, through no merits of our own, to recognize and to reject the conciliar robber barons as men who have excommunicated themselves from the bosom of Holy Mother Church and thus hold no positions of ecclesiastical authority within her legitimately.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Alleluia! He is Risen!

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.

Saint Anselm, pray for us.

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

About Thomas Droleskey

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