The Rubicon Was Crossed Fifty Years Ago, part two

As was noted four days ago now in Viscerally Speaking, part two, Jorge Mario Bergoglio preached at the Casa Santa Marta on Friday, May 2, 2014, the Feast of Saint Athanasius, without ever mentioning the great, heroic foe of Arianism and without mentioning that Our Lord’s multiplication of the loaves and fishes as recorded in the Gospel of Saint John the Evangelist was a prelude to His Eucharistic Discourse.

Trying to be as fair as possible to a figure of Antichrist, whose conversion back to the Catholic Faith from which he defected at least by the time he entered the Society of Jesus, I noted that Bergoglio might make reference to the Eucharistic Discourse on Thursday and Friday of this week when it constitutes the Gospel readings in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service. Maybe he will do today, Saturday May 10, 2014, the Feast of Saint Antoninus, O.P., when the Gospel reading in the “renewed” liturgy contains the account of the Jews’ reaction of Our Lord’s teaching. We will see.

As it stands now, however, Jorge Mario Bergoglio did not even make reference to the lesson in yesterday’s conciliar, which was about Our Lord’s conversion of Saul of Tarsus while he was on the road to Damascus to persecute the Catholics there after having presided over the stoning of Saint Stephen the Protomartyr in Jerusalem. Jorge Mario Bergoglio is concerned about the temporal needs of man, believing that nothing else, integrity of doctrine in matters of Faith, Worship and Morals, has any bearing on the “true” message of Our Lord’s Gospel that he believes has been “obscured” by a “no church” that was “too sure of itself,” “too closed-in-on-itself” and full of “rigidity.” Why mention supernatural truths when almost everyone, except believing Catholics, that is, is saved?

Although many of the Argentine Apostate’s apologists like to believe that their “pope” is not a statist, he is. He believes that the civil government has an obligation to “redistribute the wealth” in order to provide for the material needs of the poor. He made this clear in the remarks he delivered when appearing with the Secretary-General of the United Nations Organization, Ban-Ki Moon, yesterday, Friday, May 9, 2014, the Feast of Saint Gregory of Nazianzen within the Octave of the Solemnity of Saint Joseph:

I thank you, Mr Secretary-General, for your cordial words of introduction. I thank all of you, who are primarily responsible for the international system, for the great efforts being made to ensure world peace, respect for human dignity, the protection of persons, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, and harmonious economic and social development.

The results of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in terms of education and the decrease in extreme poverty, confirm the value of the work of coordination carried out by this Chief Executives Board. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the world’s peoples deserve and expect even greater results.

An essential principle of management is the refusal to be satisfied with current results and to press forward, in the conviction that those gains are only consolidated by working to achieve even more. In the case of global political and economic organization, much more needs to be achieved, since an important part of humanity does not share in the benefits of progress and is in fact relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Future Sustainable Development Goals must therefore be formulated and carried out with generosity and courage, so that they can have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger, attain more substantial results in protecting the environment, ensure dignified and productive labor for all, and provide appropriate protection for the family, which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development. Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the “economy of exclusion”, the “throwaway culture” and the “culture of death” which nowadays sadly risk becoming passively accepted.

With this in mind, I would like to remind you, as representatives of the chief agencies of global cooperation, of an incident which took place two thousand years ago and is recounted in the Gospel of Saint Luke (19:1-10). It is the encounter between Jesus Christ and the rich tax collector Zacchaeus, as a result of which Zacchaeus made a radical decision of sharing and justice, because his conscience had been awakened by the gaze of Jesus. This same spirit should be at the beginning and end of all political and economic activity. The gaze, often silent, of that part of the human family which is cast off, left behind, ought to awaken the conscience of political and economic agents and lead them to generous and courageous decisions with immediate results, like the decision of Zacchaeus. Does this spirit of solidarity and sharing guide all our thoughts and actions, I ask myself?

Today, in concrete terms, an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands, material goods but also intellectual and spiritual ones, and to give back generously and lavishly whatever we may have earlier unjustly refused to others.

The account of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches us that above and beyond economic and social systems and theories, there will always be a need to promote generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others. Jesus does not ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others. Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors (cf. JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42-43; Centesimus Annus, 43; BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 6; 24-40), that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.

Consequently, while encouraging you in your continuing efforts to coordinate the activity of the international agencies, which represents a service to all humanity, I urge you to work together in promoting a true, worldwide ethical mobilization which, beyond all differences of religious or political convictions, will spread and put into practice a shared ideal of fraternity and solidarity, especially with regard to the poorest and those most excluded. (Jorge Addresses  Fellow Masons and Statists.)

An economy of words is call that is necessary to deal with this “kindler, gentler” form of “liberation theology,” which Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his wrecking crew of doctrinal, moral and liturgical revolutionaries support. Among those who support “liberation theology” is none other than Gerhard Ludwig Muller, the prefect of the conciliar Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who is at war now with another revolutionary, Walter Kasper, on the admission of public sinners to the reception of what purports to be Holy Communion in the conciliar liturgical service, something that will be touched upon briefly below.

First, it is necessary once again to point out that gratuitous words about the “dignity” of human life and its inviolability from the moment of natural conception to the point of death does not make one a member of the Catholic Church. This is especially so when one considers the simple fact that Bergoglio refuses to use the word “abortion,” at least in most instances, and as he couches his supposed “pro-life” remarks in the context of “human dignity” rather than in respect for the immutable laws of God. Bergoglio meant to appeal to Ban-Ki Moon and his entourage in terms of mere humanism. Apostates do not get to rejoin the Catholic Church by opposing child-killing. Even some of the Roman pagans of antiquity, including Juvenal and Ovid, did so.

Second, Bergoglio’s gratuitous reference to the inviolability of all human life will be the “takeaway” of his remarks only for “conservatives” who want to reassure themselves that their “pope” is “solidly pro-life” and that he “stood up” to the the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

If Jorge Mario Bergoglio understood the fact that the only true charity is Catholic charity, which seeks the eternal good of souls first and foremost, which he does not, he would have spoken as follows to his audience of fellow statists and natuarlists yesterday:

Your very organization is waste of time. You spend billions of dollars every year promoting evil while expecting there to “peace” and “justice” by doing so. You lay waste the rights of Christ King to impose upon men and their nations decrees that defy His teaching and thus bring further ruin in its dreadful wake. You dare to lecture the Holy See on the necessity of ceasing to oppose the chemical and surgical assassination of innocent preborn children in their mothers’ wombs, which your own and related agencies support and fund fully.

You are ignorant of the following truths:

The more closely the temporal power of a nation aligns itself with the spiritual, and the more it fosters and promotes the latter, by so much the more it contributes to the conservation of the commonwealth. For it is the aim of the ecclesiastical authority by the use of spiritual means, to form good Christians in accordance with its own particular end and object; and in doing this it helps at the same time to form good citizens, and prepares them to meet their obligations as members of a civil society. This follows of necessity because in the City of God, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, a good citizen and an upright man are absolutely one and the same thing. How grave therefore is the error of those who separate things so closely united, and who think that they can produce good citizens by ways and methods other than those which make for the formation of good Christians. For, let human prudence say what it likes and reason as it pleases, it is impossible to produce true temporal peace and tranquillity by things repugnant or opposed to the peace and happiness of eternity. (Silvio Cardinal Antoniano, quoted by Pope Pius XI in Divini Illius Magistri, December 31, 1929.)

Here we have, founded by Catholics, an inter-denominational association that is to work for the reform of civilization, an undertaking which is above all religious in character; for there is no true civilization without a moral civilization, and no true moral civilization without the true religion: it is a proven truth, a historical fact. The new Sillonists cannot pretend that they are merely working on “the ground of practical realities” where differences of belief do not matter. Their leader is so conscious of the influence which the convictions of the mind have upon the result of the action, that he invites them, whatever religion they may belong to, “to provide on the ground of practical realities, the proof of the excellence of their personal convictions.” And with good reason: indeed, all practical results reflect the nature of one’s religious convictions, just as the limbs of a man down to his finger-tips, owe their very shape to the principle of life that dwells in his body.  (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

“Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother’s womb. And if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent blood which cried from earth to Heaven.” (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930.)

You are instruments of disorder and social chaos. Your “work,” such as it is, destroys, eradicates national boundaries and thus consigns to the dust bin of history any true understanding of legitimate national sovereignty. You had better take the words of Pope Pius XI seriously as you find yourself condemned by him when you die if you do not convert to the true Faith and repent of your crimes before then.

There is only peace in Christ the King as He has revealed Himself to His true Church. Pope Pius XI made this very clear in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, as he mocked your predecessor organization, the League of Nations:

No merely human institution of today can be as successful in devising a set of international laws which will be in harmony with world conditions as the Middle Ages were in the possession of that true League of Nations, Christianity. It cannot be denied that in the Middle Ages this law was often violated; still it always existed as an ideal, according to which one might judge the acts of nations, and a beacon light calling those who had lost their way back to the safe road.

46. There exists an institution able to safeguard the sanctity of the law of nations. This institution is a part of every nation; at the same time it is above all nations. She enjoys, too, the highest authority, the fullness of the teaching power of the Apostles. Such an institution is the Church of Christ. She alone is adapted to do this great work, for she is not only divinely commissioned to lead mankind, but moreover, because of her very make-up and the constitution which she possesses, by reason of her age-old traditions and her great prestige, which has not been lessened but has been greatly increased since the close of the War, cannot but succeed in such a venture where others assuredly will fail. (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922.)

While I will entrust your conversion to the Mother of God, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, I beg you to take your leave and stop your diabolical work at once.

Not strong enough?

Please forgive me.

Third, the statists and globalists and environmentalists and feminists and redistributionists who constituted Bergoglio’s audience yesterday will doubtlessly take the false “pope’s own advice, given to Walter “Cardinal” Kasper when the latter was chastised as a heretic by fellow heretic Gerhard Ludwig Muller (“in one ear and out the other”) concerning respecting the inviolability of all innocent human life. The following lines will be the “takeaway” that they will use to cite “papal” approbation for higher and higher tax rates and for “climate control” programs that further restrict the legitimate liberties of human beings:

A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.(Jorge Addresses  Fellow Masons and Statists.)

This one sentence will be all the arch-criminals who listened to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s remarks yesterday need to feel “empowered” to bring the private sector further under the control of unelected appartchiks and to give statists such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro rhetorical ammunition to push for more and more policies that will wind up making everyone equally poor and equally subservient as a slave of the civil state.

Fourth, Bergoglio’s reference to “integral human development” is straight out of the humanist handbook of Jacques Maritain, who was a supporter of none other than Saul Alinsky, a man whose “community organizing” in behalf of the “poor” helped to shape none other than the likes of Hillary Rodham Clinton, at least in some respects, and Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro in all respects. It was Maritain who introduced Alinsky to Maritain introduced Alinsky to the Archbishop of Milan in 1958, none other than the soon to be “Blessed” Paul The Sick,  and the rest, as they say, is history:

In the Alinsky paradigm, organizing is a euphemism for revolution, with the objective that any “oppressed” group of the population should acquire power by radically transforming the social and economic structure of the U.S.

As a subtle revolutionary he avoided flaunting bloody radicalism, as set out in his infamous book Rules for Radicals. Instead, for the victory of Marxism he recommended infiltration of churches, unions and political parties to transform them from within. His aim was to ultimately crush the Establishment and install Socialism.

Jacques Maritain, a French Catholic philosopher, was born in in 1882 and died in 1973. He was a Protestant who became a Catholic in 1906 during his student days at the Sorbonne. From 1945 to 1948, he was the French Ambassador to the Vatican. His reputation to be a Thomist scholar and lectures at the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies enhanced his prestige and enabled him access to Pope Pius XII and his pro-Secretary of State, Msgr. Montini, with whom he often visited privately. In 1948 he returned to America to take a professorship at Princeton.

In 1936 Maritain expounded his liberal thinking in political philosophy in a book he titled Integral Humanism. In it he promotes a new Christendom rooted in a theocentric pluralism, informed by rights of man of the Enlightenment and conjoined to the philosophy of democracy. Creating this integral humanism would not be a matter of trying to establish the Kingdom of God on earth, Maritain tells us, but rather of making the world a “place of a truly and fully human earthly life” . . . .

Maritain’s theories called for a basic shift in the way the Church looks at herself, i.e. her function and identity. Integral humanism, like the theories of the pantheist-evolutionist Fr. Teilhard de Chardin, sees every religion converging toward a single human ideal in a world civilization where all will be reconciled in peace, love and justice, which supposedly will lead all to a mysterious fulfillment of the Gospel.

In the integral humanism of Jacques Maritain, man enters a universal fraternity where the Catholic Church does not demand or even suggest that she is the one true Church. Maritains’ theory is a call for Catholics to set aside dogmatic differences with her enemies and achieve the desired unity throughout practical arrangements.

From Pius XII onward, Maritain was praised and promoted by the Vatican. Paul VI’s enthusiasm for his theories was life-long. Maritain’s thinking on integral humanism and the rights of man spoke to the central concerns of Montini’s life and ministry.

Pope Paul VI readily admitted the profound influence of the French theologian’s thinking, and he even cited Maritain’s Integral Humanism in his Encyclical Populorum progressio. At the close of the Vatican Council II, the Pope’s “Address to Men of Thought and Science” was dedicated to his dear friend and mentor.

Maritain’s thinking influenced many of the documents of Vatican II that dealt with human dignity, ecumenism and the relations between Church and State. Maritain’s presentation on rights is the language of rights that Dignitatis humanae employs.

Many Catholics are unaware of the strong 30-year friendship between the progressivist philosopher Jacques Maritain and the Marxist agitator Saul Alinsky. They were “devoted friends” from their first meeting in 1940, visiting often and discussing issues of social justice. When Maritain was in Rome as ambassador, he sent Alinsky copies of all his articles and talks, and in return he reviewed Alinsky’s manuscript of Rules for Radicals.

In Alinsky’s organizations, Maritain found a near-perfect embodiment of the mediating structures he had called for in Integral Humanism. He also approved of Alinsky’s subversive methods as outlined in Rules for Radicals. (3)

A short biography of Paul VI follows before we reach the intriguing scenario that involves the three men – Montini, Maritain and Alinsky. Giovanni Battista Martini was born in 1897 and died in 1978. He was pro-Secretary of State from 1922 to 1954 and was protected and promoted by Pius XI and Pius XII. In 1954 Pius XII named him Archbishop of Milan. In 1958, John XXIII made him a Cardinal, a perfect timing for Montini to be elected Pope in 1963, after the short reign of John XXIII.

Already in Milan, Archbishop Montini was hosting ecumenical activities, principally by receiving successive delegations of non-Catholic theologians, mostly Anglicans. Another visitor was Jacques Maritain, whose integral humanism Montini and Pacelli had been promoting for the last 20 years.

In summer of 1958, Maritain brought to Montini’s residence a man he considered to be “one of only three revolutionaries worthy of the name, indeed one of the few really great men of this century.”  That man was the young Saul Alinksy. (An Intriguing Scenario.)

This is why Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Barack Hussein Obama got along so famously as both had been influenced by Saul David Alinsky, whose influence upon man that Bergoglio will “canonize” soon, Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, is well-documented. It should also be clear by now that Bergoglio himself believes the late Romano Amerio’s cogent summary of Martain’s thought: “. . . man enters a universal fraternity where the Catholic Church does not demand or even suggest that she is the one true Church. Maritains’ theory is a call for Catholics to set aside dogmatic differences with her enemies and achieve the desired unity throughout practical arrangements.” Anyone who does not see that Bergoglio believes this is willfully blind or intellectually dishonest.

This is exactly what Pope Saint Pius X condemned in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910:

By separating fraternity from Christian charity thus understood, Democracy, far from being a progress, would mean a disastrous step backwards for civilization. If, as We desire with all Our heart, the highest possible peak of well being for society and its members is to be attained through fraternity or, as it is also called, universal solidarity, all minds must be united in the knowledge of Truth, all wills united in morality, and all hearts in the love of God and His Son Jesus Christ. But this union is attainable only by Catholic charity, and that is why Catholic charity alone can lead the people in the march of progress towards the ideal civilization.

Finally, at the root of all their fallacies on social questions, lie the false hopes of Sillonists on human dignity. According to them, Man will be a man truly worthy of the name only when he has acquired a strong, enlightened, and independent consciousness, able to do without a master, obeying only himself, and able to assume the most demanding responsibilities without faltering. Such are the big words by which human pride is exalted, like a dream carrying Man away without light, without guidance, and without help into the realm of illusion in which he will be destroyed by his errors and passions whilst awaiting the glorious day of his full consciousness. And that great day, when will it come? Unless human nature can be changed, which is not within the power of the Sillonists, will that day ever come? Did the Saints who brought human dignity to its highest point, possess that kind of dignity? And what of the lowly of this earth who are unable to raise so high but are content to plow their furrow modestly at the level where Providence placed them? They who are diligently discharging their duties with Christian humility, obedience, and patience, are they not also worthy of being called men? Will not Our Lord take them one day out of their obscurity and place them in heaven amongst the princes of His people? (Pope Saint Pius X, Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio is just the latest of the conciliar “pontiffs” who have given “papal” voice to the ideologies of the French Revolution by way of The Sillon, whose founder continued to have the support of Father Angelo Roncalli even after its principles were condemned by Pope Saint Pius X.

As should be understood by now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a worthy successor of Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger. It is no wonder at all why Bergoglio is proceeding with the “beatification” of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI as he is as much of a “servant of man” as was the Modernist who was “pope” during his years studying philosophy and theology under the tutelage of Jesuits who were in the vanguard of the revolution in behalf of the service of “man.”

Therefore, by avoiding to provide dogmatic definitions, Paul VI could also utter these other incredible enormities, such as are read shortly after that declaration in the same address:
«Aliud est etiam, quod consideratione dignum putamus: huiusmodi divitem doctrinae copiam, eo unice spectare, ut homini serviat» (!!).The English version, perhaps, will highlight in a higher disquieting degree the enormity of that declaration: “… All this doctrinal points to but one direction: serve man.”
Disconcerting indeed! For these are the words of a “Pope” whom, to further reinforce us in his thought, continues:
“The Church has, so to say, declared Herself the SERVANT OF HUMANITY»… (Whereas Our Lady had declared Herself “ANCILLA DOMINI”)…In both one and the other, in fact, the “center” is always Man.The remainder of the Address, then, intensifies his position even more:”Any careful observer of THE COUNCIL’S PREVAILING INTEREST FOR HUMAN AND TEMPORAL VALUES (?!) Cannot deny that such (PREVAILING) INTEREST derives from the PASTORAL CHARACTER the COUNCIL has made ITS PROGRAM…”
The great mistake, therefore, of Paul VI was that of being rather a humanist than a Christian, putting the Gospel at the service of his humanist “dream”, identical to the ideal of Freemasonry, whose ideal of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, would be achieved through the development of the universal conscience. The whole of the writings and speeches of Paul VI, in fact, show, with sad clearness, that it was man, rather than God, the center of his cares…That all was thought out, judged, and directed according to the service of man. Paul VI’s Christianity unpinned from the Cross. Namely:–a Christ considered a “liberator”, not as much from sin, as from suffering, from humiliation, from enslavement;–a Gospel mixed up with the “Charter of Man’s Rights”, and placed at the service of “social justice”;
–the “Rights of God” neglected, to the advantage of the exaltation of the “Rights” and preferences of man;

–an evangelization reduced to a “dialogue”, not to convert, and resting upon “human means” rather than upon supernatural means…

In brief: Paul VI, more than Christ and His Gospel, has served, and had man served, substituting:

–the supremacy of the supernatural with the supremacy of the natural, of the temporal, of man;

–the supremacy of the “Law of God” with the supremacy of the conscience;

–the supremacy of the “Kingdom of God” and of the “eternal life” with the supremacy of the world, of history, of his chimera toward achieving a sort of paradise on earth.

After which, one could accuse Paul VI of giving man a “cult” that should not be given him. Man must be certainly loved, but not of a disorderly love, that is, a love not regulated by the love of God or independent of His love.

The “cult of man”, instead, leads to the myth of the sameness among all men, hence the leveling of the classes (with all the violence this brings about), hence “universal democracy” (another utopia dear to Paul VI), which is but Masonic universalism.

Let us further quote, therefore, some other “text” that illustrates his “cult of man” in Paul VI, so evident in his humanism.

In his “Address” to the Last Public Session of Vatican II, Paul VI made a sort of “profession of faith” that sounds unprecedented. That his speaking of man, whom must be understood, respected, and admired, ended up in an authentic “cult of man”!

“The Church of the Council – said he – has much focused on man, man as he really is today: living man, man all wrapped up in himself, man who makes himself not only the center of his every interest but dares to claim that he is the principle and explanation of all reality… Secular humanism, revealing itself in its horrible anti-clerical reality has, in a certain sense, defied the Council. The religion of the God who became man has met the religion of man who makes himself God. And what happened? Was there a clash, a battle, a condemnation? There could have been, but there was none. The old story of the Samaritan has been the model of the spirituality of the Council. A feeling of boundless sympathy has permeated the whole of it. The attention of our Council has been absorbed by the discovery of human needs. But we call upon those who term themselves modern humanists, and who have renounced the transcendent value of the highest realities, to give the Council credit at least for one quality and to recognize our own new type of humanism: we, too, in fact, we more than any others, honor mankind; WE HAVE THE CULT OF MAN.” (As found in Father Luigi Villa, Paul VI Beatfied? Never!, pp. 35-36, 40-42.)

[A formatting problem developed beyond this text as it became impossible to outdent my own commentary from quoted text. It is also impossible to indent new quotations. I will thus put quotation marks around referenced material. I am sorry for any confusion. Much time has been spent trying to remedy this problem for the twelve people who will actually read this commentary!]

As should be understood by now, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is a worthy successor of Angelo Roncalli, Giovanni Montini, Albino Luciani, Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger. It is no wonder at all why Bergoglio is proceeding with the “beatification” of Giovanni Montini/Paul VI as he is as much of a “servant of man” as was the Modernist who was “pope” during his years studying philosophy and theology under the tutelage of Jesuits who were in the vanguard of the revolution in behalf of the service of “man.”

This service in behalf of “man” is why whatever warnings, no matter how apologetically made, that the heretic Gerhard Ludwig Muller (see Deft? Daft Is More Like It, part two, Daft? Deft Is More Like It, part three, Does The Defense of Catholic Truth Matter To You?, When Will The Madness End?, part one and Memo To Bishop Fellay: Ratzinger/Benedict Really, Really, Really, Really, Really Loves Gerhard Ludwig Muller) makes to the heretical leadership of the Leadership of Women Religious to reinforce the doctrinal points that were made two years ago now (see Apostates Reprimanding Apostates) as the American women parading around as consecrated religious dressed up like feminist social workers know that they can, according to the words of Muller’s apostate superior, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, let his remarks go “in one here” and “out the other:’

[Begin Muller remarks] “Let me begin with the notion of ‘disproportionate sanctions.’ One of the more contentious aspects of the Mandate—though one that has not yet been put into force—is the provision that speakers and presenters at major programs will be subject to approval by the Delegate. This provision has been portrayed as heavy-handed interference in the day-to-day activities of the Conference. For its part, the Holy See would not understand this as a ‘sanction,’ but rather as a point of dialogue and discernment. It allows the Holy See’s Delegate to be involved in the discussion first of all in order to avoid difficult and embarrassing situations wherein speakers use an LCWR forum to advance positions at odds with the teaching of the Church. Further, this is meant as an assistance to you, the Presidency, so as to anticipate better the issues that will further complicate the relationship of the LCWR with the Holy See.

An example may help at this point. It saddens me to learn that you have decided to give the Outstanding Leadership Award during this year’s Assembly to a theologian criticized by the Bishops of the United States because of the gravity of the doctrinal errors in that theologian’s writings. This is a decision that will be seen as a rather open provocation against the Holy See and the Doctrinal Assessment. Not only that, but it further alienates the LCWR from the Bishops as well.” (End of the quotation of the Muller remarks as found at: Remarks of Apostate Gerhard Müller at the Meeting of the Superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the Presidency of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), 30 April 2014.)

Continuing his very public warfare with Muller, fellow heretic Walter Kasper has praised the very “theologian,” Sister Elizabeth Johnson,  whose invitation to speak at the LCWC national meeting Muller called a “provocation” by these feminists in defiance of the warnings they were given by William “Cardinal” Levada two years ago. Here is what Kasper said while at Fordham University in the Borough of The Bronx in the City of New York, New York, on Monday, May 5, 2014:

[Begin excerpt from The New York Times]  “Cardinal Kasper’s advice was that the nuns should not be overly concerned because the Vatican bureaucracy ‘sees some things a little bit narrower’ than other church workers. He told a story about the pope (who has endorsed the investigation) smiling dismissively at conservative criticism of Cardinal Kasper’s own writings and declaring, ‘This enters in one ear and goes out the other.’

The cardinal spoke optimistically at Fordham that dialogue might eventually smooth things out, but he took care to express particular ‘esteem’ for Sister Elizabeth Johnson, a widely respected feminist theologian at Fordham criticized in the past by Cardinal Muller.

‘She is in good company, Cardinal Kasper said, noting that Thomas Aquinas, one of the great theologians, was condemned for years by his bishop. (Why Are American Nuns Under Vatican Scrutiny? End of report from The New York Times.]

[Resume Droleskey Commentary]

Leaving aside Walter Kasper’s blasphemous comparison between the sanctions imposed upon Saint Thomas Aquinas while his work was reviewed and the paganism of Sister Elizabeth Johnson as standard-fare sloganeering on the part of a conciliar revolutionary, what is interesting to note is that his “in one ear and out the other ear” remark that he attributed to Jorge Mario Bergolio is exactly what he told a group of leaders representing men and women religious from Latin America on June 6, 2013:

[Begin quotation from Rorate Caeli] They will make mistakes, they will make a blunder [meter la pata], this will pass! Perhaps even a letter of the Congregation for the Doctrine (of the Faith) will arrive for you, telling you that you said such or such thing… But do not worry. Explain whatever you have to explain, but move forward… Open the doors, do something there where life calls for it. I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up…  (Address to Latin American Religious.)

[Resume Droleskey commentary]

What Kasper said at Fordham University five days ago, therefore, was nothing new. The false “pontiff” has been very public in dismissing “corrections” made by curial congregations. What matters to him is the “opening of doors.”

The laugh of all of this is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is in close agreement on many, though not all, points of theology with the members of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. Whatever their differences, however, they are as one supporting social work and statism as part of the “new evangelization” for the “good of man” as though his immortal soul is guaranteed of salvation. And for that they have Giovanni Montini/Paul VI, who helped to lead the conciliar revolutionaries over the figurative Rubicon River to tear down those “bastions” of Catholic orthodoxy that Bergoglio seeks to eradicate once and for all.

Indeed, Montini’s Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service was meant to be from its inception a means to emphasize the “community” rather to worship God. The contrast between true worship and this false worship is very clear, something that the final part of this commentary.

We must rely upon the intercession of Our Lady, especially through her Most Holy Rosary, Saint Joseph and the saints  to remain steadfast in the Catholic catacombs as we offer up the sufferings of the moment to the Throne of the Most Blessed Trinity as the consecrated slaves of Christ the King through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary in reparation for our own many sins and those of the whole world.

The Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph in the end.

Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!

Alleluia! He is Risen!

Our Lady of  the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Antoninus, pray for us.